Addressing lgbtq+ prior to coming out

[AtlanticMike]

2 hours ago, Jamie said:

I like it when people communicate with words to say what they want.  It doesn't mean they will get what they want but at least they are expressing what it is that they want.  

Hi😁

[poptart]

1 hour ago, AtlanticMike said:

Thank you for the post. I don't want to talk about smac anymore, I would just say, go back and read his post from years and years ago, that's just how he communicates. I learn a lot from his post just like I do from some of the more Progressive people on the board. 

   I'm sorry your experiences with the church were excruciatingly painful with the church. It hurts my heart to know you had a tuff time with the church. I want to share with you what I have told my daughter to help her but let me first say I understand that I don't begin to know your pain or what your experiences were, I'm just sharing what I've told my daughter incase just a small part of what I say might help you or bring you some comfort. First, your relationship with Christ is the only thing that matters if you're looking for true happiness. A bishop, stake president, or even a dad can't get in between you and Christ. That is the gospel! Also, everything you need to be happy is already inside you, your complete just like you are, your not broken. Also, you control your thoughts, they DO NOT control you. 

   Alright, I'm speculating now but I'm guessing your bad experiences have been because of people judging you. Here's what I tell my daughter, when you think about the people who have hurt you in the past, feel sorry for them! Realize they're scared of the life God has given them and they judge others to ease there own internal pain. Walk around everyday understanding your the master of your own destiny. 

    Anyways, you can probably tell I'm an open book I don't hold back. I apologise if I came across as an A -hole, it's one of my specialties 😁. But, on the flip side, if you ever need an I love you from a stranger, I'm your man, just ask, I'll say it, no problem. I'm weird that way. Peace out!!

You do a great service for the LDS church, if they had more diplomatic people they'd be a lot more popular outside of the mountain west.

[JLHPROF]

12 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

  13 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

I might as well. Though probably for different reasons

Interesting. What reasons would you offer?

I would prefer my child left the Church earlier in this situation.  Preferably before they wear the garment of the holy priesthood, are placed under the covenant of chastity or the marriage covenant.  Even preferably before receiving the Melchizedek priesthood.

I would far rather they choose to leave BEFORE they receive further light and understanding and make agreements they'd be breaking.

Repentance is more possible when less light is being sinned against.

[AtlanticMike]

29 minutes ago, poptart said:

You do a great service for the LDS church, if they had more diplomatic people they'd be a lot more popular outside of the mountain west.

Thank you! Never been called diplomatic, I must be getting soft in my old age😂😂. Just kidding, thanks again.

[carbon dioxide]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

It is ironic that a person born into mortality may be in conflict with the true nature of his per-existence gender may try to correct that gender to match the ore-existence.
 

They get kicked out of the church for doing so. Then when they die, they become the gender they got kicked out of the church for.  Their eternal nature 

I guess that suggests that those who are monitoring which spirits go into which bodies are really screwing up by allowing male spirits into female bodies and female spirits into male bodies.  Perhaps they need to fired.  The scriptures however suggest we get the same gender body in the resurrection. No indication that mankind altered portions will be retained.

Edited May 14, 2021 by carbon dioxide

[smac97]

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

Quote

 

Quote

Quote

these kids need support and assurances from their faith community.

What do those look like? Please provide examples.

The Church's website has quite a bit of stuff. 

 

I didn't ask for the church website.

You asked for examples of "support and assurances" from the "faith community" of Latter-day Saint kids.  I provided a free and readily-accessible resource for such support and assurances.  

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

Already been through that.

So your question was superfluous, then?

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

I'm asking you what support and assurances you provide to LGBTQ+ youth.

You want particulars from me?  Why?

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

Quote

Look at it from another scenario: I am married to a wonderful woman.  If I were to step out on her and date other women, if I were to engage in "hand-holding and the like" with other women, wouldn't it be pretty accurate to say that this is "not compatible with the plan of salvation?"  That such behavior cannot be said to be "harmless?"

You are correct. Such actions would not be compatible with the plan of salvation

I'm glad we can agree on that.

