Inspiring Video of LGBTQ Latter-day Saints

[JulieM]

3 minutes ago, kllindley said:

He was actually very clear what he was talking about. He was talking about a culture that devalues marriage and commitment and loyalty and family.  He never once referred to same-sex relationships.  Which makes me amazed that so many people continue to assume that must have been what he really meant.  

Yup (see my comment I just posted!)

I personally believe what you describe above can very definitely describe many who have a SSM (“values marriage and commitment and loyalty and family”).

Edited May 25, 2019 by JulieM

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

I think you always approach this with understanding and respect (from what I’ve seen).  And I know it’s an emotional topic for you (as it is for california boy too).  

Disagreement on here is normal in discussions.  You do show us how not to get too personal or into name calling and I appreciate that.   We all can get wound up or heated though at times!

I agree that disagreement is normal. In my opinion it is even good. For instance, I am sure Daniel doesn't agree with the Church's position on marriage. However, his comment was very different in tone. I immediately commented on how much I appreciated it. 

[kllindley]

6 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Yup (see my comment I just posted!)

I personally believe what you describe above can very definitely describe many who have a SSM (“values marriage and commitment and loyalty and family”).

Absolutely! 

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, kllindley said:

What about when the belief itself hurts others? Do we have a responsibility to not express those beliefs?

Excellent question.  That’s where it gets tough and I don’t have an answer.  I have no interest in silencing beliefs.  I also don’t want to hurt people.  

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Yes, I feel like this thread is quickly descending into what I described previously - the SSA (Same-Six Attackers) are going to all pile on with negative comments about the church and its leaders (such as Elder Perry who was a kind-hearted, loving Apostle) because it maintains the Christian values as taught in the Bible - that a Man and Woman is what God wants for a marriage.

I can understand that the reference comment likely felt like an attack in the church and its leaders. 

I happen to be someone who, like most here, is rather devoted to studying the scriptures and I spend a lot of time in the New Testament.  My study of the Bible, coupled with pondering and prayer teaches me that God does not want marriage to be exclusively a man/woman arrangement.  

So, can you understand that when you make a conclusive statement, as if it is fact, that the Bible only supports God wanting man/woman marriage, that it likewise feels like an attack on my beliefs?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

In addition to good and evil intent, some substitutes and alternatives for the divine family organization (Elder Perry does not use the term "structure") are simply out of ignorance, compulsion and perhaps tradition. Some examples are gangs, communes, government-enforced fertility rates, and even (in my opinion) child marriages, arranged or otherwise.

An observation since I believe most are trying to find a way to discuss this topic without being emotionally charged...

I think the use of substitute and alternative together is redundant more or less.  I think "alternative" conveys the idea of intentionally seeking a different type of family unit besides what the Church teaches as the ideal family sufficiently when speaking of actual families.  When speaking of nonfamily organization, using just substitute works imo, but due to most people imo not going there when thinking of family or marriage, then I think that best to be both defined and separated in the discussion from family structures.  The use of both at once comes across to me as more aggressive than assertive and the concept is difficult enough to discuss without contention without repetition.

PS:  I think the point of gangs, communes (I am assuming you mean where adults give up parental responsibility for children or engage in polyamory relationships), or even an overdevotion to one's work, social, church community substituting for a long term, committed family relationship is important to examine; I am not suggesting by separating it out that it should be ignored.  Rather that that type of relationship is sufficiently different in motivation from actual families speaking of both at the same time is likely more confusing than helpful.

Edited May 25, 2019 by Calm

[california boy]

3 hours ago, kllindley said:

No. No one suggested that disagreement should be shut up. I commented on the approach. If you don't think that sort of comment worked to marginalize his belief by making it sound more judgemental and extreme, what was the point?

 

You are free to react to things I did not say however you see best. There was no attempt to control anyone who doesn't agree with me, nor did I in any way suggest that your viewpoint was not welcome. Calling out rudeness and polarizing comments is not the same as wanting you to shut up. 

I am sorry but I did find his comments to be rude, polarizing and very judgemental.  There are many types of families.  There are many situations people find themselves in.  Some rise up to the occasion and make wonderful families for their children.  This whole husband/wife thing makes marriage ideal and all others are well less than is very offensive to all kinds of different situations.  And I am not talking about ssm.  I am talking about a whole range of family situations. There is many a grandmother who have done an extordinary job of raising a family is just one example. And there have been many a husband/wife who have made horrible families and hell for some children.  Yet the Proclamation of the Famly which CV continues to go back to only allows for ONE family dynamic.  Is that a fair statement to make?  Is that what the Church believes?

I found CV75's comments along with Elder Perry's comments to be extremely judgemental.  You can not use a broad paint brush and automatically say these kinds of marriages are how God wants them to be and all others fall short.  Because that is simply not true.  I think it was a false statement to make by Elder Perry and it is a false statement to defend even when you take out the whole counterfit jab.  

Tell me why Elder Perry even made this comment.  And why would anyone defend his comment.  You don't make your marriage more meaningful by devaluing what other people do and calling into question the validity of their relationships or how God views those relationships. 

