Inclusiveness and Gay Children of God

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, Ahab said:

Which is the way it should work.  Whether its the correlation department or some other higher level department that sanctions living standards for members, there must be standards of what is considered right and what is considered wrong behavior.

And who gets to set the standards or what is right and what is wrong?  It seems that you are saying it doesn't matter who it is as long as they are in church leadership.  Just follow the leader right?

[california boy]

13 hours ago, Ahab said:

Which is the way it should work.  Whether its the correlation department or some other higher level department that sanctions living standards for members, there must be standards of what is considered right and what is considered wrong behavior.

I never said the correlation department should not exist.  I said that when a persons views differ from the correlation department, then there starts to be a conflict with what a person finds to be true and what the Church teaches.  That difference leads many away from being able to participate in the other 99% beliefs of the Church they might agree with.  So people leave.  

If that is the course the Church wants to continue on, I have no problem with that.  But the Church should not be upset that so many leave when it creates the very environment that is causing that to play out.  And maybe the Church isn't upset.  Just the cost of doing business their preferred way as you pointed out.

[Ahab]

12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

And who gets to set the standards or what is right and what is wrong?  It seems that you are saying it doesn't matter who it is as long as they are in church leadership.  Just follow the leader right?

In the Church, yes, the leaders of the Church are the leaders of the Church organization and they are the ones who set the standards of what is right and what is wrong.

6 hours ago, california boy said:

I never said the correlation department should not exist.  I said that when a persons views differ from the correlation department, then there starts to be a conflict with what a person finds to be true and what the Church teaches.  That difference leads many away from being able to participate in the other 99% beliefs of the Church they might agree with.  So people leave.  

If that is the course the Church wants to continue on, I have no problem with that.  But the Church should not be upset that so many leave when it creates the very environment that is causing that to play out.  And maybe the Church isn't upset.  Just the cost of doing business their preferred way as you pointed out.

in ANY and EVERY organization there are leaders and then there are just the rank and file members of that organization who are not part of the leadership.   Furthermore it is the leaders of ANY and EVERY organization who are the ones who set the tone in that organization by setting/accepting any proposed standards which they feel are the standards they want to uphold.  In the Church, for example, we have 3 persons who are God who are our ultimate leaders and then we have some other guys and gals who those 3 appoint and ordain to leadership positions in the Church, while every other person in it is just a rank and file member in it.  Even though they can be and often are leaders in other organizations, such as their own families or perhaps some other government. And FURTHERMORE in any organization any member or even any leader is free to leave that organization or just whine and complain if the standards they want to see upheld are not the standards the leaders want to set and sustain.

Even if you don't accept the fact that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's government body on this planet you should still be able to see that it is an organization that functions like any other in regards to the leaders being the ones who set the standards, and if you don't want to be part of it that is up to you.  You are free to join and you are also free to leave or remain apart from it if that is what you want. 

Just understand and remember that regular rank and file members of any organization is not part of the leadership in that organization, or even if you were to become a leader in it you still may just not be high enough up in the leadership structure to be one of the leaders who sets the standards.

The leadership in the Church has known for years and years that not everyone is willing to become just a rank and file member of it and yes they are okay with that fact, or at least not so concerned that they want to make sure that everyone gets to become an ultimate leader.

 

[The Nehor]

40 minutes ago, Ahab said:

in ANY and EVERY organization there are leaders and then there are just the rank and file members of that organization who are not part of the leadership.   Furthermore it is the leaders of ANY and EVERY organization who are the ones who set the tone in that organization by setting/accepting any proposed standards which they feel are the standards they want to uphold.  In the Church, for example, we have 3 persons who are God who are our ultimate leaders and then we have some other guys and gals who those 3 appoint and ordain to leadership positions in the Church, while every other person in it is just a rank and file member in it.  Even though they can be and often are leaders in other organizations, such as their own families or perhaps some other government. And FURTHERMORE in any organization any member or even any leader is free to leave that organization or just whine and complain if the standards they want to see upheld are not the standards the leaders want to set and sustain.

I don’t think you know what “rank and file” means if you think apostles are “rank and file”. Also not every organization has leaders. I have been in organizations run by direct democracy. Also, you are a pedant.

Edited August 9, 2019 by The Nehor

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t think you know what “rank and file” means if you think apostles are “rank and file”.

 

I didn't say I think that so you didn't get that idea from me.  I know our Lord's apostles are some of the leaders in our Lord's church, and among the greatest.

 

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Also not every organization has leaders. I have been in organizations run by direct democracy.

By "run" I suppose you mean "led', and yes in some organizations everyone can be a leader in some capacity or another, as well as a follower.

 

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Also, you are a pedant.