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

(as written today -- won't get started with polygamy).

Polygamy did not affect the substance of the Law of Chastity.  

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

If you were to engage in such actions, I would predict a divorce attorney in your future.

Again, we agree.

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

But, the scenarios are not remotely close to being the same.

Oh, I think they are.

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

If you were to start doing that with other women, that would be your choice,

Just so.  Behavior is a choice.  That is my point.  Obedience to God is a choice.  Constraining sexual behaviors to within the parameters set by God is a choice.

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

and your sin would also be harming your wife along with others involved.

Agreed.  But that doesn't quite go far enough, does it?  It's not like "open marriages" are compatible with the Law of Chastity, right?

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

If a gay couple was married, in a loving relationship, and one of them decided to cheat on the other, then sure, this would apply.

And here is where you go off the rails.  The innovation of same-sex marriage being recognized by the civil laws of various countries has had no effect on the Law of Chastity.  None.  At all.  From the June 2015 message from the First Presidency (and Quorum of the Twelve):

Quote

Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society. His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife. We invite all to review and understand the doctrine contained in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.”

Now, as a point of law, the Church recognizes that civil governments may deem them to be valid.  Polygamous marriages are legal in some places, as are gay marriages.  But then, fornication and adultery are either quite legal, or else are not actionable at law.  And yet none of this matters vis-à-vis the Law of Chastity.

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

But your scenario is not applicable to justifying telling people that their lives are a "dead-end", that they're holding hands is a grievous sin. 

I didn't say these things.  And you are caricaturing what Rongo said.

In any event, my point is that the Law of Chastity is a religious precept.  Those under covenant cannot circumvent the Law of Chastity and the teachings of the Church regarding marriage by claiming their sexual behavior and/or marital relationship is allowed under civil law.  

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

I don't recall Jesus ever saying that, or implying it through conduct.

The woman taken in adultery.  Thoughts?

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

Let's simplify this

Translation: Let's personalize this by you trying to make this thread about me.

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

-- what are LGBTQ+ people to you?

My brothers and sisters.  Children of God.  

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

Not looking for a definition. Don't want a church standard line.

I'm kinda sorta ambivalent about that. 

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

I want your personal take.  What are LGBTQ+ people to smac97?

See above.

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

Stop hiding behind cut and paste.

The "cut and paste" was me quoting . . . me.  So I'm not hiding behind anything.

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

No church doctrine involved. No scriptures quoted. Let's hear a real human answer from YOU.

It's fairly presumptuous to try to tell other people what they can and cannot say.

We are all sinners in one way or another.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[lightparticle]

50 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Thank you for the post. I don't want to talk about smac anymore, I would just say, go back and read his post from years and years ago, that's just how he communicates. I learn a lot from his post just like I do from some of the more Progressive people on the board. 

   I'm sorry your experiences with the church were excruciatingly painful with the church. It hurts my heart to know you had a tuff time with the church. I want to share with you what I have told my daughter to help her but let me first say I understand that I don't begin to know your pain or what your experiences were, I'm just sharing what I've told my daughter incase just a small part of what I say might help you or bring you some comfort. First, your relationship with Christ is the only thing that matters if you're looking for true happiness. A bishop, stake president, or even a dad can't get in between you and Christ. That is the gospel! Also, everything you need to be happy is already inside you, your complete just like you are, your not broken. Also, you control your thoughts, they DO NOT control you. 

   Alright, I'm speculating now but I'm guessing your bad experiences have been because of people judging you. Here's what I tell my daughter, when you think about the people who have hurt you in the past, feel sorry for them! Realize they're scared of the life God has given them and they judge others to ease there own internal pain. Walk around everyday understanding your the master of your own destiny. 

    Anyways, you can probably tell I'm an open book I don't hold back. I apologise if I came across as an A -hole, it's one of my specialties 😁. But, on the flip side, if you ever need an I love you from a stranger, I'm your man, just ask, I'll say it, no problem. I'm weird that way. Peace out!!