Just as a reminder, this is what he said

 

Quote

 

   9 hours ago,  CV75 said: 

In the spirit of being a day late and a dollar short: "We want our voice to be heard against all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles substitute and alternative family structures, some well-intended and some not, that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established."

 

 

So even when a person is trying their very best at creating a loving and safe family for children, it is not what God himself established, so well less than, sorry.

Edited May 26, 2019 by california boy

[kllindley]

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am sorry but I did find his comments to be rude, polarizing and very judgemental.  

 

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

There are many types of families.

I agree. No one said otherwise. 

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

There are many situations people find themselves in.  

Of course.

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

Some rise up to the occasion and make wonderful families for their children.  

I agree. 

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

This whole husband/wife thing makes marriage ideal and all others are well less than is very offensive to all kinds of different situations.  And I am not talking about ssm.  I am talking about a whole range of family situations. There is many a grandmother who have done an extordinary job of raising a family is just one example. And there have been many a husband/wife who have made horrible families and hell for some children.  

You may remember that Elder Perry was raised by a single mother and spoke often honoring her. I highly doubt he was bashing her or any other different situations. 

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yet the Proclamation of the Famly which CV continues to go back to only allows for ONE family dynamic.  Is that a fair statement to make?  Is that what the Church believes?

Actually, the Proclamation acknowledges the need for individual adaptation and only condemns those who "violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities."

The Church does teach that only marriage between a husband and wife had the potential to continue being this life. And they do teach that having a mother and father who honor marital vows is the best environment for children. That doesn't mean that even the worst mother/father are better than anything else. It also doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees is evil. 

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

I found CV75's comments along with Elder Perry's comments to be extremely judgemental.  You can not use a broad paint brush and automatically say these kinds of marriages are how God wants them to be and all others fall short.  Because that is simply not true.  I think it was a false statement to make by Elder Perry and it is a false statement to defend even when you take out the whole counterfit jab.  

See the next comment. 

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

Tell me why Elder Perry even made this comment.  And why would anyone defend his comment.  

Did you ever notice that Elder Perry's talk wasn't even about "other" marriages or families. It was about the idea that marriage and family were unimportant and optional. That is the counterfeit and alternative "lifestyle" he was talking about. The only examples he gives are "chosen singleness, personal freedom, cohabitation" and "recreational sex." Are those not counterfeit and alternatives to the joy that comes through commitment to family?

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

You don't make your marriage more meaningful by devaluing what other people do and calling into question the validity of their relationships or how God views those relationships.

Interestingly this is not what Elder Perry did. 

37 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just as a reminder, this is what he said

 

So even when a person is trying their very best at creating a loving and safe family for children, it is not what God himself established, so well less than, sorry.

Again, not what anyone was saying.  Counterfeit and alternative referred to lifestyles in opposition to family, not any specific family configuration. 

[california boy]

7 hours ago, kllindley said:

 

I agree. No one said otherwise. 

Of course.

I agree. 

You may remember that Elder Perry was raised by a single mother and spoke often honoring her. I highly doubt he was bashing her or any other different situations. 

Actually, the Proclamation acknowledges the need for individual adaptation and only condemns those who "violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities."

The Church does teach that only marriage between a husband and wife had the potential to continue being this life. And they do teach that having a mother and father who honor marital vows is the best environment for children. That doesn't mean that even the worst mother/father are better than anything else. It also doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees is evil. 

See the next comment. 

Did you ever notice that Elder Perry's talk wasn't even about "other" marriages or families. It was about the idea that marriage and family were unimportant and optional. That is the counterfeit and alternative "lifestyle" he was talking about. The only examples he gives are "chosen singleness, personal freedom, cohabitation" and "recreational sex." Are those not counterfeit and alternatives to the joy that comes through commitment to family?

Interestingly this is not what Elder Perry did. 

Again, not what anyone was saying.  Counterfeit and alternative referred to lifestyles in opposition to family, not any specific family configuration. 

Your comment made me want to read the original talk.  Something that I probably should have done the first time.  I just missed the link to his talk.  And actually this was a thread I was only lurking in and not intending to comment.  

I do think the part quoted that has been discussed is poorly worded.  But I should have tried to read the whole talk to give it more context.  I apologize for that. It is not news to anyone that the Church thinks marriage should only be between one man and one woman.  And it is not news to anyone that the church doesn't think that gay marriage is real in the sight of God.  I don't have any problem with the Church holding either belief.  And I don't try and change the Church's position. 

[CV75]

16 hours ago, JulieM said:

I get that.  Of course there’s nothing in the proclamation about gangs (or child marriages or SSM).  

I know most who heard him felt he was speaking of SSM.  But maybe he included those you list?

I think any specific counter-family organization and effort one can identify from applying his talk or the Proclamation to one's own circumstances will differ from society to society (that's both macro- and micro- since some issues cross societies across the globe).

Edited May 26, 2019 by CV75

[CV75]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

An observation since I believe most are trying to find a way to discuss this topic without being emotionally charged...