Excessively?  I don't think so.  You have made more posts than I have and I had to use an online dictionary to find out what the word "pedant" means.

ped·ant

/ˈpednt/

noun

noun: pedant; plural noun: pedants

1. a person who is excessively concerned with minor details and rules or with displaying academic learning.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Ahab

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

In the Church, yes, the leaders of the Church are the leaders of the Church organization and they are the ones who set the standards of what is right and what is wrong.

in ANY and EVERY organization there are leaders and then there are just the rank and file members of that organization who are not part of the leadership.   Furthermore it is the leaders of ANY and EVERY organization who are the ones who set the tone in that organization by setting/accepting any proposed standards which they feel are the standards they want to uphold.  In the Church, for example, we have 3 persons who are God who are our ultimate leaders and then we have some other guys and gals who those 3 appoint and ordain to leadership positions in the Church, while every other person in it is just a rank and file member in it.  Even though they can be and often are leaders in other organizations, such as their own families or perhaps some other government. And FURTHERMORE in any organization any member or even any leader is free to leave that organization or just whine and complain if the standards they want to see upheld are not the standards the leaders want to set and sustain.

Even if you don't accept the fact that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's government body on this planet you should still be able to see that it is an organization that functions like any other in regards to the leaders being the ones who set the standards, and if you don't want to be part of it that is up to you.  You are free to join and you are also free to leave or remain apart from it if that is what you want. 

Just understand and remember that regular rank and file members of any organization is not part of the leadership in that organization, or even if you were to become a leader in it you still may just not be high enough up in the leadership structure to be one of the leaders who sets the standards.

The leadership in the Church has known for years and years that not everyone is willing to become just a rank and file member of it and yes they are okay with that fact, or at least not so concerned that they want to make sure that everyone gets to become an ultimate leader.

 

Why are you giving me a lesson on Church leadership?  Did I say something that indicated I had no knowledge of that or that I didn't understand who sets policies in the Church?  Did I say Church leadership did not have the right to set up whatever policies it wanted to?  Because if you read what I posted, I reaffirmed they have every right to decide who should or shouldn't be included in their membership and what policies the Church will have.

[Ahab]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

Why are you giving me a lesson on Church leadership?  Did I say something that indicated I had no knowledge of that or that I didn't understand who sets policies in the Church?  Did I say Church leadership did not have the right to set up whatever policies it wanted to?  Because if you read what I posted, I reaffirmed they have every right to decide who should or shouldn't be included in their membership and what policies the Church will have.

An impression from my reading of what you wrote indicated to me that you didn't and still probably don't realize that the Church is led by 3 persons who are God and that all the other leaders in the Church are appointed by them and those they have appointed to lead us.

Which is probably why you don't just conform to Church standards in the way you are living.  And which is also probably why you think you should say that you think the Church should change it's standards otherwise people will leave or not join the Church.

Most members of the Church are already aware of all of that and the leaders of the Church are too, which is why we are members and try to conform to the standards of the Church when we see we are out of the Way.  We want to get right with God and do what he wants us to do, rather than trying to get God to change his mind or his standards for how we should live.

[california boy]

50 minutes ago, Ahab said:

An impression from my reading of what you wrote indicated to me that you didn't and still probably don't realize that the Church is led by 3 persons who are God and that all the other leaders in the Church are appointed by them and those they have appointed to lead us.

Which is probably why you don't just conform to Church standards in the way you are living.  And which is also probably why you think you should say that you think the Church should change it's standards otherwise people will leave or not join the Church.

Most members of the Church are already aware of all of that and the leaders of the Church are too, which is why we are members and try to conform to the standards of the Church when we see we are out of the Way.  We want to get right with God and do what he wants us to do, rather than trying to get God to change his mind or his standards for how we should live.

Ahab, the problem with you is you make assumptions.  Why would you make assumptions and then comment on something that the posters never said. If you just want to say something unrelated to what I said, then just post it without quoting me.  

CFR where I said anything about the First Presidency in the quote you quoted me from.

CFR where I said anything about the Church should change its standards.  

CFR where I said anything about people not joining the Church.

CFR where I said you shouldn't try to get right with God and do what you think he wants you to do.

CFR where I said God should change his mind about anything.

This entire post is assumptions and claims of statements I never made.  I would be more than happy to hear you respond to what I wrote.  But quit making assumptions and then pretending I  had anything to do with your assumptions.  Or state your assumptions and quit quoting me. 

Answer the CFR's where I actually said what you claimed I said or apologize.  I am good with either.  

[Ahab]

26 minutes ago, california boy said:

Ahab, the problem with you is you make assumptions.  Why would you make assumptions and then comment on something that the posters never said. If you just want to say something unrelated to what I said, then just post it without quoting me.  

