kllindley Posted May 21, 2019 Author Posted May 21, 2019 1 hour ago, rockpond said: According to the handbook, it needs to have been repeated homosexual activities by adults and the Bishop and SP need to submit the report of the disciplinary action to headquarters for the annotation to be added (has to be a proactive decision on their part to seek the annotation). I've been a bishop's counselor and an executive secretary and I know of no way to annotate a members record locally. This could, however, just be my lack of knowledge about MLS. Anyone here know if it is even possible to annotate a member's record at the local level and have it "stick" when the member moves to their next unit? My reading of the handbook indicates that such annotations can only be added/removed by church headquarters. This is also my understanding. I also understand that a Stake President can request that an existing annotation be removed. 1
Daniel2 Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 (edited) On 5/20/2019 at 6:10 PM, Calm said: It is not a pretend marriage in the cases I know. That is rather insulting to suggest, imo. My reading of that phrase by Phaedrus was that the scenarios were pretend, not the marriages.... That said, I absolutely agree that it's insulting and disrespectful for anyone to demean others' marital or life choices by suggesting that such marriages or families are "pretend" or invalid. I am on record as fully supporting the freedom to marry according to our own personal choices, including supporting the legal validity and the social/spiritual/emotional support of mixed-orientation marriages, regardless of my personal beliefs on the subject. That agreement that it's insulting to call into question the life choices of others is also why there was such a strong outcry when Elder Perry recently called gays' and lesbians' relationships/life choices/families "counterfeit and alternative lifestyles": “We want our voice to be heard against all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established. We also want our voice to be heard in sustaining the joy and fulfillment that traditional families bring. From my perspective, the word "counterfeit" is actually worse than "pretend." Speaking from my own actual experience and only for myself (not for anyone else), a so-called "traditional" family marital relationship brought none of the fulfillment or joy that Perry suggests, and was instead a source of extreme heartache, pain, and suffering. I believe there is no "one size fits all" family relationship, and we are at our best when we strive to find, uncover, and become the best we can be within the sphere of the measure of our own creation; that is, to discern the life choices we may make which are not only possible, but are optimal, and to follow those best life choices instead of trying to choose those actions which others seek to impose upon us but which are not optimal nor possible. Hopefully we all--including LDS leadership--can move beyond such insulting, disrespectful, and hurtful rhetoric regarding families that are different from our own, regardless of where we fall in our views. Edited May 23, 2019 by Daniel2
Daniel2 Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 On 5/21/2019 at 10:52 AM, kllindley said: This is also my understanding. I also understand that a Stake President can request that an existing annotation be removed. Does the handbook say this is the case or outline any measures for such a removal? My understanding has always been that once annotated on a member or even former member's membership record, it is permanent.
rockpond Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 1 hour ago, Daniel2 said: Does the handbook say this is the case or outline any measures for such a removal? My understanding has always been that once annotated on a member or even former member's membership record, it is permanent. The last paragraph of 6.13.4 (the section on annotation of membership records) states that the annotation can only be removed with FP approval upon request of the SP. It does not provide any guidance for why an SP would make such a request.
