Stake Conference Story About Homosexuality

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Storm Rider said:

No, it has become a very common meme - the Left that wants to teach the world that everyone is an idiot if they don't think like they do.

The point I was making is that the right ("religious folks", etc.) can be accused of that very same thing as well.

[Buffy]

So I'm curious who carries the most weight?  I recently read of a man transitioning to a woman that wanted to attend Relief Society.  I think it really would stifle the class discussion and I am fairly certain at least several women wouldn't be comfortable with it.  Do their concerns not matter?  Please don't get snarky, I am honestly interested in how you balance the concerns of each person.

[CV75]

On 3/17/2019 at 4:26 PM, cinepro said:

In the category of "wow, I can't believe I heard this in Stake Conference this morning":

An older Temple Worker was giving a talk, and he talked about how regular Temple attendance can help us "round off the rough edges."  He gave several examples from his own life.  One of them was about his son coming out as gay, and entering into a relationship with another man.  The speaker talked about how difficult this was for him, and how he couldn't accept his son attending family gatherings with his "friend."  So he prayed that the situation could be reconciled, and over time, he came to understand how important his relationship to his son was, and invited his son and his friend to attend a family birthday gathering, and now they're both included in family events.

So the "rough edge" that was rounded off in the Temple was his inability to accept his son's boyfriend and their relationship, and he felt that it was only through inspiration in the Temple that he was able to learn to accept it and include them both in family activities.

20 years ago, if someone had predicted I might hear such a story in Stake Conference, I would have thought they were crazy.  Despite protestations to the contrary, there does appear to be huge change afoot in the Church.  Where this all might end up, I can't imagine.

 

This is a wonderful example of a man’s sanctification, but I think the fundamental rough edge was his lack of charity and not a lack of social etiquette.

The great significance and sensitivity of a father-son relationship aside, my take is that he found out that the charitable don’t hold hard feelings against an apostate or a sinner (and there can often be a difference!), and that God comforts and strengthens the charitable. On an interpersonal level, the father seems to accept his son and his son’ friend as children of God irrespective of their sins or apostasy. Their sins do not prevent him from loving them and socializing with them, but their unrepented sins and / or apostasy would prevent them from participating (and prevent him from officiating) in any ordinance the Church offers them as individuals, a couple, or as parents.

[Mystery Meat]

21 hours ago, JulieM said:

Ugh.  Really?

You think a person who is gay and in a SS relationship or marriage can’t be a follower of Christ?  That they don’t “fit well” with the gospel of Jesus Christ?  I think you are terribly wrong here and that would be an awful idea.  I’ve know a few gay people and they were some of the kindest and most Christlike people I’ve known.  For sure they follow Christ’s teachings.

My two cents briefly.

In Come Follow Me we recently read the Savior's invitation to "Come unto me all ye that labour and are heavy laden. Take my yoke upon you and learn of me for I am meek and lowly of heart."

Elder Bednar said something that the Spirit had already taught me as I read those verses: our covenants are how we "Come Unto [Him]." The Sacrament is the ordinance we participate in to renew all of the covenants we have made with the Lord. In it, we covenant to do three things 1. Will to take or that we do take Christ's name upon us, 2. That we do always remember Him, and 3. That we will keep His commandments.

I think there are temple implications for # 1 as well, but I also think taking his name upon us involves living as he lived (serving, loving, caring for the poor and sick, etc.). In that sense I know plenty of people gay, straight, or otherwise who can probably check that box. 3 is different. I believe, and the Spirit, scripture and modern day prophets and apostles seem to all accord, that the law of chastity prohibits sexual relationships outside of Man and Woman united in marriage.

In that sense, I do not think anyone who is in open, knowing violation of God's commandments can truly or at least fully "Come Unto [Christ]." By the way that includes me to the extent that I am unrepentant and unwilling to even desire to change as needed.