CFR where I said anything about the First Presidency in the quote you quoted me from.

CFR where I said anything about the Church should change its standards.  

CFR where I said anything about people not joining the Church.

CFR where I said you shouldn't try to get right with God and do what you think he wants you to do.

CFR where I said God should change his mind about anything.

This entire post is assumptions and claims of statements I never made.  I would be more than happy to hear you respond to what I wrote.  But quit making assumptions and then pretending I  had anything to do with your assumptions.  Or state your assumptions and quit quoting me. 

Answer the CFR's where I actually said what you claimed I said or apologize.  I am good with either.  

Sorry if I was wrong, but as I said, my impression of what you said indicated to me that you thought... what I said I thought that you thought.   If you do after all realize that the Church is led by 3 persons who are God and that all the other leaders in the Church are appointed by them and those they have appointed to lead us and that the counsel they have given us in regard to being "gay" is NOT wrong but just that you don't want to follow their counsel and that you would rather they just change their mind on that issue then I'll just change my view of you to the impression you are giving me now.

[california boy]

32 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Sorry if I was wrong, but as I said, my impression of what you said indicated to me that you thought... what I said I thought that you thought.   If you do after all realize that the Church is led by 3 persons who are God and that all the other leaders in the Church are appointed by them and those they have appointed to lead us and that the counsel they have given us in regard to being "gay" is NOT wrong but just that you don't want to follow their counsel and that you would rather they just change their mind on that issue then I'll just change my view of you to the impression you are giving me now.

I recognize that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is lead by the prophet and his counselors.  I don't believe they are God but you are welcome to your belief.  I don't believe the Churches policies against gay couples is God's will, but you and the Church are entitled to any belief you want.  I don't expect the Church to change it's views and I really don't care one way or the other.  It is none of my concern, nor should I have a say in how the Church or it's followers believe. I have never suggested the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should change their position on gay or any other issue.  You and your Church can believe whatever it wants.  Yes I realize I am being redundant in hopes that you will be clear to understanding my actual position.  Don';t assume anything that I have not said and we will get along much better..  Is that clear enough?

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

I recognize that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is lead by the prophet and his counselors.  I don't believe they are God but you are welcome to your belief.  

i was referring to God the Father, God his son Jesus Christ, and God the Holy Ghost.  Those 3 persons.  When referring to 3 persons who are God I was not referring to the First Presidency but yes they are God too by being the same kind of being they are and that is a discussion for another occasion.  But at any rate it appears that you are not a son of perdition as I was beginning to think you might be. Apparently just someone who wants to be a member of the Church but only if those who set the standards in the Church will set the standards you want them to set.

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't believe the Churches policies against gay couples is God's will, but you and the Church are entitled to any belief you want.  I don't expect the Church to change it's views and I really don't care one way or the other.  It is none of my concern, nor should I have a say in how the Church or it's followers believe. I have never suggested the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should change their position on gay or any other issue.  You and your Church can believe whatever it wants.  Yes I realize I am being redundant in hopes that you will be clear to understanding my actual position.  Don';t assume anything that I have not said and we will get along much better..  Is that clear enough?

Yes, I think that is clear enough, I think. Just understand that I am "TRYING" to understand you and what you are saying bur I might get a few things wrong on some occasion.  That's to be expected from someone who isn't as perfect as our Father in heaven is, yet.

[california boy]

17 minutes ago, Ahab said:

i was referring to God the Father, God his son Jesus Christ, and God the Holy Ghost.  Those 3 persons.  When referring to 3 persons who are God I was not referring to the First Presidency but yes they are God too by being the same kind of being they are and that is a discussion for another occasion.  But at any rate it appears that you are not a son of perdition as I was beginning to think you might be. Apparently just someone who wants to be a member of the Church

Where did you ever get that I want to be a member of the Church?  Another assumption?  You just can't help yourself can you.  This is getting pretty annoying.  I don't think you would like me to start making assumptions about you or what you want in life.

 

17 minutes ago, Ahab said:

 

but only if those who set the standards in the Church will set the standards you want them to set.

Yes, I think that is clear enough, I think. Just understand that I am "TRYING" to understand you and what you are saying bur I might get a few things wrong on some occasion.  That's to be expected from someone who isn't as perfect as our Father in heaven is, yet.

Ahab, are you doing this on purpose just to annoy me?  How many times do I have to clearly state that I don't care if the Church ever changes it's standards.  So one more CFR

CFR where I EVER said that I want the Church to change its standards.

 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

Where did you ever get that I want to be a member of the Church?  Another assumption?  You just can't help yourself can you.  This is getting pretty annoying.  I don't think you would like me to start making assumptions about you or what you want in life.