Thanks for the kind words. I feel it is only fair to give some background on my situation so you know where I am coming from. I grew up in the church -- as active as they come. Knew from childhood that I was different. Still, I magnified my callings. Went on a mission. Married in the temple. I bargained with God because I felt that I was born with a disadvantage. I knew I didn't choose to be LGBTQ+. Despite all of my bargaining, God didn't "fix" me. I suppressed it for decades, until I couldn't handle it any longer and finally came out. I had been in one ward for over 10 years at that point. Everyone knew our family. After I came out, I was just looking to survive. Several members of the ward opened a social media discussion where many members of the ward took part. It centered on me being extremely evil, apostate, a threat, and supposedly bringing evil spirits into the ward. They were unaware that I was able to read the posts, see the reactions and such. I thought I was friends with these people. Instead of reaching out, they figuratively slapped me in the face. I wanted to stay in the church. I love God and Jesus Christ. I became extremely strong spiritually over the years. Watching a lot of the ward immediately turn on me, while most of the rest just stood by and watched it happen, was extremely difficult. My entire family left activity because of that treatment. We've not been back to church since. This highly abbreviated story is unique in that it is mine. But, the pain and torment is echoed by the stories of so many others.

[smac97]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

First, I think it's probably best to not try to speak for all or most church members. It's not a contest of popularity anyways.

So if someone were to create a caricature, a stereotype, regarding "how members of the church have historically treated LGBTQ+ people," you would find that problematic?  

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Furthermore, good intentions can still produce cruel treatment. 

"Cruel" seems to denote evil motives.

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

Personally, I think it's more principled to not rely on intention alone.

Well, yes.  There is a Latin maxim, used in the law, that I have come to appreciate: "Affectio tua nomen imponit operi tuo" (essentially, "Your motive gives the name to your act").  I think the motive and the act are important.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

Wait -- who said anything about changing anyone? What authority said that your interpretation of the context behind the statement is correct? By that same logic, I could infer that you are calling me dumb.

And I suppose that your request for a "real answer" from me could lead me to infer that you are calling me dishonest.  That my responses have not been "real."

Well?

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

I want to hear a personal, vulnerable, real answer from smac, devoid of proofs, references, quotes, etc. 

Done.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

I'm not sure I follow what you're trying to say here. I asked the question under the assumption that he is willing to answer such a question.

Well, not really.  You are attempting to dictate to me the parameters of how I answer.  That's not the way this board, or even everyday conversation, works.

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

I want him to answer, just as I want you to answer. 

Have done.

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

But, I'm not an interrogator.

Kinda seems like it.

Not that there's much wrong with that.  I was an interrogator in the Army.  My MOS was "97 Echo." My first name is "Spencer," my last name is "Macdonald."  S + Mac + 97 = Smac97!

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

Nobody here is tied to a chair under a bright light. I'm trying to gain some insight.

And here we are, having a discussion.

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

Presupposing ulterior motives to my question doesn't assist understanding at all,

Neither does implicitly accusing me of dishonesty, of not providing "real" answers.

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

which I figured was the goal of this whole discussion.

It is.

Thanks,

-Smac

[lightparticle]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

I'm asking you what support and assurances you provide to LGBTQ+ youth.

You want particulars from me?  Why?

Because you are so insistent that they only come from the church. If that is the case, surely your insistence results in a strong desire to help.

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

(as written today -- won't get started with polygamy).

Polygamy did not affect the substance of the Law of Chastity. 

Do you believe that someone practicing polygamy today would be considered within the law of chastity? I think the church has the opposite view in mind.

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

But, the scenarios are not remotely close to being the same.

Oh, I think they are.

Congratulations? Just because you think they are doesn't mean you're right.

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

If you were to start doing that with other women, that would be your choice,

Just so.  Behavior is a choice.  That is my point.  Obedience to God is a choice.  Constraining sexual behaviors to within the parameters set by God is a choice.

Absolutely. This is where we are failing to connect the discussion. What kind of daily life do you assume that I live just because I'm LGBTQ+? Do you feel that I am living in sin?

