Scott Lloyd Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 (edited) 18 minutes ago, smac97 said: Per chapter 6 of John, the Lord's "Bread of Life" sermon was socially/politically/religiously unpalatable to many of his followers, such that many of them, having heard the words of Jesus Christ Himself, "went back, and walked no more with him." I wonder if we are seeing a similar phenomenon in today's Church. But instead of the "Bread of Life" sermon, we have the Church's teachings about the Law of Chastity as being socially/politically/religiously unpalatable to some. I am saddened by that, and I hope at least some of them will return. I think that will happen to some extent. Thanks, -Smac It saddens me as well, but at the same time it makes me yet more determined to hold fast to the pure doctrine given by the Savior and delivered through revelation to prophets and apostles. It is clearer than ever that “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” was intended to prepare us for this day. That’s a nearly perfect analogy, by the way, one I’m going to remember. It may happen at some future time that the Lord asks us, “Will you also go away?” I intend to respond, like Peter, “Lord, to whom should we go? Thou hast the bread of life.” Edited February 24, 2020 by Scott Lloyd 2
hope_for_things Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 2 minutes ago, ALarson said: I think we may see that on both sides. If you read on some of the other Mormon forums, many are doubting the inspiration of our leaders regarding this most recent change and even wondering if we are being led by false Prophets. Some are wondering if they can remain active and supportive if these displays of affection between gay students are going to be allowed. That may very well be the "sifting" effect that will take place. I'm grateful for those who advocate for change all along the spectrum. History clearly shows that people advocating for change have influenced the church, both internally and externally. I just hope at the end of the day that the church becomes better for all of it. More loving, more transparent, more sensitive, more fair, more like the gospel principles that inspire us on a personal level. 1
smac97 Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 1 minute ago, ALarson said: I think we may see that on both sides. If you read on some of the other Mormon forums, many are doubting the inspiration of our leaders regarding this most recent change and even wondering if we are being led by false Prophets. Yes, the sifting will happen on both sides. 1 minute ago, ALarson said: Some are wondering if they can remain active and supportive if these displays of affection between gay students are going to be allowed. That may very well be the "sifting" effect that will take place. As you said, there will be sifting both sides. I subscribe to the position that the Church and its leaders, collectively, will not be led astray. I believe in the prophecy found in Daniel 2 and in how it has been interpreted. I agree with Wilford Woodruff that "{t}he Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God." I also agree with this statement attributed to Joseph Smith: "I will give you a key that will never rust; if you will stay with the majority of the twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray." (This last link is an excellent blog entry by Matthew Roper. Definitely with a read.) This leaves plenty of room for the leaders to make mistakes. When they do, Mormon 9:31 is usually sufficient for me. The Church is, in my view, overwhelmingly good. I love it a lot. Thanks, -Smac
stemelbow Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 29 minutes ago, smac97 said: It's not "just believe." Read Alma 32. Study. Exercise faith. Ponder. Pray. Ask questions. Seek answers. Be humble. Belief is a process. It's not an all-or-nothing, either-you-have-it-or-you-don't kind of thing. No. Option 1 and Option 2 are both predicated on a conclusion of disbelief. That the Church's claims are not true. I haven't said this. I cannot imagine why you see the need to misrepresent what I am saying. Over and over and over. Yes. The conclusion of disbelief has already been reached in Options 1 and 2. The choice has been made. No, I'm not. Option 1 is based on a choice of disbelief. Option 3 is a choice to believe (or, if you are going to be persnickety, to attempt to believe). Thanks, -Smac the conclusion is drawn after attempt to believe was already done. People have already attempted to believe and were convicted belief is not an option. That's when they face the fateful decision of lie or leave.