 

Ahab, are you doing this on purpose just to annoy me?  How many times do I have to clearly state that I don't care if the Church ever changes it's standards.  So one more CFR

CFR where I EVER said that I want the Church to change its standards.

 

Sheesh, okay, I seem to be on a roll here.  Sorry if I was wrong for thinking that the reason you are talking about how the Church should change its stand regarding gays because its stand could make some people leave or not join the Church when they don't agree with the stand the Church takes is because you are or were or might be interested in joining the Church if the Church would just change its stand.

You have said some things regarding the Church's stand on the "gay" issue and I thought it was because it affected you in some way personally.  I do have you on record for saying some things about the stand the Church takes and how you think that keeps some people away:

12 hours ago, california boy said:

...I said that when a persons views differ from the correlation department, then there starts to be a conflict with what a person finds to be true and what the Church teaches.  That difference leads many away from being able to participate in the other 99% beliefs of the Church they might agree with.  So people leave.  

If that is the course the Church wants to continue on, I have no problem with that.  But the Church should not be upset that so many leave when it creates the very environment that is causing that to play out.  And maybe the Church isn't upset.  Just the cost of doing business their preferred way as you pointed out.

Looks like maybe you have no problem at all with the stand the Church takes.  Which begs the question, why aren't you joining the Church now, boy?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Ahab, are you doing this on purpose just to annoy me?

I don’t think so. It has happened before quite a bit imo. I like Ahab as a person, but I find it very difficult to discuss things with him due to his unusual assumptions and definitions. 

Since Ahab is indulging in telling you what kind of person you are...:P

He sees things differently imo, which is fine, but then drops his motivations, etc on others. Not the best listener though I think he is really trying to help.  Or perhaps it is as much me being too different a thinker to him as I find it hard to follow his train of thought.

Edited August 9, 2019 by Calm

[NobodyKnowsMe]

What is so very "wrong" (I don't believe it to be wrong, but for the sake of argument..) with an individual child of God, with a spark of divinity within them, seeking divine guidance (whatever that may look like for them) about their personal situation if they happen to be gay?  Isn't that how it is supposed to work?  If you read Joseph's writings, -- not just the ones in the sunday school manuals that they want us to read, but the many other books and sources out there that have published ALL of his writings and ideas (and there are a wide variety of topics he introduced that people could not handle, which I suspect would be the same case today) -- if you read them you will learn that back in his day, yes, he gave proclamations and revelations but he did NOT dictate every facet of people's lives as happens today -- what we can wear, what kind of music and movies we can listen to/watch, what we should and shouldn't do on Sunday, how we should be in business transactions, how we should keep our homes... the list goes on and on.  We are "commanded in all things," despite the admonition of the Lord that it is "not meet that [he] should command in all things" -- I fear our people are so insecure that they practically BEG to be told what to do in just about every circumstance.  That is not healthy, and it places way too much dependence on every word uttered by the brethren -- which Brigham Young specifically warned against.  Back to my point -- if a child of our Father happens to find attraction to the same gender -- and, moreso, if that attraction leads to love, who are we to go around shoving in their face that it is "evil," "abomination," "wicked," "disgusting," "awful," "terrible," "sick," "you are broken and need fixing," -- do we REALLY think that shoving these things in people's faces will make them want to be a part of the church?  Seriously?!?  Furthermore, how do any of us KNOW what God has in store for such people?  Do we put God in such a BOX that we make the judgment for him, on earth, with our extremely limited understanding of everything?  Can we know what is in a person's heart?  Can we know what they have been through?  Can we know of their love of their Father?  So because someone has a same-sex partner and is intimate with that person whom they love, we condemn them to hell and throw them on a spiritual junkpile of "the lost?"  What an awful commentary on the supposed "Church of Christ."  I would bet a million dollars that if people were forced to write all of their sins and mistakes on a large poster board and then, one by one, get up in front of their ward and have everybody look at it, it would be a lesson in humility that many people could use.  Because there is a LOT of hypocrisy in the church.  TONS.  And yet it's somehow always "the gays" that get the firing squad of shame and accusation thrown at them.  The God I believe in loves these people.  He yearns for them.  And yes, he speaks to them.  He understands them.  And he doesn't cast the first stone -- the members of the church do -- despite the admonition, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone."

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, california boy said:

Ahab, the problem with you is you make assumptions.

Not enough rep points in the world for this.

[Calm]

Nobody knows, I have a hard time focusing these days and when text is in a chunk, my eyes just jump around as they track so poorly. I would very much like to read all your thoughts and not just the first few lines, so if you could in the future break up your text into more paragraphs I would really appreciate it. 