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

If a gay couple was married, in a loving relationship, and one of them decided to cheat on the other, then sure, this would apply.

And here is where you go off the rails.  The innovation of same-sex marriage being recognized by the civil laws of various countries has had no effect on the Law of Chastity.  None.  At all.

I've not gone off any rails. If it has no effect on the law of chastity, then why are you fighting against it so adamantly?

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

But your scenario is not applicable to justifying telling people that their lives are a "dead-end", that they're holding hands is a grievous sin. 

I didn't say these things.

No, but you're not denouncing them either.

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

-- what are LGBTQ+ people to you?

My brothers and sisters.  Children of God. 

19 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Translation: Let's personalize this by you trying to make this thread about me.

You proclaim we are your brothers and sisters -- children of God, yet you don't believe it is personal. Is the gospel of Jesus Christ not personal? How do you view this discussion?

 

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Quote

Not looking for a definition. Don't want a church standard line.

I'm kinda sorta ambivalent about that. 

Then we have nothing to discuss, as I can easily look up the same data that you have. You clearly have no interest in hearing what I have to say. Good day, Sir.

[smac97]

4 hours ago, lightparticle said:

Jesus wanted to know what his disciples said that he is, not what the leading rumors of the day were.

Well said.

Quote

The gospel is not a rumor led doctrine.

Quite so.  It's not a popularity contest, either.  It's a set of revealed truths, some of which are easily digestible, whereas others are more difficult to accept.

Quote

It's deeply personal. Invoking loads of extraneous data is impersonal -- machine-like. It fails personal consideration. I don't know smac. I'm not trying to single him out.

Kinda feels like you are.

Quote

Most of the responses today all felt loaded at the ready with prepared references, quotes and such -- like there was no actual consideration of the words being said.

Well, you're quite wrong.  I have given a lot of actual consideration to the words I have said.

Quote

Just immediate reaction. 

Nope.  Not that either.  I actually waited a few days before posting.  And I have been formulating and refining my perspective on these issues for many years.  So my comments are nothing like an "immediate reaction."

Quote

I interpret some of them as loaded with snark and sardonic subtext.

I laid out my thoughts here.  There are times when I am a bit snarky or sardonic, but not there.

Quote

It feels like there's no vulnerability -- no willingness to open up and consider the possibility that LGBTQ+ people are really telling the truth about who they are -- all tell, no listen. 

You are projecting.  A lot. 

You are imputing ill motives.  A lot.

Quote

My personal experiences with other church members were excruciatingly painful. I'm still deeply hurt.

Hence the projecting, then?

Quote

It bothers me when others discount my experiences by saying that my experiences never happened or were not nearly as bad as they were.

I haven't done that.

Quote

You see, it's easy to zoom out and make generalizations of a group as a whole.

Generalizations like "there is a whole lot of truth to how members of the church have historically treated LGBTQ+ people?"

Quote

Both sides are guilty of just such a thing. I likely did it today.

Yeah.

Quote

I don't immediately ascribe ill intentions to such ways of thinking.

It feels that that is pretty much what you are have been doing here.  See, when you ascribe to me a position I do not hold ("you believe that LGBTQ+ people are inherently sinful, just for being who they are (not referring to any actions at all -- just being)"), and then summarily declare that "logic leads us to the only conclusion possible" (your utterly inaccurate and false characterization of my position, above), and when you suggest I am being dishonest or dissembling ("So, let's leave behind the whole 'I'm wearing the armor of God' theatrics behind" and "Let's hear a real human answer from YOU" (emphasis added)), that sounds quite a bit like "ascrib{ing} ill intentions."

You're new here, though.

Quote

We're human. If I did, I apologize. It was not my intent. I know not all church members are grabbing their pitchforks when someone mentions anything LGBTQ+.

Pitchforks?

Quote

I also know that not all LGBTQ+ people are aiming to take down the church.

Sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited May 14, 2021 by smac97

[lightparticle]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

3 hours ago, lightparticle said:

Jesus wanted to know what his disciples said that he is, not what the leading rumors of the day were.