ALarson Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said: I'm grateful for those who advocate for change all along the spectrum. History clearly shows that people advocating for change have influenced the church, both internally and externally. I just hope at the end of the day that the church becomes better for all of it. More loving, more transparent, more sensitive, more fair, more like the gospel principles that inspire us on a personal level. I completely agree.....great post 👍 1
MustardSeed Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 5 minutes ago, ALarson said: I think we may see that on both sides. If you read on some of the other Mormon forums, many are doubting the inspiration of our leaders regarding this most recent change and even wondering if we are being led by false Prophets. Some are wondering if they can remain active and supportive if these displays of affection between gay students are going to be allowed. That may very well be the "sifting" effect that will take place. 20 years ago I watched a documentary that opened my eyes to the concerns of LGB members of the church. I told my husband then, that I believed this issue would be the single most challenging issue our membership would face in the near future and that it would force folks to make hard decisions. He thought I was nuts, but I’m pleased to announce that I won that day. 😕 It’s an easy choice for me because I frankly find the people I personally know who take a hard stance against inclusiveness to Coincidentally be people I generally am not fond of anyway. I make my decisions based on what I believe God sees fit for me. I personally believe this is one of those many many things that has been influenced by mans own aversions. I understand that, I accept it, but I’m not part of it. I do my best for now to stay connected to the Gospel I love in spite of this, and other, IMO, hangup(s). 2
smac97 Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 5 minutes ago, stemelbow said: the conclusion is drawn after attempt to believe was already done. And that conclusion - that choice - is set in stone? Immutable? Irreversible? 5 minutes ago, stemelbow said: People have already attempted to believe and were convicted belief is not an option. That's when they face the fateful decision of lie or leave. I assume you meant "convinced," not "convicted." And again, is being "convinced" of a proposition at a certain point in time thereafter permanent? Or can a person re-visit it? If so, then doesn't that person have . . . a choice? Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted February 24, 2020 Author Posted February 24, 2020 (edited) 19 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: It’s an easy choice for me..... I am not sure we should be comfortable with easy choices in the Gospel. For me a lot depends on how one defines inclusiveness. It seems strange to me to promote inclusiveness as an important ideal and then talk about people one is not fond of as if that should matter in an inclusive environment. It seems contradictory. Edited February 24, 2020 by Calm 3
stemelbow Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 7 minutes ago, smac97 said: And that conclusion - that choice - is set in stone? Immutable? Irreversible? I assume you meant "convinced," not "convicted." And again, is being "convinced" of a proposition at a certain point in time thereafter permanent? Or can a person re-visit it? If so, then doesn't that person have . . . a choice? Thanks, -Smac One who has already attempted to believe and had a conviction that it is not true, can either lie and stick around or leave. But, of course, no one ever said either one of those is the end of his/her journey. Anyone can leave and at some point feel conviction that the Church is true, again. One can stay not-believing, pretending otherwise, and at some point get conviction that the Church is true. But, as I see, it's no viable option to say one who is already had a conviction that the Church is not true and has already attempted to believe, to say he can suspend his conviction and attempt to believe. He has already done that to death.
smac97 Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 Just now, stemelbow said: One who has already attempted to believe and had a conviction that it is not true, can either lie and stick around or leave. Or reconsider and persevere. Are you saying this isn't possible? Just now, stemelbow said: But, of course, no one ever said either one of those is the end of his/her journey. Anyone can leave and at some point feel conviction that the Church is true, again. Then "Option 3" is on the table. That's my point. Just now, stemelbow said: One can stay not-believing, pretending otherwise, and at some point get conviction that the Church is true. I suppose this can happen. Just now, stemelbow said: But, as I see, it's no viable option to say one who is already had a conviction that the Church is not true and has already attempted to believe, to say he can suspend his conviction and attempt to believe. He has already done that to death. You just said that a person can reach "a conviction that it is not true" is "{not} the end of his/her journey," and that the person can "at somepoint feel conviction that the Church is true, again." Now, however, you are saying that this is not a "viable option." I don't understand your position. Thanks, -Smac