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, NobodyKnowsMe said:

What is so very "wrong" (I don't believe it to be wrong, but for the sake of argument..) with an individual child of God, with a spark of divinity within them, seeking divine guidance (whatever that may look like for them) about their personal situation if they happen to be gay?  Isn't that how it is supposed to work?  If you read Joseph's writings, -- not just the ones in the sunday school manuals that they want us to read, but the many other books and sources out there that have published ALL of his writings and ideas (and there are a wide variety of topics he introduced that people could not handle, which I suspect would be the same case today) -- if you read them you will learn that back in his day, yes, he gave proclamations and revelations but he did NOT dictate every facet of people's lives as happens today -- what we can wear, what kind of music and movies we can listen to/watch, what we should and shouldn't do on Sunday, how we should be in business transactions, how we should keep our homes... the list goes on and on.  We are "commanded in all things," despite the admonition of the Lord that it is "not meet that [he] should command in all things" -- I fear our people are so insecure that they practically BEG to be told what to do in just about every circumstance.  That is not healthy, and it places way too much dependence on every word uttered by the brethren -- which Brigham Young specifically warned against.  Back to my point -- if a child of our Father happens to find attraction to the same gender -- and, moreso, if that attraction leads to love, who are we to go around shoving in their face that it is "evil," "abomination," "wicked," "disgusting," "awful," "terrible," "sick," "you are broken and need fixing," -- do we REALLY think that shoving these things in people's faces will make them want to be a part of the church?  Seriously?!?  Furthermore, how do any of us KNOW what God has in store for such people?  Do we put God in such a BOX that we make the judgment for him, on earth, with our extremely limited understanding of everything?  Can we know what is in a person's heart?  Can we know what they have been through?  Can we know of their love of their Father?  So because someone has a same-sex partner and is intimate with that person whom they love, we condemn them to hell and throw them on a spiritual junkpile of "the lost?"  What an awful commentary on the supposed "Church of Christ."  I would bet a million dollars that if people were forced to write all of their sins and mistakes on a large poster board and then, one by one, get up in front of their ward and have everybody look at it, it would be a lesson in humility that many people could use.  Because there is a LOT of hypocrisy in the church.  TONS.  And yet it's somehow always "the gays" that get the firing squad of shame and accusation thrown at them.  The God I believe in loves these people.  He yearns for them.  And yes, he speaks to them.  He understands them.  And he doesn't cast the first stone -- the members of the church do -- despite the admonition, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone."

The idea that church members use “the gays” as firing squad targets throwing barbs at them all day in church suggests to me that you either do not attend our church or go to a very strange ward. For people who are ALWAYS flinging barbs we seem pretty lazy about it. I can think of twice in the last year I heard someone talk about homosexuality in an official church meeting. One was as part of a testimony and was very confusing but was definitely not condemning and a mention in a Bishopric meeting that was incidental to explain why someone was single and again, no one condemned.

I am guessing you are judging the flavor of the church by what you read on the Internet because according to many of our critics we are frothing at the mouth about the evil gay menace. They imagine we whip up hysteria with imagined fears that “they” will sodomize us all or whatever they think drives this malicious glee with which we imagine our neighbors burning in hell for their horrible sins. I must be a heretic. I went out to eat with a gay friend at lunch today and not once did I savor the thought of him roasting in hell or basking in my obvious moral superiority. Instead we had some laughs, talked about a work project, talked about my pets (he is thinking of getting a pair of gliders), and divvied up what we would each cover in the training class we are giving for some of our German colleagues later this month. Am I doing my religion wrong?

Edited August 10, 2019 by The Nehor

[Calm]

There are members who I believe appear to spend a lot of time online discussing homosexuality, though more in terms of politics these days from what I see than "evils of..." though that gets thrown in.

But this is very different than what is going on in the wards .I am in or visit or hear about and I suspect the percentage of members who spend time online criticizing whatever related to the LGBT community that bothers them is rather small in comparison to members doing genealogy, service projects, missionary work, etc.

If one is looking out for such discussions or focusing on them, it can often appear more pervasive than it is in reality.

Edited August 10, 2019 by Calm

[sunstoned]

11 hours ago, Ahab said:

In the Church, yes, the leaders of the Church are the leaders of the Church organization and they are the ones who set the standards of what is right and what is wrong.

in ANY and EVERY organization there are leaders and then there are just the rank and file members of that organization who are not part of the leadership.   Furthermore it is the leaders of ANY and EVERY organization who are the ones who set the tone in that organization by setting/accepting any proposed standards which they feel are the standards they want to uphold.  In the Church, for example, we have 3 persons who are God who are our ultimate leaders and then we have some other guys and gals who those 3 appoint and ordain to leadership positions in the Church, while every other person in it is just a rank and file member in it.  Even though they can be and often are leaders in other organizations, such as their own families or perhaps some other government. And FURTHERMORE in any organization any member or even any leader is free to leave that organization or just whine and complain if the standards they want to see upheld are not the standards the leaders want to set and sustain.