Daniel2 Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 Just now, rockpond said: The last paragraph of 6.13.4 (the section on annotation of membership records) states that the annotation can only be removed with FP approval upon request of the SP. It does not provide any guidance for why an SP would make such a request. Very cool. I'm glad to read this. I wonder if that's ever been the case. I hope so. Some months after I left the LDS church shortly after my own church court in which I was disfellowshipped (at which time I was told by my Stake President that my membership record would be noted of my same-sex proclivities), I began attending the Unitarian Universalist church--I was about 32 years old at the time. It's funny how different the UU approach was to my same-sex attractions, contrasted with how the LDS church approached/treated it... when the lUU leadership found out that a) I'm gay, b) I'd been LDS, c) I'm a father of three kids, and d) that I am a Returned LDS Missionary, they were elated at having me join the congregation and immediately asked if I would be interested in teaching Bible Study Sunday School to their 5th and 6th grade students and if I would be interested in volunteering to be an overnight chaperone on several of their pre-teen and teenage church summer camps (I accepted all their offers and had a great time with those classes and kids... they were incredible). Those parents all saw me as someone that could teach their children about the struggles of what it's like to be different (both as a gay man and as a Mormon), to develop empathy and respect, and also about The Bible (due to my mission experiences); those parents specifically said all of this to me as they expressed their gratitude. It was a beautiful experience to be welcomed in such a fashion, and I soaked up their warmth and welcome like a dry sponge and my spirituality flourished. I will be forever grateful for those amazing young men and women with whom I spent many days in Sunday School and nights around the campfire and on the church floor in sleeping bags talking about how we can all love and accept one another, regardless of religious differences or differences in whom or how we love. 4
rockpond Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 1 minute ago, Daniel2 said: Very cool. I'm glad to read this. I wonder if that's ever been the case. I hope so. Some months after I left the LDS church shortly after my own church court in which I was disfellowshipped (at which time I was told by my Stake President that my membership record would be noted of my same-sex proclivities), I began attending the Unitarian Universalist church--I was about 32 years old at the time. It's funny how different the UU approach was to my same-sex attractions, contrasted with how the LDS church approached/treated it... when the lUU leadership found out that a) I'm gay, b) I'd been LDS, c) I'm a father of three kids, and d) that I am a Returned LDS Missionary, they were elated at having me join the congregation and immediately asked if I would be interested in teaching Bible Study Sunday School to their 5th and 6th grade students and if I would be interested in volunteering to be an overnight chaperone on several of their pre-teen and teenage church summer camps (I accepted all their offers and had a great time with those classes and kids... they were incredible). Those parents all saw me as someone that could teach their children about the struggles of what it's like to be different (both as a gay man and as a Mormon), to develop empathy and respect, and also about The Bible (due to my mission experiences); those parents specifically said all of this to me as they expressed their gratitude. It was a beautiful experience to be welcomed in such a fashion, and I soaked up their warmth and welcome like a dry sponge and my spirituality flourished. I will be forever grateful for those amazing young men and women with whom I spent many days in Sunday School and nights around the campfire and on the church floor in sleeping bags talking about how we can all love and accept one another, regardless of religious differences or differences in whom or how we love. That's incredible! So nice to hear that about the UU church. 1
Tacenda Posted May 22, 2019 Posted May 22, 2019 37 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: Very cool. I'm glad to read this. I wonder if that's ever been the case. I hope so. Some months after I left the LDS church shortly after my own church court in which I was disfellowshipped (at which time I was told by my Stake President that my membership record would be noted of my same-sex proclivities), I began attending the Unitarian Universalist church--I was about 32 years old at the time. It's funny how different the UU approach was to my same-sex attractions, contrasted with how the LDS church approached/treated it... when the lUU leadership found out that a) I'm gay, b) I'd been LDS, c) I'm a father of three kids, and d) that I am a Returned LDS Missionary, they were elated at having me join the congregation and immediately asked if I would be interested in teaching Bible Study Sunday School to their 5th and 6th grade students and if I would be interested in volunteering to be an overnight chaperone on several of their pre-teen and teenage church summer camps (I accepted all their offers and had a great time with those classes and kids... they were incredible). Those parents all saw me as someone that could teach their children about the struggles of what it's like to be different (both as a gay man and as a Mormon), to develop empathy and respect, and also about The Bible (due to my mission experiences); those parents specifically said all of this to me as they expressed their gratitude. It was a beautiful experience to be welcomed in such a fashion, and I soaked up their warmth and welcome like a dry sponge and my spirituality flourished. I will be forever grateful for those amazing young men and women with whom I spent many days in Sunday School and nights around the campfire and on the church floor in sleeping bags talking about how we can all love and accept one another, regardless of religious differences or differences in whom or how we love. 😍
Scott Lloyd Posted May 23, 2019 Posted May 23, 2019 On 5/22/2019 at 3:23 AM, Daniel2 said: My reading of that phrase by Phaedrus was that the scenarios were pretend, not the marriages.... That said, I absolutely agree that it's insulting and disrespectful for anyone to demean others' marital or life choices by suggesting that such marriages or families are "pretend" or invalid. I am on record as fully supporting the freedom to marry according to our own personal choices, including supporting the legal validity and the social/spiritual/emotional support of mixed-orientation marriages, regardless of my personal beliefs on the subject. That agreement that it's insulting to call into question the life choices of others is also why there was such a strong outcry when Elder Perry recently called gays' and lesbians' relationships/life choices/families "counterfeit and alternative lifestyles": “We want our voice to be heard against all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established. We also want our voice to be heard in sustaining the joy and fulfillment that traditional families bring. From my perspective, the word "counterfeit" is actually worse than "pretend." Speaking from my own actual experience and only for myself (not for anyone else), a so-called "traditional" family marital relationship brought none of the fulfillment or joy that Perry suggests, and was instead a source of extreme heartache, pain, and suffering. I believe there is no "one size fits all" family relationship, and we are at our best when we strive to find, uncover, and become the best we can be within the sphere of the measure of our own creation; that is, to discern the life choices we may make which are not only possible, but are optimal, and to follow those best life choices instead of trying to choose those actions which others seek to impose upon us but which are not optimal nor possible. Hopefully we all--including LDS leadership--can move beyond such insulting, disrespectful, and hurtful rhetoric regarding families that are different from our own, regardless of where we fall in our views. Just wondering how you would re-word what the late Elder Perry said on that occasion in a way that avoids disavowing or diluting long-held doctrinal precepts in the Church of Jesus Christ as pertaining to the traditional family (nuclear family, marriage between a man and a woman).