I think the use of substitute and alternative together is redundant more or less.  I think "alternative" conveys the idea of intentionally seeking a different type of family unit besides what the Church teaches as the ideal family sufficiently when speaking of actual families.  When speaking of nonfamily organization, using just substitute works imo, but due to most people imo not going there when thinking of family or marriage, then I think that best to be both defined and separated in the discussion from family structures.  The use of both at once comes across to me as more aggressive than assertive and the concept is difficult enough to discuss without contention without repetition.

PS:  I think the point of gangs, communes (I am assuming you mean where adults give up parental responsibility for children or engage in polyamory relationships), or even an overdevotion to one's work, social, church community substituting for a long term, committed family relationship is important to examine; I am not suggesting by separating it out that it should be ignored.  Rather that that type of relationship is sufficiently different in motivation from actual families speaking of both at the same time is likely more confusing than helpful.

I believe for thread discussion purposes, once the initial hurt feelings been acknowledged and addressed, including the consideration of other, non-opposing practices might help broaden perspectives and soften discord, and perhaps even soften reactions to future General Conference talks, however well the GAs accept our wordsmithing

 

Edited May 26, 2019 by CV75

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

I believe for thread discussion purposes, once the initial hurt feelings been acknowledged and addressed, including the consideration of other, non-opposing practices might help broaden perspectives and soften discord, and perhaps even soften reactions to future General Conference talks, however well the GAs accept our wordsmithing

 

I can mainly agree with this  

As long ALL who enter into one type of marriage are not labeled as being in a counterfeit or substitute marriage.....I think that is when it becomes offensive (and I hope you agree with that and can see why this would be the case).

Great discussion....thanks!

Edited May 26, 2019 by ALarson

[CV75]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

I can mainly agree with this  

As long ALL who enter into one type of marriage are not labeled as being in a counterfeit or substitute marriage.....I think that is when it becomes offensive (and I hope you agree with that and can see why this would be the case).

Great discussion....thanks!

I think whatever the adjectives end up being, they apply only to those arrangements that run counter to God's design, and not to the people in them. This is why I mentioned a couple of times how charity is so key in helping the speaker and the hearer prevent both real and imagined, intended and unintended offense.

[CV75]

On 5/25/2019 at 11:53 AM, kllindley said:

What about when the belief itself hurts others? Do we have a responsibility to not express those beliefs?

I think we have a responsibility to hold fast to what we believe to be true and to be open to receiving more truth. The two go together. If we find that someone is hurt by our expression of faith, I think we need to comfort them and build bridges of friendship despite differences in belief to show that our faithfulness (and by extension, our hope and love) to them as a child of God "is stronger than the chords of death." If our belief is true, the power of charity will be evident in our behavior, both in preaching and in hearing, and how we give and receive, explain and interpret, etc.

[CV75]

23 hours ago, rockpond said:

Excellent question.  That’s where it gets tough and I don’t have an answer.  I have no interest in silencing beliefs.  I also don’t want to hurt people.  

From what I've seen, expressions of faith as fact are par for the course in religious speech, whether on a message board, our daily walk and conversation or in more carefully prepared General Conference talks. This is why I see D&C 121:45 as a key to improving interfaith discourse, and one doesn’t have to be a member of the Church or believe in all the Church teaches to apply it. With charity, no one is attacking another’s different belief, just asserting one’s own, and one is firm in his own faith, willing to hear others’ views in search for more truth.

[JulieM]

8 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think any specific counter-family organization and effort one can identify from applying his talk or the Proclamation to one's own circumstances will differ from society to society (that's both macro- and micro- since some issues cross societies across the globe).

Once again as long as we don’t specifically single out all of one kind of family or marriage. I know we are tip toeing around that being SSM (and their families) but we most definitely need to make sure to avoid ever referring to them as being counterfeit or substitute (which implies they are not authentic marriages or families).  I think that’s where things said can hurt or offend (along with others being hurt in different kinds of families if they are labeled using those words).

I know you come back a lot to the proclamation (which is great!), but there’s nothing in there about gangs or communes or SSM.  That’s what I meant.

Edited May 26, 2019 by JulieM

[CV75]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

Once again as long as we don’t specifically single out all of one kind of family or marriage. I know we are tip toeing around that being SSM (and their families) but we most definitely need to make sure to avoid ever referring to them as being counterfeit or substitute (which implies they are not authentic marriages or families).  I think that’s where things said can hurt or offend (along with others being hurt in different kinds of families if they are labeled using those words).

I know you come back a lot to the proclamation (which is great!), but there’s nothing in there about gangs or communes or SSM.  That’s what I meant.

While the Proclamation focuses on a few specific doctrinal truths promoting the ideal, people can be spared the many types of pitfalls mentioned in the last two paragraphs by applying it to the more specific choices they are given to abide or refuse these principles within their scope of experience, which is sometimes unique and sometimes shared. These choices often involve discussion. I think the principles of charity still apply as the discussion moves away from Elder Perry's talk and the Proclamation and toward topics of interest and concern, which sometimes become quite specific and personal. All involved have a responsibility and can receive the blessings of charitable conversation.

Edited May 26, 2019 by CV75