Even if you don't accept the fact that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is God's government body on this planet you should still be able to see that it is an organization that functions like any other in regards to the leaders being the ones who set the standards, and if you don't want to be part of it that is up to you.  You are free to join and you are also free to leave or remain apart from it if that is what you want. 

Just understand and remember that regular rank and file members of any organization is not part of the leadership in that organization, or even if you were to become a leader in it you still may just not be high enough up in the leadership structure to be one of the leaders who sets the standards.

The leadership in the Church has known for years and years that not everyone is willing to become just a rank and file member of it and yes they are okay with that fact, or at least not so concerned that they want to make sure that everyone gets to become an ultimate leader.

 

It sounds like you are an advocate of the old school thought of "when the prophet speaks, the thinking is done".  Trouble is we have ample evidence that prophets make mistakes.  Big mistakes. Like when Nelson said the policy of exclusion was a revelation, and then had had Dallin Oaks walk it back a few years later.  I'm all for allowing people to misstep, but he couldn't even stand up and admit he made a mistake. He had is subordinate to it. That is not the kind of people I want to set the standards of me. The bar I set for myself is higher.   I am not alone.  This binary thinking does not fly with millennials either.

 

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Ahab said:

Sheesh, okay, I seem to be on a roll here.  Sorry if I was wrong for thinking that the reason you are talking about how the Church should change its stand regarding gays because its stand could make some people leave or not join the Church when they don't agree with the stand the Church takes is because you are or were or might be interested in joining the Church if the Church would just change its stand.

You have said some things regarding the Church's stand on the "gay" issue and I thought it was because it affected you in some way personally.  I do have you on record for saying some things about the stand the Church takes and how you think that keeps some people away:

Looks like maybe you have no problem at all with the stand the Church takes.  Which begs the question, why aren't you joining the Church now, boy?

WTH?

Ahab, it's been a long time since you've posted, hopefully you're not starting off on the wrong foot. Why would he want to go back to the church that caused him a lot of grief? Don't mean to speak for him, it's my own take. Why do others think the church is the best answer. Maybe God doesn't think so, maybe there are other places other than the COJCOLDS, which doesn't mean it is Jesus' church, the verdict is still out. 

[Calm]

22 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Ahab, it's been a long time since you've posted, hopefully you're not starting off on the wrong foot.

It doesn't seem so long since he posted he would have completely spaced on longtime frequent posters' backgrounds, especially those who have shared many details multiple times when asked as CB has.  It has been a strange conversation.

Edited August 10, 2019 by Calm

[california boy]

8 hours ago, NobodyKnowsMe said:

What is so very "wrong" (I don't believe it to be wrong, but for the sake of argument..) with an individual child of God, with a spark of divinity within them, seeking divine guidance (whatever that may look like for them) about their personal situation if they happen to be gay?  Isn't that how it is supposed to work?  If you read Joseph's writings, -- not just the ones in the sunday school manuals that they want us to read, but the many other books and sources out there that have published ALL of his writings and ideas (and there are a wide variety of topics he introduced that people could not handle, which I suspect would be the same case today) -- if you read them you will learn that back in his day, yes, he gave proclamations and revelations but he did NOT dictate every facet of people's lives as happens today -- what we can wear, what kind of music and movies we can listen to/watch, what we should and shouldn't do on Sunday, how we should be in business transactions, how we should keep our homes... the list goes on and on.  We are "commanded in all things," despite the admonition of the Lord that it is "not meet that [he] should command in all things" -- I fear our people are so insecure that they practically BEG to be told what to do in just about every circumstance.  That is not healthy, and it places way too much dependence on every word uttered by the brethren -- which Brigham Young specifically warned against.  Back to my point -- if a child of our Father happens to find attraction to the same gender -- and, moreso, if that attraction leads to love, who are we to go around shoving in their face that it is "evil," "abomination," "wicked," "disgusting," "awful," "terrible," "sick," "you are broken and need fixing," -- do we REALLY think that shoving these things in people's faces will make them want to be a part of the church?  Seriously?!?  Furthermore, how do any of us KNOW what God has in store for such people?  Do we put God in such a BOX that we make the judgment for him, on earth, with our extremely limited understanding of everything?  Can we know what is in a person's heart?  Can we know what they have been through?  Can we know of their love of their Father?  So because someone has a same-sex partner and is intimate with that person whom they love, we condemn them to hell and throw them on a spiritual junkpile of "the lost?"  What an awful commentary on the supposed "Church of Christ."  I would bet a million dollars that if people were forced to write all of their sins and mistakes on a large poster board and then, one by one, get up in front of their ward and have everybody look at it, it would be a lesson in humility that many people could use.  Because there is a LOT of hypocrisy in the church.  TONS.  And yet it's somehow always "the gays" that get the firing squad of shame and accusation thrown at them.  The God I believe in loves these people.  He yearns for them.  And yes, he speaks to them.  He understands them.  And he doesn't cast the first stone -- the members of the church do -- despite the admonition, "He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone."