My thoughts for the little they are worth.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Buffy said:

So I'm curious who carries the most weight?  I recently read of a man transitioning to a woman that wanted to attend Relief Society.  I think it really would stifle the class discussion and I am fairly certain at least several women wouldn't be comfortable with it.  Do their concerns not matter?  Please don't get snarky, I am honestly interested in how you balance the concerns of each person.

our ward has a transgendered individual, they won't attend priesthood and apparently don't feel comfortable in RS but they attend there. I have heard no word of a murmur from anybody. She lives with a member here, she's an interesting person herself and the sister missionaries refuse to eat there -I don't think it has to do with anything with the trans person but the quality of food and cat hair and things of that nature

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

The point I was making is that the right ("religious folks", etc.) can be accused of that very same thing as well.

I think I understood your point; however, what is so significant is that the Right is standing on thousands of years of religious moral history. The Left is choosing to think they actually know better than all of humanity and now are calling what was evil to be good. It takes an overwhelming degree of moxy to go against all of history and conclude they know better. 

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I think I understood your point; however, what is so significant is that the Right is standing on thousands of years of religious moral history. 

Regarding SSM?  I don't think so.  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

I think I understood your point; however, what is so significant is that the Right is standing on thousands of years of religious moral history. The Left is choosing to think they actually know better than all of humanity and now are calling what was evil to be good. It takes an overwhelming degree of moxy to go against all of history and conclude they know better. 

Indeed. Who can stand against long standing human traditions like slavery and child sacrifice. The moxie those people had!!

[carbon dioxide]

On 3/17/2019 at 3:20 PM, cinepro said:

It would probably be more correct to say that you were completely not following me there.

If you think a child who says they "want to work in porn" is the equivalent to a child that says they are gay, then your post illustrates exactly why I was so surprised to hear the story in Stake Conference in the first place.

Why is it that when someone uses a different example in response to a homosexual issue that somehow an "equivalency" argument is made in response.  If I believe X is equivalent to Y, I will say that.  I simply use a different example to make a point that there is nothing special about homosexuality.  Working in porn, gay marriage, stealing a iPhone, murder, vandalism, ect are all sins.  They are not all equivalent.  I will let the Lord sort out which one is worse than the other.   So whether my son is gay and wants a gay marriage or wants to work in porn, I still need to react to him in the same way.   That being I need to show love and accept his right to agency.  My kids are not my property and I do not own them.  They are the Lord's children in the end.    I just have the calling to raise them to be adults.

Edited March 19, 2019 by carbon dioxide

[carbon dioxide]

On 3/17/2019 at 6:23 PM, Storm Rider said:

I took his point completely differently than you. I did not think he was saying that being gay and living an active gay live style and a son working in the porn industry were equivalent choices or actions. I thought he was saying that a parent could be disappointed with the choices a child makes, but still love them regardless. 

Thank you.  That is what I was saying.

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

Why is it that when someone uses a different example in response to a homosexual issue that somehow an "equivalency" argument is made in response.

Because that's how the English language works.  That is literally what an "example" is. 

If you recall, here is what you said:

Quote

All I see is a father who accepts his son and his agency to live his life.  He probably hopes for a miracle and things will change.  If I had a son and he came to me and said "Dad, I want to star in porn."  What should I say to that? 

If the theoretical of your son coming to you and saying "Dad, I want to star in porn" isn't directly related (and equivalent) to the situation presented in the previous two sentences, then why would you waste time typing it?   It wasn't a real situation, so you were making up a situation which was apparently meant to comment on the situation illustrated in the OP. 

At the very least, you should have clarified that you were making up a totally different situation that wasn't meant to relate to the original story.  Then we all might wonder why you were wasting your time and ours by introducing an unrelated (and apparently contradictory) made-up story that could easily be misread as being relevant to the conversation, but at least we would all be clear about what you were doing.

Edited March 19, 2019 by cinepro

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

Because that's how the English language works.  That is literally what an "example" is. 

 

incorrect. 

Equivalence -- the state or fact of being equivalent; equality in value, force, significance, etc. 

So let me use a different example to make my same point.