rockpond Posted May 23, 2019 Posted May 23, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Just wondering how you would re-word what the late Elder Perry said on that occasion in a way that avoids disavowing or diluting long-held doctrinal precepts in the Church of Jesus Christ as pertaining to the traditional family (nuclear family, marriage between a man and a woman). That's an odd request to make of Daniel. But I can re-word Elder Perry's quote: We want our voice to be heard against all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established. We also want our voice to be heard in sustaining the joy and fulfillment that traditional families bring. ETA: This simple deletion of words isn't my invention, the Church already employs it. Just listen to Elder Rector's April 1981 address while following along with the currently published written version. Edited May 23, 2019 by rockpond 2
kllindley Posted May 23, 2019 Author Posted May 23, 2019 (edited) This thread was about LGBT+ members bearing testimony of Christ and His Restored Gospel. Not about "allies" or disaffected individuals trying to rewrite the doctrine or sing praises of other religions. Edited May 23, 2019 by kllindley 3
rockpond Posted May 23, 2019 Posted May 23, 2019 3 minutes ago, kllindley said: This thread was about LGBT+ members bearing testimony of Christ and His Restored Gospel. Not about "allies" or disaffected individuals trying to rewrite the doctrine or sing praises of other religions. Yep... I've started many threads that took turns that really bummed me out. The video is beautiful and touching. If you don't want the thread going off on other tangents, you could ask the moderators to lock it. I think they generally respect the wishes of the originator. 1
Calm Posted May 23, 2019 Posted May 23, 2019 (edited) It also helps to be specific in what you want the thread to focus on in an opening post. Can kill traffic though. Edited May 23, 2019 by Calm
rockpond Posted May 23, 2019 Posted May 23, 2019 8 minutes ago, Calm said: It also helps to be specific in what you want the thread to focus on in an opening post. Can kill traffic though. It might help but I feel like it is impossible to control where a thread goes. Silver lining though is that as conversation continues on this thread (any conversation) at least the OP with that incredible video stays at the top and is likely to be seen by more people. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted May 23, 2019 Posted May 23, 2019 6 hours ago, rockpond said: That's an odd request to make of Daniel. But I can re-word Elder Perry's quote: We want our voice to be heard against all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established. We also want our voice to be heard in sustaining the joy and fulfillment that traditional families bring. ETA: This simple deletion of words isn't my invention, the Church already employs it. Just listen to Elder Rector's April 1981 address while following along with the currently published written version. I don’t regard it as odd at all. Daniel gave harsh criticism of Elder Perry’s words even as he called on Church leaders to “move beyond ... hurtful rhetoric.” I wanted to explore that a bit, so I invited Daniel to suggest a revision of Elder Perry’s words that did not involve the Church abandoning its doctrinal precepts. What I do find odd is your presuming to answer for Daniel and bringing out of left field a quote from Hartman (?) Rector from a generation earlier, before anyone had ever dreamed of same-sex marriage.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 23, 2019 Posted May 23, 2019 21 minutes ago, Calm said: It also helps to be specific in what you want the thread to focus on in an opening post. Can kill traffic though. In this case I think that ought to have gone without saying.