Daniel2 Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 (edited) On 2/19/2020 at 5:13 PM, Scott Lloyd said: I saw the Deseret News story on this. Nothing is really changed, practically speaking. Hmmm. Peppermint Patty's post on Page 9 (as well as the CNN article quoting Affirmation's President's similar experience) demonstrates how short the shelf life was on Scott's post above. And the countdown clock that started a few years back keeps advancing... Posted Saturday at 10:30 AM With all of the conflicting opinions on here and elsewhere, yesterday I called the Honor Code Office at 801-422-2847 and asked a nice lady named Kim if it was now okay for gay people to hold hands, kiss and date on and off campus. Kim told me the Honor Code Office has been flooded with questions about this and BYU’s position is that same sex kissing, holding hands and dating are not in violation of the Honor Code. If anyone is still confused about what this means then please call the Honor Code Office yourself at 801-422-2847. This should provide some clarity to all of the confusion surrounding this issue. Edited February 24, 2020 by Daniel2
Daniel2 Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 (edited) On 2/22/2020 at 2:26 PM, blueglass said: Big change to go from the 14-Nov 1991 first presidency letter which clearly prohibited "any homosexual behavior" to now condoning some homosexual behavior (embracing, kissing, dating) as not sinful and even chaste and not an ecclesiastical endorsement red flag. Before the church made clear distinctions between attraction, thoughts and feelings vs behavior. I think this will result in greater happiness and mental health for thousands of lgbtq members of the church. Equalizing what was only permitted in a handful of progressive wards and stakes in portland, SF, boston, or nyc to finally church-wide permitting gay couples to express physical affection and attend church without scorn and ridicule or risk of expulsion or disciplinary action. The church also has clearly walked back the 14-Nov 1991 push for reparative therapy when it said that "thoughts and feelings, regardless of their causes, can and should be overcome". Well said, Blueglass. Big changes, indeed. Line upon line... Kudos to BYU and Church leadership. As a BYU alumnus, I welcome the changes! Edited February 24, 2020 by Daniel2
Daniel2 Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 On 2/22/2020 at 8:38 PM, katherine the great said: I have a hard time understanding why our gay kids would WANT to attend BYU. What is the attraction? Are there any programs at BYU that are really superior to those of other schools? If they like Provo, or their friends are in Provo, I would think they would be better off at UVU. Seriously. The kid isn't going to stop being gay and the church is never going to fully accept him/her unless they choose a life time of celibacy. IMHO, I think their chances for happiness are much greater if they just avoid BYU schools altogether. As adults with a few more years of life experience under our belts, I think it's easy for us to see that BYU may not be the best place for openly gay youth open to non-sexual dating with other members of their same gender. While easy for us to say, for a youth raised in the church, BYU may be something they've looked forward to their entire lives. That was certainly the case for me. I never even considered that I'd attend anywhere else; in retrospect, I may have done better elsewhere, but it was all I'd ever known. As was a mission. As was temple marriage. It requires a certain level of self-awareness to challenge the cultural conditioning one has adopted over one's entire childhood and youth; while some people are capable of doing so, not everyone has arisen to that level of insight and maturity by the time they reach college. 1
rockpond Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I oppose agitation and demands for change. It just doesn't work in the Church of Jesus Christ. My comments weren't about anyone agitating for and/or demanding change. Please don't try to change the context. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I think I'm probably more "accepting" of fornication as a "fact of life" than my parents were in their day. But that doesn't mean I expect the Church to change its doctrines about it. Accepting that fornication is a fact of life is a completely different category than celebrating the fact that your gay classmates can choose to live in way that may be better for their well being. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: I dunno. I don't see faithful members conditioning their participation in the Church on the Church hopping to and recognizing same-sex marriage. Some may. I don't know. But that has nothing to do with my comments. 1 hour ago, smac97 said: To be sure, there is a "sifting" effect that will take place in the twenty years you mention above. Those members with a my-way-or-the-highway mentality about the Church will not have the longevity. They will either repent of any sinful desire to replace the Lord's will with their own, or else they will exit the Church. Indeed, aren't we already seeing this? Look at Kate Kelly and Sam Young. Look at the people who are leaving the Church over this. Thanks, -Smac You either didn't understand my comments at all or you just decided to try to make it seem like I said something entirely different.
rockpond Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: That seemed to be the rhetorical point you were making, or that other young people with identical views to theirs would be the ones leading the Church. This is correct. Not 100% of the leaders. But some similar to those who applauded in that BYU classroom, certainly.
rockpond Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: To this, I would repeat the point I made earlier: that the Savior doesn’t govern His Church by popular referendum. I believe that to be one of the implications of the “strait is the gate and narrow is the way” doctrine. I didn't suggest that He does or would. 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: It’s possible, I suppose, that 80 percent of the membership of the Church would embrace any manner of false doctrine. I don’t see such a thing, no matter the scope or magnitude, ever pressuring the great God to alter the doctrines of the Kingdom. It's only false doctrine until it no longer is. We've been through this before.