First, welcome to the board.  We can't give you rep points until you have 25 posts.  But I just wanted to say, I believe there is a lot of truth in what you are saying.  

[california boy]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The idea that church members use “the gays” as firing squad targets throwing barbs at them all day in church suggests to me that you either do not attend our church or go to a very strange ward. For people who are ALWAYS flinging barbs we seem pretty lazy about it. I can think of twice in the last year I heard someone talk about homosexuality in an official church meeting. One was as part of a testimony and was very confusing but was definitely not condemning and a mention in a Bishopric meeting that was incidental to explain why someone was single and again, no one condemned.

I am guessing you are judging the flavor of the church by what you read on the Internet because according to many of our critics we are frothing at the mouth about the evil gay menace. They imagine we whip up hysteria with imagined fears that “they” will sodomize us all or whatever they think drives this malicious glee with which we imagine our neighbors burning in hell for their horrible sins. I must be a heretic. I went out to eat with a gay friend at lunch today and not once did I savor the thought of him roasting in hell or basking in my obvious moral superiority. Instead we had some laughs, talked about a work project, talked about my pets (he is thinking of getting a pair of gliders), and divvied up what we would each cover in the training class we are giving for some of our German colleagues later this month. Am I doing my religion wrong?

Perhaps "the gays" as firing squad targets is a bit of hyperbole, but so is "imagine we whip up hysteria with imagined fears that “they” will sodomize us all".  I do think that gay issues are a flash point for the Church.  Many would see some policies the Church has as being instituted specifically to discourage gay couples and their families from participating in the Church.  And while I don't attend often, I do sometimes attend when invited.  Last time I went, gay issues were brought up twice and in 2 different meetings. It can very easily feel like a target is put upon the LGBT community by the Church.

You see gay issues being brought up constantly on this board like whack-a-moles.  As soon as one is finished or shut down, another one appears.  While I feel a lot of posters are quite civil in these discussions there is a lot of pretty harsh things said in these threads.  Some here will post any survey or study no matter what the source or credibility to diminish the LGBT community.  Assumptions are often made in the worse possible light.  Some are sure the Second Coming is just around the corner because gays are no longer denied their civil rights.  I could probably pull out pretty anti gay remarks made in every one of these threads.  But to be fair, I would also have to pull out every positive and encouraging comment towards the LGBT community.

While you seem to be quite civil and open minded about LGBT issues, you and I both know that is not a universal feeling amongst members of the Church.  Like most large organizations, there is a wide gamut of feelings about this issue.  The extreme opinions and policies of the Church and it's members always get the most press and many people form beliefs on those extreme opinions.  But I also know that not everyone feels that way.  Some here seem to actually be ok with me expressing my point of view.  

If me and my partner started attending a Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ward, our attending would not be a neutral event just like any other couple that might start attending.  The truth probably lies somewhere in-between the post you quoted and your own.  Maybe there are some members that wish being gay wasn't such a huge issue with the Church.

[NobodyKnowsMe]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The idea that church members use “the gays” as firing squad targets throwing barbs at them all day in church suggests to me that you either do not attend our church or go to a very strange ward. For people who are ALWAYS flinging barbs we seem pretty lazy about it. I can think of twice in the last year I heard someone talk about homosexuality in an official church meeting. One was as part of a testimony and was very confusing but was definitely not condemning and a mention in a Bishopric meeting that was incidental to explain why someone was single and again, no one condemned.

I am guessing you are judging the flavor of the church by what you read on the Internet because according to many of our critics we are frothing at the mouth about the evil gay menace. They imagine we whip up hysteria with imagined fears that “they” will sodomize us all or whatever they think drives this malicious glee with which we imagine our neighbors burning in hell for their horrible sins. I must be a heretic. I went out to eat with a gay friend at lunch today and not once did I savor the thought of him roasting in hell or basking in my obvious moral superiority. Instead we had some laughs, talked about a work project, talked about my pets (he is thinking of getting a pair of gliders), and divvied up what we would each cover in the training class we are giving for some of our German colleagues later this month. Am I doing my religion wrong?

