Mixed messages and the future of the church

[Teancum]

10 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

To be blunt, I know lots of folks whom I care for very very deeply, but I also need to acknowledge that they (in my eyes) make some majorly bad life choices.  Me acknowledging that disagreement isn't me not loving you, it's me also having values/beliefs.     I still love them and am here & vise versa.    I'm going to acknowledge your beliefs/values & life choices, but I also deserve to have my beliefs/values & life choices equally acknowledged & respected.    And all of that applies both ways (I have friends that also passionately disagree with me & my choices).

Good point. I still have lots of active LDS friends that I think are believing in a fantasy and living in a harmful and emotionally damaging culture that also creates a world view that causes them to see their fellow humans in unhealthy ways. I still love them as well and they me.  Well a few still love me.  Most of my LDS associates just have ignored me especially those in my homme ward.

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Faith is always used as the fallback when facts and rational reasoning goes against your faith position.  

Except some aspects of each opinion piece do go, and other aspects do not go, against my faith position. How about you?

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

I don't see a problem.  Lets take it out of the LGBT direction to a less personal one like gambling.  We can have love and compassion for those who are addicted to gambling while not showing love and compassion for gambling itself.  This is true for all issues regarding sins.  As weak, fallible people we need to help each other through their troubles.  Life is hard enough, we should not compound a person's problems or trials by adding more weight to their backs to carry by harsh judgement, ridicule, or scorn.  However that does not mean we are to surrender right and wrong for the sake of not offending someone.  We do not surrender core positions for the sake of acceptance.  We should show love and compassion to those who choose to use their agency in a manner that is contrary to the gospel.  

I think the difference between gambling and SSM and attraction is for the latter the church bars and excommunicates those who act on this basic human need and desire to connect to someone they love.

 

Edited June 14, 2021 by Teancum

[california boy]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

Exactly.  Thank you for just coming out and saying it.  The problem, from the pro-SSM crowd, isn't that the church is sending 'mixed messages', it's that it doesn't accept SSM.  Full stop, nothing else to say.  

You have provided a perfect example of what Elder Callister was talking about.

Now if we could only get the Church to be more honest and just come out and say it.  

If the Church really wanted to be loving and compassionate with their LGBT members, they would be up front and tell them, this is not the Church for you. Church leaders should be telling its LGBT members, if you are unable to have a meaningful relationship with someone of the opposite sex, walk away.   

Church leaders certainly understand the importance and value in living a life with someone you love, to share the burdens and trials and joys of life.  You will never find that love and joy in this Church.  Walk away and find the happiness that you deserve but can never have as a member of our church.  It would end this battle of those that want the Church to change.  This is the counsel I wish bishops and stake presidents would and should give those that are LGBT.   Wish them well and send them on their way. Sometimes the most compassionate and loving thing you can do is to be honest and tell people the truth about what the Church believes and the implications of that belief.  The Church shouldn't and won't change.  Move on.

[Meadowchik]

16 hours ago, jbarm said:

I know...

If the Church only endorsed gay marriage or female ordination then it would grow, right?

Community of Christ did so and saw 25 % of members leave. 

Episcopalian Church did so and has seen a 50% drop in membership. 

Potential retention of a few liberal members at the cost of losing the core of conservative members is quite irrational. 

If the Church is just an expensive club which changes its rules to meet the whims of it's members then it will follow the same path. 

Jb

The argument goes both ways, though. If the church holds on to (potentially) false doctrines to retain conservative members then what is it?

[Meadowchik]

15 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I don’t think that’s it at all. I took his point as read: the messaging has been contradictory, between tolerance and demonization, and it’s turning people away. I think it’s a valid point. 

I suspect the church is trying to walk a fine line and not succeeding well. 

Maybe because there's no fine line that marries both sides. Just optics.

[Bernard Gui]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

You did miss the point.  In the 80's the Church ran a long campaign based on strengthening families and being good parents.  I remember many in the community who didn't particularly share the same beliefs as the Church, but the reputation of the Church was that it was a strong family centered Church.  That message appealed to a lot of people.  And Church growth during this time was impressive.  We heard talks about how we were living in the time Daniel foretold where happening.  Then the Church lead an attack on gay marriage.  THAT has torn families apart.  The message of the 80's is no longer how the Church is perceived in the community.   Now the message is, the dwindling of belief among members was foretold and expected.  

 

Can I ask you a sincere question?  Is there ANY situation that you can think of where a person could not point to some scripture to "prove" it is just a fulfillment of what has been foretold?  

In the 80s the widely accepted definition of family was mother (female), father (male), and children. When that definition was radically changed, the Church opposed it, but there were many others who resisted, too.

Edited June 14, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They did foretell that but with the Restoration it was promised they would never again be removed from the Earth.

If the Fenris Wolf shows up I will assume God is planning for a much more exciting end of the world than I had anticipated. I would be excited. If Odin showed himself to be God I might be weirded out though.

Some try to spin aliens as real but if they start exterminating humanity it would probably make people face some doctrinal questions. Especially if they start with Salt Lake.

I guess you could support anything but I don’t think most members would have a broad enough interpretation of scriptures to weather these kinds of events. There are some who can spin them to mean anything and others who can spin them to demand impossible things and say those things have happened.

If I were an alien commander coming upon the earth, I would cloak my ship in orbit for a while to scope out the place. After a few minutes I would turn to the helmsman and say, “ Nope. Let’s move on.”

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Then don't pretend you love and have compassion towards those with SSM issues.