rockpond Posted May 23, 2019 Posted May 23, 2019 2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don’t regard it as odd at all. Daniel gave harsh criticism of Elder Perry’s words even as he called on Church leaders to “move beyond ... hurtful rhetoric.” I wanted to explore that a bit, so I invited Daniel to suggest a revision of Elder Perry’s words that did not involve the Church abandoning its doctrinal precepts. What I do find odd is your presuming to answer for Daniel and bringing out of left field a quote from Hartman (?) Rector from a generation earlier, before anyone had ever dreamed of same-sex marriage. I don't presume to answer for Daniel. He's free to respond. I find it odd because it seems clear that Daniel disagrees with Elder Perry's position so I am not sure why you'd ask him to rephrase it in a way that supports that position while not being offensive. My point in bringing up Elder Rector's quote was to illustrate that as a church, when we grow to a point where previous teachings are found to be wrong, we just delete them. So your request to rephrase Elder Perry's quote can be done in the same way we've done it in the past.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 24, 2019 Posted May 24, 2019 1 hour ago, rockpond said: I don't presume to answer for Daniel. He's free to respond. I find it odd because it seems clear that Daniel disagrees with Elder Perry's position so I am not sure why you'd ask him to rephrase it in a way that supports that position while not being offensive. My point in bringing up Elder Rector's quote was to illustrate that as a church, when we grow to a point where previous teachings are found to be wrong, we just delete them. So your request to rephrase Elder Perry's quote can be done in the same way we've done it in the past. I won’t be baited into further derailment of kllindley’s thread.
rockpond Posted May 24, 2019 Posted May 24, 2019 20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I won’t be baited into further derailment of kllindley’s thread. That’s funny. I wasn’t baiting you. I responded to your derail. But I’m good with letting the thread get back on topic. 1
Daniel2 Posted May 24, 2019 Posted May 24, 2019 (edited) 21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Just wondering how you would re-word what the late Elder Perry said on that occasion in a way that avoids disavowing or diluting long-held doctrinal precepts in the Church of Jesus Christ as pertaining to the traditional family (nuclear family, marriage between a man and a woman). To be clear, you're asking me how I might recommend rewording the following: We want our voice to be heard against all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established. We also want our voice to be heard in sustaining the joy and fulfillment that traditional families bring. To which I'd respond something along the lines of... ”Since the fall of Adam and Eve into the worlds' current telestial state, the family has taken diverse forms throughout history and in various places throughout the world, sometimes by necessity due to loss, death, or other means... sometimes by misguided but well-intended cultural or civic designs... sometimes because of a variety of sins... But we want our voices to be heard that the Lord, through his ordained prophets, has made it clear that today, only marriage between one man and one woman is authorized to be sealed in His Holy Temples for both time and all eternity. This is the family organization which God Himself established. We also want our voices to be heard in sustaining the joy and fulfillment that the Lord’s pattern for families bring.” Edited May 24, 2019 by Daniel2 4
Daniel2 Posted May 24, 2019 Posted May 24, 2019 20 hours ago, kllindley said: This thread was about LGBT+ members bearing testimony of Christ and His Restored Gospel. Not about "allies" or disaffected individuals trying to rewrite the doctrine or sing praises of other religions. 20 hours ago, rockpond said: Yep... I've started many threads that took turns that really bummed me out. The video is beautiful and touching. If you don't want the thread going off on other tangents, you could ask the moderators to lock it. I think they generally respect the wishes of the originator. 15 hours ago, Calm said: It also helps to be specific in what you want the thread to focus on in an opening post. Can kill traffic though. 14 hours ago, rockpond said: It might help but I feel like it is impossible to control where a thread goes. Silver lining though is that as conversation continues on this thread (any conversation) at least the OP with that incredible video stays at the top and is likely to be seen by more people. As others have said, Kllindley, sometimes threads take a life of their own and subtopics and side tangents can naturally occur without anyone actually intending to derail a thread. When you first started the thread, I added my response to the beautiful video you shared. The thread seemed to have quieted down for a time, and was only resurrected when a subtopic was broached, and conversation has since been focused on topics other than the OP. That said, I try my best to respect the wishes of those that began the topic. For anyone wishing to continue the subtopics, I'm happy to answer in any new threads, if that's Kllindley's wish. D 2