For the record, I have belonged to a variety of wards over the years, both in Utah and on the east coast.  Some affluent, some poor.  Some with more "liberal" attitudes, and some with clusters of die-hard Ezra Taft Benson-era conservatives.  In some wards I felt like my opinions were welcomed, and others where I frequently got up and walked out of lessons because of the judgements being thrown around.  
Here's a few things I know regarding this issue:
1.  I have seen a mixture of attitudes towards our gay brothers and sisters.  Not surprisingly I have found that when a member has a loved one who is gay (son, daughter, parent, dear friend) it tends to change everything for them.  They have an "awakening" of sorts regarding the issue ... I know several members who were once the most stalwart Peter Priesthood/Molly Mormon types, that upon the inception of the November 2015 policy (gays are apostate/children can't be baptized/etc) became IRATE that the church would start such a policy.  One of these people has a gay brother and because of the church's attitude towards gay folks he has significantly drifted.  He believes (as do I, for the record) that it is utterly unfair for a religion to demand that a person forego all opportunity for love, family, companionship, and tenderness for their entire life and live a life that is alone and lonely and celibate.  If celibacy was demanded of straight people the church would lose 99% of its members within a week.  IMO, the church was probably surprised to realize that when it came right down to it, many people were not siding with the church; they were siding with their loved one.  (They shouldn't have to "choose" in the first place, but that is what it is I suppose.)  -- on the other hand, I am also a member of several groups of older adults who give of their time and resources to help LGBT youth and young adults (mostly in Utah) who have been abandoned by their families -- in the name of God, naturally -- because they are gay.  The devastation is excruciating.  Parents literally throwing their children out of their lives -- and hearts -- because of this.  It makes me SICK.  Such people's temple recommends should be cancelled IMMEDIATELY and they should face a disciplinary council.  And no, it's not just one kid every now and again.  It's more than you would think.  
2.  The above-referenced policy was stated by Nelson to be "the mind and will of the Lord as revealed to President Monson." -- Monson, who, oddly, never spoke one word about it himself.  I know he had dementia at the end, but if he was "with it" enough to supposedly receive this major "revelation" shouldn't he have been the one to declare it as such?  HE was the revelator to the church at that time, not Nelson.  But then, about 3 years later, the policy was just simply dropped.  I'm sorry, but God does not change his mind after 3 years.  If this was "the will of God" then, it is now.  Or, it wasn't then, it was just the church freaking the F out because marriage equality became the law of the land in the U.S. and they didn't know how to handle it.  Personally, I never believed it was of God.
3.  Marriage equality has been the law of the land in a great many countries for decades now -- particularly in Europe, as well as Australia, etc., and most recently in Canada.  We heard hardly nothing from the church about any of these countries.  No (or very little) fighting against it, etc.  But when it happened here in the U.S. you might have thought Armageddon was happening.  From what I know from people who are relatives of G.A.'s, emails were bouncing all around, and there was a frenzy of meetings and "what do we do?" kind of talk.  I wonder why.  Why the U.S.?  The church has a viable presence in many other countries.  I mean, let's not beat around the bush here -- the whole freaking out bit ultimately boils down to them being absolutely terrified that someday there will be some lawsuit that will force them to perform gay marriages in the temples (which will NEVER happen,) or not allow them to prevent gay students at BYU from marrying and being intimate with their loved one, or some other such things.  Let's not pretend that's not what this is all about -- fear.  
4.  Whenever I know in advance there is going to be a lesson about "families," I do not attend that class.  I am tired of the fear-mongering rhetoric.  The fact that the gay couple down the street can now get married does NOT, in any way, reduce the sanctity of your straight marriage.  Gay people are not "attacking" heterosexual marriages, and forcing them to marry someone of the same sex.  The only way "the family is under attack" is when (largely conservative) organizations try to prevent families from being formed that do not look like --father/mother/2.4 kids/dog/house with white picket fence--  There are all kinds of families and they should be respected and not called "counterfeit." (L. Tom Perry)  That is disrespectful and unkind.  And I think it is sad when ward members simply repeat the rhetoric without really thinking much about it themselves.  Right after marriage equality became law, for the first couple months in the ward I was in, I dreaded F&T meeting because about every other testimony used words and phrases like "legalizing evil," "victory for Satan," "the attack on the family," "our country is going down the drain," and other such phrases.  After about 3 weeks of this I just stopped attending for a while.  I go to church to commune with God and be uplifted, not hear people spouting off about how horrible it is that two people who love each other who happen to be of the same gender can legally form a union.  More than once I got up and walked out of a SS or EQ lesson because of snide remarks -- that's what I mean when I said hearing it at church.  No, not so much anymore, I guess people have mostly accepted it, but at the time it revealed a lot of homophobia that members have.  Honestly it made me sick.