Well said.

Quote

The gospel is not a rumor led doctrine.

Quite so.  It's not a popularity contest, either.  It's a set of revealed truths, some of which are easily digestible, whereas others are more difficult to accept.

Quote

It's deeply personal. Invoking loads of extraneous data is impersonal -- machine-like. It fails personal consideration. I don't know smac. I'm not trying to single him out.

Kinda feels like you are.

Quote

Most of the responses today all felt loaded at the ready with prepared references, quotes and such -- like there was no actual consideration of the words being said.

Well, you're quite wrong.  I have a lot of actual consideration to the words I said.

Quote

Just immediate reaction. 

Nope.  Not that either.  I actually waited a few days before posting.  And I have been formulating and refining my perspective on these issues for many years.  So my comments are nothing like an "immediate reaction."

Quote

I interpret some of them as loaded with snark and sardonic subtext.

I laid out my thoughts here.  There are times when I am a bit snarky or sardonic, but not there.

Quote

It feels like there's no vulnerability -- no willingness to open up and consider the possibility that LGBTQ+ people are really telling the truth about who they are -- all tell, no listen. 

You are projecting.  A lot. 

You are imputing ill motives.  A lot.

Quote

My personal experiences with other church members were excruciatingly painful. I'm still deeply hurt.

Hence the projecting, then?

Quote

It bothers me when others discount my experiences by saying that my experiences never happened or were not nearly as bad as they were.

I haven't done that.

Quote

You see, it's easy to zoom out and make generalizations of a group as a whole.

Generalizations like "there is a whole lot of truth to how members of the church have historically treated LGBTQ+ people?"

Quote

Both sides are guilty of just such a thing. I likely did it today.

Yeah.

Quote

I don't immediately ascribe ill intentions to such ways of thinking.

It feels that that is pretty much what you are have been doing here.  See, when you ascribe to me a position I do not hold ("you believe that LGBTQ+ people are inherently sinful, just for being who they are (not referring to any actions at all -- just being)"), and then summarily declare that "logic leads us to the only conclusion possible" (your utterly inaccurate and false characterization of my position, above), and when you suggest I am being dishonest or dissembling ("So, let's leave behind the whole 'I'm wearing the armor of God' theatrics behind" and "Let's hear a real human answer from YOU" (emphasis added)), that sounds quite a bit like "ascrib{ing} ill intentions."

You're new here, though.

Quote

We're human. If I did, I apologize. It was not my intent. I know not all church members are grabbing their pitchforks when someone mentions anything LGBTQ+.

Pitchforks?

Quote

I also know that not all LGBTQ+ people are aiming to take down the church.

Sure.

Thanks,

-Smac

I said Good Day, Sir.

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Because you are so insistent that they only come from the church.

I am?

19 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Do you believe that someone practicing polygamy today would be considered within the law of chastity?

Probably not.

19 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Congratulations? Just because you think they are doesn't mean you're right.

Hence the value of discussion.  Reasoning.  Argument.  Evidence.

19 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Quote

Just so.  Behavior is a choice.  That is my point.  Obedience to God is a choice.  Constraining sexual behaviors to within the parameters set by God is a choice.

Absolutely. This is where we are failing to connect the discussion.

Or we just disagree.

19 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

What kind of daily life do you assume that I live just because I'm LGBTQ+?

I don't know you.  I didn't know you are "LGBTQ+" until just now.

19 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Do you feel that I am living in sin?

I don't know anything about you.

19 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Quote

And here is where you go off the rails.  The innovation of same-sex marriage being recognized by the civil laws of various countries has had no effect on the Law of Chastity.  None.  At all.

I've not gone off any rails.

Well...

19 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

If it has no effect on the law of chastity, then why are you fighting against it so adamantly?

There are people in the Church who think that the legalization has had an effect on the Law of Chastity.  I disagree with that.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "fighting against it so adamantly."

19 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Quote

I didn't say these things.

No, but you're not denouncing them either.