Scott Lloyd Posted May 24, 2019 Posted May 24, 2019 46 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: To be clear, you're asking me how I might recommend rewording the following: We want our voice to be heard against all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established. We also want our voice to be heard in sustaining the joy and fulfillment that traditional families bring. To which I'd respond something along the lines of... ”Since the fall of Adam and Eve into the worlds' current telestial state, the family has taken diverse forms throughout history and in various places throughout the world, sometimes by necessity due to loss, death, or other means... sometimes by misguided but well-intended cultural or civic designs... sometimes because of a variety of sins... But we want our voices to be heard that the Lord, through his ordained prophets, has made it clear that today, only marriage between one man and one woman is authorized to be sealed in His Holy Temples for both time and all eternity. This is the family organization which God Himself established. We also want our voices to be heard in sustaining the joy and fulfillment that the Lord’s pattern for families bring.” Seems reasonable to me. Thank you. 3
CV75 Posted May 24, 2019 Posted May 24, 2019 In trying to keep in the spirit of the OP, I am trying to apply the same process of conversion these souls have seemingly undergone, and will probably continue to undergo, to myself. I have found that D&C 121:45 is a wonderful formula for conversion. That is, if we pray in faith for charity and virtue, the Lord will give them to us. Faith will become confidence, which I take to be the united faith in ourselves and the Lord and to include "all men". The doctrine of the priesthood, or the doctrine of the power of God, will be pure and purifying in every aspect of our lives, and this is what I see as the major theme in this hymn. 1
Anonymous Mormon Posted May 24, 2019 Posted May 24, 2019 1 hour ago, Daniel2 said: To be clear, you're asking me how I might recommend rewording the following: We want our voice to be heard against all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established. We also want our voice to be heard in sustaining the joy and fulfillment that traditional families bring. To which I'd respond something along the lines of... ”Since the fall of Adam and Eve into the worlds' current telestial state, the family has taken diverse forms throughout history and in various places throughout the world, sometimes by necessity due to loss, death, or other means... sometimes by misguided but well-intended cultural or civic designs... sometimes because of a variety of sins... But we want our voices to be heard that the Lord, through his ordained prophets, has made it clear that today, only marriage between one man and one woman is authorized to be sealed in His Holy Temples for both time and all eternity. This is the family organization which God Himself established. We also want our voices to be heard in sustaining the joy and fulfillment that the Lord’s pattern for families bring.” Daniel - Thank you for responding to the actual question to re-write this statement in a way that doesn't negate the teachings of the church on family. There are so many people up-in-arms against the church's teaching that Marriage is between a man and woman and any time any one mentions that this is the doctrine and they don't believe it will change they are barraged with criticism. I typically assume that the offensive part to everyone in that camp is the 'marriage is between man and woman' and that they just jump on words like 'counterfeit' and 'offensive' as a means to have a chance to call the church or its leaders bigots. The fact that you actually took time to re-write this sentence in a way that maintains current church doctrine helps me see that you are truly bothered and offended by those specific words, as opposed to an entire doctrine. It also helps me to better understand how I might choose my words more carefully so as not to accidentally cause offense. This is much better than just yelling over and over that the church and its members are hypocrites and unloving because of its teachings. When people take that tack (and I feel lots of people on this board do this), then I assume that nothing I can say will ever be non-offensive, so I don't try to change the words that I use. 3
rockpond Posted May 24, 2019 Posted May 24, 2019 5 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said: ... they just jump on words like 'counterfeit' and 'offensive' as a means to have a chance to call the church or its leaders bigots. This is much better than just yelling over and over that the church and its members are hypocrites and unloving because of its teachings. When people take that tack (and I feel lots of people on this board do this)... 6 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said: It also helps me to better understand how I might choose my words more carefully so as not to accidentally cause offense. Then you might want to reconsider what you wrote above. 1
kllindley Posted May 24, 2019 Author Posted May 24, 2019 40 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: As others have said, Kllindley, sometimes threads take a life of their own and subtopics and side tangents can naturally occur without anyone actually intending to derail a thread. I totally get that. My intent was not to target any specific person or comment. I specifically tried to avoid quoting anyone's comment or naming any names. My comment was an attempt to refocus the conversation without any blame. 40 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: When you first started the thread, I added my response to the beautiful video you shared. The thread seemed to have quieted down for a time, and was only resurrected when a subtopic was broached, and conversation has since been focused on topics other than the OP. That said, I try my best to respect the wishes of those that began the topic. For anyone wishing to continue the subtopics, I'm happy to answer in any new threads, if that's Kllindley's wish. D Thanks. I appreciate your respect. I'm not at all opposed to discussion of a tangent or subtopic. I just judged the direction of the conversation to be heading toward a repeat of past arguments that I don't see as having been helpful. I may have been completely wrong.
Recommended Posts