Lets say my son comes to me  and instead of being a porn star, he just wants to hook up a line to his neighbors cable and get cable TV for free.  Now I suppose you will say in this example that I am now saying that I am making a equivalence between homosexuality and gay marriage is equivalent to stealing cable TV.  You can choose to say they are equivalent or not.  You do not have a right to make that for me however. If I say something his X is equal to Y, I will say it.  Maybe I believe being in porn is equivalent to gay marriage. Maybe I don't but don't assume it. 

It is ok in English when discussing an issue or concept to use different examples to make a point.  If I say.  Just as it is wrong to burn your neighbors home down, it is also wrong to put graffiti on his wall.  Both are examples of doing something wrong but surely you would not say there is an equivalency between arson and simple tagging.  But I guess I should not assume.  Maybe you do. 

Storm rider understood me right however so I know I was clear enough at least for some.  So in my example of my son stealing cable TV, I will disapprove but still love my son.  What I get from the initial story is not about homosexuality or that.  The bigger lesson is to love your kids regardless of what they do.  The vast majority of us will not relate to the exact situation in the story because we will not have gay kids.  We can relate however in that we may have kids that make decisions that will disappoint us and even go down paths we do not approve but we should do as the man in the story.

I will add one more thing.  My son is not gay.  So there is zero chance of me ever being in the same situation as this father.  BUT my son could become a porn star.  The odds of that are extremely small but at least a possible one in my situation. Or my son could choose an open marriage or be a swinger.  Who knows.  I just know that I have to love my son regardless.  Disowning him is not an option for me. So I am likening what the father had to go through with what I would do if faced with a difficult situation.

 

 

Edited March 19, 2019 by carbon dioxide

[Jean-Luc Picard]

On 3/17/2019 at 2:53 PM, carbon dioxide said:

I not completely following you here.  All I see is a father who accepts his son and his agency to live his life.  He probably hopes for a miracle and things will change.  If I had a son and he came to me and said "Dad, I want to star in porn."  What should I say to that?  Should I say "Way to go boy. I will support you 100%"?  Should I disown him and never talk to him again?  Should I be disappointed but still love my son and keep my relationship with him and perhaps he makes better choices in life?   I think the best action for me is the last option.  I don't see huge changes in the church other than members being more kind and wanting to help people to repent.  Repentance rarely is caused by force or threats.  We need to become more of a Zion people but I don't think accepting bad behavior is part of the qualifications of Zion.

The story made sense to me. I have always felt some inspiration in the temple. 

Makes sense that the place that unifies the family, gave him inspiration to unify his family. 

Edited March 19, 2019 by Jean-Luc Picard

[stemelbow]

On 3/17/2019 at 2:26 PM, cinepro said:

In the category of "wow, I can't believe I heard this in Stake Conference this morning":

An older Temple Worker was giving a talk, and he talked about how regular Temple attendance can help us "round off the rough edges."  He gave several examples from his own life.  One of them was about his son coming out as gay, and entering into a relationship with another man.  The speaker talked about how difficult this was for him, and how he couldn't accept his son attending family gatherings with his "friend."  So he prayed that the situation could be reconciled, and over time, he came to understand how important his relationship to his son was, and invited his son and his friend to attend a family birthday gathering, and now they're both included in family events.

So the "rough edge" that was rounded off in the Temple was his inability to accept his son's boyfriend and their relationship, and he felt that it was only through inspiration in the Temple that he was able to learn to accept it and include them both in family activities.

20 years ago, if someone had predicted I might hear such a story in Stake Conference, I would have thought they were crazy.  Despite protestations to the contrary, there does appear to be huge change afoot in the Church.  Where this all might end up, I can't imagine.

 

As long as this temple worker clarifies to his son that he can't stay long, or expect to have his "friend" spend the night at their house.  As long as the Temple worker clarifies that by allowing the son to attend family things with his "friend" it is in no way an endorsement of the son's actions, then I suppose he's right in line with what the inspired church leaders would tell him.  Right?  Or can this Temple worker be inspired to reject the leader's previous admonition on this?  

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/interview-oaks-wickman-same-gender-attraction

[Storm Rider]

15 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Indeed. Who can stand against long standing human traditions like slavery and child sacrifice. The moxie those people had!!

LOL - seriously?  