Ah.  So you are culpable for every statement ever said by anyone else that you have not affirmatively "denounced?"  Is that how this works?

19 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Quote

Quote

Let's simplify this

Translation: Let's personalize this by you trying to make this thread about me.

You proclaim we are your brothers and sisters -- children of God,

I sense a "but" or some such coming down the chute.  Indicative of you wanting to disregard what I actually am saying and replacing it with a hostile and inaccurate caricature of your own invention.  And also indicative of you continuing to try to personalize this thread.

19 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

yet

And there it is!

19 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

you don't believe it is personal.

What are you talking about ehre?

19 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Is the gospel of Jesus Christ not personal? How do you view this discussion?

I don't understand your questions.

19 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Quote

 

Quote

Not looking for a definition. Don't want a church standard line.

I'm kinda sorta ambivalent about that. 

 

Then we have nothing to discuss, as I can easily look up the same data that you have.

Again, I wrote a fairly lengthy and substantive post that summarized my thoughts on this issue.  Here is a link to it (again).  You are under no obligation to respond to it, of course.  But it's simply incorrect to suggest that I am merely repeating "the same data" as is found on the Church's website.

I readily admit that my thinking on this topic is strongly informed by the doctrines of the Church.  You see, I think the Church is an authoritative voice as to matters of sexual ethics.  I have little interest in exchanging uninformed, emotion-driven personal opinions.  I'd rather figure out what "the law" has to say about this.  And what the lawgiver has to say.

19 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

You clearly have no interest in hearing what I have to say.

You are, once again, imputing motives.  

19 minutes ago, lightparticle said:

Good day, Sir.

As you like.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, lightparticle said:

Thanks for the kind words. I feel it is only fair to give some background on my situation so you know where I am coming from. I grew up in the church -- as active as they come. Knew from childhood that I was different. Still, I magnified my callings. Went on a mission. Married in the temple. I bargained with God because I felt that I was born with a disadvantage. I knew I didn't choose to be LGBTQ+. Despite all of my bargaining, God didn't "fix" me. I suppressed it for decades, until I couldn't handle it any longer and finally came out. I had been in one ward for over 10 years at that point. Everyone knew our family. After I came out, I was just looking to survive. Several members of the ward opened a social media discussion where many members of the ward took part. It centered on me being extremely evil, apostate, a threat, and supposedly bringing evil spirits into the ward. They were unaware that I was able to read the posts, see the reactions and such. I thought I was friends with these people. Instead of reaching out, they figuratively slapped me in the face. I wanted to stay in the church. I love God and Jesus Christ. I became extremely strong spiritually over the years. Watching a lot of the ward immediately turn on me, while most of the rest just stood by and watched it happen, was extremely difficult. My entire family left activity because of that treatment. We've not been back to church since. This highly abbreviated story is unique in that it is mine. But, the pain and torment is echoed by the stories of so many others.

I am sorry for the mistreatment you have endured.  Truly.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, lightparticle said:

Thanks for the kind words. I feel it is only fair to give some background on my situation so you know where I am coming from. I grew up in the church -- as active as they come. Knew from childhood that I was different. Still, I magnified my callings. Went on a mission. Married in the temple. I bargained with God because I felt that I was born with a disadvantage. I knew I didn't choose to be LGBTQ+. Despite all of my bargaining, God didn't "fix" me. I suppressed it for decades, until I couldn't handle it any longer and finally came out. I had been in one ward for over 10 years at that point. Everyone knew our family. After I came out, I was just looking to survive. Several members of the ward opened a social media discussion where many members of the ward took part. It centered on me being extremely evil, apostate, a threat, and supposedly bringing evil spirits into the ward. They were unaware that I was able to read the posts, see the reactions and such. I thought I was friends with these people. Instead of reaching out, they figuratively slapped me in the face. I wanted to stay in the church. I love God and Jesus Christ. I became extremely strong spiritually over the years. Watching a lot of the ward immediately turn on me, while most of the rest just stood by and watched it happen, was extremely difficult. My entire family left activity because of that treatment. We've not been back to church since. This highly abbreviated story is unique in that it is mine. But, the pain and torment is echoed by the stories of so many others.