Daniel2 Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 On 2/23/2020 at 9:23 AM, ALarson said: Here is a video of a BYU professor explaining the change to his class after speaking to the Honor Code Office. The class applauds at one point and he also goes on to explain that now anyone who is not respectful (when they see gays dating, holding hands or kissing on campus), can be reported to the BYU Honor Code Office for not being respectful . It's interesting to listen to. Wow. The professor used phrases like, "if you are an ally," and "my LGBT friends," and mentioned he's been praying for these changes. This professor and his students' applause show the beginnings of the same feelings leading up to "the long promised day" scenario described by many Latter-day Saints who hoped, prayed, and looked forward to the time when members of African-American decent were finally afforded the full blessings of membership in the LDS Faith.
smac97 Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 Just now, rockpond said: My comments weren't about anyone agitating for and/or demanding change. Please don't try to change the context. Wasn't trying to. Just now, rockpond said: Accepting that fornication is a fact of life is a completely different category than celebrating the fact that your gay classmates can choose to live in way that may be better for their well being. Actually, it's not. I wouldn't celebrate someone in an unhappy marriage committing adultery, or a deeply-in-love-but-unmarried couple committing fornication. I just can't get on board with "celebrating" that which has been plainly prohibited by God. Just now, rockpond said: Quote Quote Definitely true. But for the sake of discussion (noting that I have zero data to support this), let's say that in twenty years, 80% of the active 30-somethings in the church are of the mindset that they would want gay married couples to participate in full fellowship in the church. It's gonna get tough for a stake president to fill all the leadership positions in his stake with only those in the other 20%. I dunno. I don't see faithful members conditioning their participation in the Church on the Church hopping to and recognizing same-sex marriage. Some may. I don't know. But that has nothing to do with my comments. Hmm. It seems like you were heading that way. I stand corrected. Just now, rockpond said: Quote To be sure, there is a "sifting" effect that will take place in the twenty years you mention above. Those members with a my-way-or-the-highway mentality about the Church will not have the longevity. They will either repent of any sinful desire to replace the Lord's will with their own, or else they will exit the Church. Indeed, aren't we already seeing this? Look at Kate Kelly and Sam Young. Look at the people who are leaving the Church over this. You either didn't understand my comments at all or you just decided to try to make it seem like I said something entirely different. The former, I guess. I took your remarks as a suggestion that the Church will struggle to fulfill callings because so many members will be opposed to the Church's stance on same-sex relations/marriage. That "80%" will fall into this category, and that "{i}t's gonna get tough for a stake president to fill all the leadership positions in his stake with only those in the other 20%." I guess I read you wrong. -Smac
rockpond Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 2 minutes ago, smac97 said: I just can't get on board with "celebrating" that which has been plainly prohibited by God. Fair enough. But if it is plainly prohibited by God, why would the Brethren allow for it at BYU? 1
CV75 Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 On 2/22/2020 at 3:25 PM, ALarson said: I acknowledge that within this same lesson, it states that "homosexual behavior" is a serious sin. But what exactly is "homosexual behavior"? Dating? Holding hands with the same sex in a romantic manner? Kissing? I would hope this would be a conversation and understanding arrived at between the member the Lord and/or his parents/bishop if there exists some mortal confusion on what constitutes sexual behavior between two people. But in my mind it depends, and always did depend, on how much physical involvement the reproductive organs have in the sexual activity or exchange. There are also two levels to consider as with other commandments (e.g. killing and anger, adultery and lust, "anything like unto it", etc.). We answer to the community for some sins, we answer to God for all of them, including those we commit in our heart and mind. We can always ask someone else to help deal with either.