[SeekingUnderstanding]

39 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

LOL - seriously?  

Oh you were serious in your post? I was just trying to continue on in the joke!

[cinepro]

12 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

So I am likening what the father had to go through with what I would do if faced with a difficult situation.

The point of my post, and surprise with the story, wasn't that someone taught that parents should love their children in Stake Conference.

The point of the post was that someone taught that important principle using a homosexual child as the example, and that the resolution to the story was the parent learning to accept their child's homosexuality by accepting the very real manifestation of it with the presence of their partner there.

If, faced with a situation where your son was gay and wanted to attend family events with his partner, you were okay with that and included them both in such events and you were willing to stand in Stake Conference and use that story as an example of loving your children, then that is equally awesome, and I think it's cool you're as open-minded as the speaker I heard in conference.  That is just an additional sign of how things are changing in the Church. 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Oh you were serious in your post? I was just trying to continue on in the joke!

I understand. When you are completely wrong, when there is no basis for your position - then change the topic so that you are not forced to admit the that your position has no foundation except - "Sin is okay if i call it love; I want it and therefore it is good for me".

[hope_for_things]

On 3/17/2019 at 2:26 PM, cinepro said:

In the category of "wow, I can't believe I heard this in Stake Conference this morning":

An older Temple Worker was giving a talk, and he talked about how regular Temple attendance can help us "round off the rough edges."  He gave several examples from his own life.  One of them was about his son coming out as gay, and entering into a relationship with another man.  The speaker talked about how difficult this was for him, and how he couldn't accept his son attending family gatherings with his "friend."  So he prayed that the situation could be reconciled, and over time, he came to understand how important his relationship to his son was, and invited his son and his friend to attend a family birthday gathering, and now they're both included in family events.

So the "rough edge" that was rounded off in the Temple was his inability to accept his son's boyfriend and their relationship, and he felt that it was only through inspiration in the Temple that he was able to learn to accept it and include them both in family activities.

20 years ago, if someone had predicted I might hear such a story in Stake Conference, I would have thought they were crazy.  Despite protestations to the contrary, there does appear to be huge change afoot in the Church.  Where this all might end up, I can't imagine.

 

This is exactly why the church has put in place policies to marginalize LGBT individuals.  As people get to know them on a personal level the typical prejudices start to go away.  Those who want to hold onto their prejudice see this process as a threat to the status quo, so they setup boundaries and specifically with the CoJCoLDS, different practices and rhetoric about the "other". 

I predict that history will not look kindly on the actions of current church leaders and future generations will need to repent vicariously for the sins of this generation.  

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This is exactly why the church has put in place policies to marginalize LGBT individuals.  As people get to know them on a personal level the typical prejudices start to go away.  Those who want to hold onto their prejudice see this process as a threat to the status quo, so they setup boundaries and specifically with the CoJCoLDS, different practices and rhetoric about the "other". 

I predict that history will not look kindly on the actions of current church leaders and future generations will need to repent vicariously for the sins of this generation.  

Good points.  It's a shame it was ever considered a question by this dear temple worker.  And, at best, he didn't consult Pres Oaks' advice on the matter, otherwise it would have likely put an un-needed strain on their family.  

[SteveO]

Just now, stemelbow said:

Good points.  It's a shame it was ever considered a question by this dear temple worker.  And, at best, he didn't consult Pres Oaks' advice on the matter, otherwise it would have likely put an un-needed strain on their family.  

So now you’re going to be angry that the temple worker didn’t realize his mistake sooner?  The original post is the “wow” factor of a stake conference talk given in 2019 that shows more compassion and understanding in the church...and you pick an interview from 2006 to show how that isn’t the case?

You’re absolutely determined to be unhappy aren’t you?  Not just this post, but all your posts drip with negativity.  

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, SteveO said:

So now you’re going to be angry that the temple worker didn’t realize his mistake sooner?  

I'm not angry.

1 minute ago, SteveO said:

The original post is the “wow” factor of a stake conference talk given in 2019 that shows more compassion and understanding in the church...and you pick an interview from 2006 to show how that isn’t the case?