That's disturbing, was hoping things were getting better in the church. My heart goes out to you guys. Did you know Ed Smart, Elizabeth Smart's dad came out? I believe it was last year, kind of similar to your story.

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

It is ironic that a person born into mortality may be in conflict with the true nature of his per-existence gender may try to correct that gender to match the ore-existence.
 

They get kicked out of the church for doing so. Then when they die, they become the gender they got kicked out of the church for.  Their eternal nature 

There it is! There is no conflict between transitioning and the Proclamation. 

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, CV75 said:

That's right. Both sets of beliefs begin with exercising a particle of faith. 

Which one exercises faith in the love of God?? and in the love of others? Faith in God's highest laws?

It's pretty straightforward that allowing people to advance in loving consensual relationships in dignity is an expression of God's love for them. Why prohibit them from loving? 

[Meadowchik]

7 hours ago, Jamie said:

Are you a member?  If not I have still never heard that from a member.  At least not to be taken seriously.  Some members saying it is hard for them to wait that long, and that they wished they could do it sooner, but none saying God is cruel for his standards.

I didn't say God was cruel. I began by saying to another poster that cruel things said with nice words are still cruel. 

I do not think a good God would be cruel, but that people do sometimes go along with cruelty and shift the blame to God. 

In my opinion, the highest law is not loyalty to an institution, it is not believing some people speak to the world for God. The highest law is love.

 

 

 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I guess that suggests that those who are monitoring which spirits go into which bodies are really screwing up by allowing male spirits into female bodies and female spirits into male bodies.  Perhaps they need to fired.  The scriptures however suggest we get the same gender body in the resurrection. No indication that mankind altered portions will be retained.

You might be right about firing the person who puts a male spirit in a female body or visa versa.  For sure the ones that put a spirit in a body that is both male and female 

what do the scriptures say about those born with both genders?

Edited May 14, 2021 by california boy

[Meadowchik]

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I guess that suggests that those who are monitoring which spirits go into which bodies are really screwing up by allowing male spirits into female bodies and female spirits into male bodies.  Perhaps they need to fired.  The scriptures however suggest we get the same gender body in the resurrection. No indication that mankind altered portions will be retained.

Such an implication will be disappointing for all the other people born with natural bodily ailments. And it would be against what they've been taught, that with the Resurrection their bodies will be whole.

 

[Jamie]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

I didn't say God was cruel. I began by saying to another poster that cruel things said with nice words are still cruel. 

I do not think a good God would be cruel, but that people do sometimes go along with cruelty and shift the blame to God. 

In my opinion, the highest law is not loyalty to an institution, it is not believing some people speak to the world for God. The highest law is love.

 

 

 

I agree with all of that and I'm glad you don't think God is cruel. Rather than being loyal to an institution I believe in being loyal to people even when knowing those people aren't perfect. The Church of which I am a member is one such group of people I am loyal to, one group among others that I am loyal to.

[jkwilliams]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

I am sorry for the mistreatment you have endured.  Truly.

Thanks,

-Smac

But are you surprised by it? 

[JLHPROF]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

Polygamy did not affect the substance of the Law of Chastity.  

The terms of the covenant in the temple literally changed when polygamy stopped.  So I think it did.

[Hamba Tuhan]

15 hours ago, Calm said:

If by few instances you mean moving from relationships exclusively with same or opposite sex to fluid or to exclusively the reverse, it is more common than a few. It is a small minority that is exclusively same sex their entire lives.

https://psych.utah.edu/_resources/documents/people/diamond/Sexual Fluidity in Males and Females.pdf

People on both 'sides' of this interaction would rather defend their emotions than engage with facts, it would seem ... 

Quote

 Imo, the LGBT+ activists did themselves a disservice by going with “born that way” rather than “freedom of choice for all” as the sexual revolution was first promoted (or do my youth in San Francisco area suggested).

I have heard professional historians make this exact point.