smac97 Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 4 minutes ago, rockpond said: Fair enough. But if it is plainly prohibited by God, why would the Brethren allow for it at BYU? Well, I'm not sure that this has happened. It may be that the Brethren are shifting oversight of this issue from the Honor Code Office to the bishops. And it may be that the Brethren are willing to allow same-sex dating, handholding, etc. (which they may feel is not sufficient to contravene the Law of Chastity). I would be surprised at that, but we'll see. Thanks, -Smac
kllindley Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 2 hours ago, rockpond said: How does my zeal for those who want to act on their same gender attraction (while remaining members in good standing, or BYU students) marginalize, judge, or reject you? Sincere question. I have great respect for the decisions you’ve made for your life and that you live in a way wholly consisten with your faith and testimony. Can I not also be happy for those who feel spiritually guided to take a different path? 2 hours ago, ALarson said: Exactly. I'm a bit puzzled by kllindley's post, but definitely want to hear how he feels regarding your questions. I have expressed numerous times how much I respect kllindley and I always love to hear his input and perspective on this topic. As I said, I believe you don't mean to, and don't want to. I know that you both have expressed respect for my life decisions in the past. And I appreciate that. I am sorry I did not adequately communicate that in my initial post. I also know that we've had this discussion before. I've expressed that for me and many of my close friends in similar situations, members hoping for same-sex marriage to be accepted by the Church feels like a dismissal of our choices and experiences, because without the clear teaching and doctrine, we likely would not have had adequate information to make the same choices. Although, I can now look at the consequences of my actions and believe that I would make the same choices again, at the time I made those choices, I was acting on faith. Without those teachings, what reason would I have had for acting in faith? I've heard some people propose generic "personal revelation." That doesn't seem adequate for me. With that perspective, why teach any standards or doctrine at all. I can see any number of analogous situations: Why not quit teaching the Word of Wisdom? Just let members decide for themselves what substances to use and not use. I know plenty of moral coffee drinkers, smokers, chewers, and people who consume alcohol responsibly. Why not quit teaching in the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Let members decide for themselves whether they want to believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God and Savior of the World, or if he was just a man, or even a non-historical fictional character. I understand that you don't see things the same way. You genuinely want to be able to celebrate everyone and believe that it is possible. I am not trying to change your minds or contend with your spiritual experiences. I truly don't mean for my expression of the feelings your position/comments evoke in me to be used as a club to silence you or change your beliefs. I just believe that is important for you and others to have an accurate view of the impact those positions and comments have on others. 4
CV75 Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 22 minutes ago, Daniel2 said: As adults with a few more years of life experience under our belts, I think it's easy for us to see that BYU may not be the best place for openly gay youth open to non-sexual dating with other members of their same gender. This shows the wonderful principle that non-sexual activity carried out by sexual beings is possible(!), which I think both the honor code and law of chastity support. For those concerned about passions getting out of control (not saying that everyone is), group dating is a safe practice.
Daniel2 Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 (edited) 23 hours ago, SteveO said: Right, you think the church is just another social institution that needs some policy updating. It’s ironic that everyone pushing for these changes, are the same ones who are downplaying the role of active revelation today. You’d take away one of the main aspects of what makes the church unique. Which makes it increasingly obvious to me, you guys are on the wrong side of the issue. If gay marriage is the will of the Lord, I’ll figure out a way to work with it. But if gay marriage is allowed only because it has come to be “absurd that any mortal has some direct line to the divine will of a Supreme Being”...then what’s the point of continuing on in this endeavor? I imagine Brigham Young and the church members he governed would likely have felt the same way as you do, above, about others who ultimately hoped for, predicted, and ultimately foresaw allowing black members to receive the priesthood, the endowments, and marriages between members of mixed races. Perhaps even more strongly than you did, given many of Young's more fiery condemnations on the subject. Clearly you could substitute "interracial" for "gay" in your words and it would likely have mirrored many of their own thoughts for those that previously believed that interracial marriage was tantamount to immediate spiritual death. Edited February 25, 2020 by Daniel2
MiserereNobis Posted February 24, 2020 Posted February 24, 2020 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Per chapter 6 of John, the Lord's "Bread of Life" sermon was socially/politically/religiously unpalatable to many of his followers, such that many of them, having heard the words of Jesus Christ Himself, "went back, and walked no more with him." Just a Catholic trivia side note, the Catholic interpretation of that verse is that He was speaking of transubstantiation, that He literally meant He is the Bread of Life, and that such a doctrine (that the bread becomes the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ) was scandalous to those who heard it. Carry on!
Recommended Posts