I'm not showing that isn't the case.  I"m showing that the Church has a current publication wherein then Elder Oaks gives a very, in my opinion, terrible response to a question about someone who is gay within a family.  I can't help that the Church still has the advice out there for people to consider.  I don't know that President Oaks has ever rescinded his past comments or ideas.  

1 minute ago, SteveO said:

You’re absolutely determined to be unhappy aren’t you?  Not just this post, but all your posts drip with negativity.  

It's actually positivity.  You just have to view it from another angle.  It's a positive thing to point out the Church is wrong so often.  Just turn your frown upside down and read with a better perspective, and you'll see what I mean.  All the best. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

On 3/17/2019 at 2:26 PM, cinepro said:

20 years ago, if someone had predicted I might hear such a story in Stake Conference, I would have thought they were crazy.  Despite protestations to the contrary, there does appear to be huge change afoot in the Church.  Where this all might end up, I can't imagine.

I have a 25 year bet with an atheist anarchist facebook arguing buddy.  He figures that the cultural acceptance of homosexuality will force the humans running the church to claim to have a revelation making it ok to do same-sex sealings in the temple.  It is, from his perspective, the only way an evil religious institution such as ours will be able to maintain power.   I, of course, figure the church is what it claims to be, led by my Lord and Savior via prophets who believe the stuff they say about how the family is central to God's plan, and other stuff in the Proclomation on the Family.  So we have a bet.  In 25 years, if the church does not allow same-sex sealings, he must put on a pink tutu and sing I'm a little Teapot.  If that is a thing, then I have to wear the tutu.

The bet is fixed, and I don't think it has dawned on him yet.  If he's right, and I wake up in 25 years and find myself in a church that does same-sex sealings in the temple, me wearing a pink tutu won't be that big of a thing.

Edited March 19, 2019 by LoudmouthMormon

[Teancum]

On 3/17/2019 at 4:26 PM, cinepro said:

In the category of "wow, I can't believe I heard this in Stake Conference this morning":

An older Temple Worker was giving a talk, and he talked about how regular Temple attendance can help us "round off the rough edges."  He gave several examples from his own life.  One of them was about his son coming out as gay, and entering into a relationship with another man.  The speaker talked about how difficult this was for him, and how he couldn't accept his son attending family gatherings with his "friend."  So he prayed that the situation could be reconciled, and over time, he came to understand how important his relationship to his son was, and invited his son and his friend to attend a family birthday gathering, and now they're both included in family events.

So the "rough edge" that was rounded off in the Temple was his inability to accept his son's boyfriend and their relationship, and he felt that it was only through inspiration in the Temple that he was able to learn to accept it and include them both in family activities.

20 years ago, if someone had predicted I might hear such a story in Stake Conference, I would have thought they were crazy.  Despite protestations to the contrary, there does appear to be huge change afoot in the Church.  Where this all might end up, I can't imagine.

 

Much better than the "I would rather see my child going on a mission dead than seeing them come home having lost their virtue (virginity).

[Teancum]

On 3/17/2019 at 7:54 PM, california boy said:

These are the exact same questions my faithful Mormon family asked when I told them I was gay.   It took them 13 years to decide that it would be ok for me to start attending family activities once again.  Now my partner and I are invited to all the family events and those questions you are asking seem to have been answered. What is important to them is not the choices I have made, but the choices they have made towards me.  

Several of my siblings and inlaws have taken me aside and not only apoligized but asked for my forgiveness in how they treated me.  I told them all was forgotten and gave them a hug.  And just to set your fears aside, none have been pushed to follow in my footsteps.  

I am glad to see the church moving in a much more positive direction.  I hope others do not have to endure a 13 year banishment because of fear they are accepting sinful behavior.  I think these talks in conference is helping to prevent that from happening in the future.  

I am so sorry that you had to endure this with your family.  But I understand the other side as well. Had I been in this situation 10 years ago I may have been the same as your family.  No not so much. Anyway I just want to acknowledge that this must have been horrible for you. sounds like you have reconciled now but the journey must have been incredibly hard.