Should the Church be expected not to take a position on other aberrant marriages or just ssm?

Edited June 14, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[bluebell]

11 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

I’d say the issue for the church (just depending on how you want to look at it) is that 1 in 6 Gen Z identify as LBGTQ…. Per the article a study (found here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886920306668?via%3Dihub ) says that 13% of BYU students don’t identify as strictly heterosexual.

There is real tension when something as Christlike as “love and compassion” can be used to undermine the church’s position. So on the one hand you have a church that is anti SSM and anti same sex civil unions that also has taught people the Christlike qualities of Love and Compassion.  On the other hand you have more and more church members deciding (no matter what people like Elder Callister say) that excluding Gay people from the sacrament of marriage is the opposite of love and compassion. (It was my wife’s biggest issue in leaving the church.) For the upcoming generation it’s going to be more and more of an issue. 
 

I guess someone needs to update the tools of satan thread to include love and compassion. 

The bolded isn't what Elder Callister said though.  Can we at least deal with what he actually said instead of the caricature of his words that is easier to castigate?

I do agree with the rest of your post in that people's individual definition of what it means to have 'love and compassion' towards lgtbq+ is what matters personally to people.  If someone believes that they cannot have love and compassion for gay people without supporting SSM, then they are going to struggle with the church, and might leave.  Thank goodness for agency.

If what the church teaches about SSM is of God, then it doesn't really matter what people think of it, the upcoming generation included.  If it's it's not, then the church will have to deal with the consequences of that until they get on the right track.  

[california boy]

36 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

In the 80s the widely accepted definition of family was mother (female), father (male), and children. When that definition was radically changed, the Church opposed it, but there were many others who resisted, too.

Yes and that is really the only group that the Church builds its entire doctrine around. It still is their target audience.

[Bernard Gui]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

Yes and that is really the only group that the Church builds its entire doctrine around. It still is their target audience.

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, Teancum said:

Then don't pretend you love and have compassion towards those with SSM issues.

You can see it as pretend if you want to, I'm o.k. with that.  I pretty much have to be since I can't do anything about it.  You already judge me for being a believing member so what's one more thing for your list?

In the end though I'm not going to let the opinion of some random angry-at-the-church stranger on the internet dictate what "love and compassion" have to mean for me.    

[bluebell]

53 minutes ago, california boy said:

Now if we could only get the Church to be more honest and just come out and say it.  

If the Church really wanted to be loving and compassionate with their LGBT members, they would be up front and tell them, this is not the Church for you. Church leaders should be telling its LGBT members, if you are unable to have a meaningful relationship with someone of the opposite sex, walk away.   

Church leaders certainly understand the importance and value in living a life with someone you love, to share the burdens and trials and joys of life.  You will never find that love and joy in this Church.  Walk away and find the happiness that you deserve but can never have as a member of our church.  It would end this battle of those that want the Church to change.  This is the counsel I wish bishops and stake presidents would and should give those that are LGBT.   Wish them well and send them on their way. Sometimes the most compassionate and loving thing you can do is to be honest and tell people the truth about what the Church believes and the implications of that belief.  The Church shouldn't and won't change.  Move on.

They believe this is the church for them though.  Are you saying they should lie?

Edited June 14, 2021 by bluebell

[pogi]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Now if we could only get the Church to be more honest and just come out and say it.  

If the Church really wanted to be loving and compassionate with their LGBT members, they would be up front and tell them, this is not the Church for you. Church leaders should be telling its LGBT members, if you are unable to have a meaningful relationship with someone of the opposite sex, walk away.   

Church leaders certainly understand the importance and value in living a life with someone you love, to share the burdens and trials and joys of life.  You will never find that love and joy in this Church.  Walk away and find the happiness that you deserve but can never have as a member of our church.  It would end this battle of those that want the Church to change.  This is the counsel I wish bishops and stake presidents would and should give those that are LGBT.   Wish them well and send them on their way. Sometimes the most compassionate and loving thing you can do is to be honest and tell people the truth about what the Church believes and the implications of that belief.  The Church shouldn't and won't change.  Move on.

Except that wouldn't be loving and compassionate from an eternal perspective - from a Mormon perspective. I'm not sure this is a fair consideration of our beliefs and doctrines.   We believe that the greatest happiness, from an eternal perspective, is found through a life devoted to living the principles and ordinances of the restored gospel.  To tell someone that "the pinnacle of eternal joy simply is not for you...walk away" is unthinkable.   We know that what the church is asking is an incredible sacrifice in mortality.  If we didn't believe that it would lead to a net positive for the eternal and ultimate good of the individual, only then could you accuse us of being unloving and without compassion.      

Edited June 14, 2021 by pogi

[SeekingUnderstanding]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

The bolded isn't what Elder Callister said though.  Can we at least deal with what he actually said instead of the caricature of his words that is easier to castigate?

Um, "[Satan] disguises his plan of attack with alluring labels such as ... 'love and compassion'" seems pretty equivalent to Satan using "love and compassion" as a tool. I'm not seeing much daylight between the two statements.

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I do agree with the rest of your post in that people's individual definition of what it means to have 'love and compassion' towards lgtbq+ is what matters personally to people.  If someone believes that they cannot have love and compassion for gay people without supporting SSM, then they are going to struggle with the church, and might leave.  Thank goodness for agency.

If what the church teaches about SSM is of God, then it doesn't really matter what people think of it, the upcoming generation included.  If it's it's not, then the church will have to deal with the consequences of that until they get on the right track.  

Agree with this.

[pogi]

14 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Um, "[Satan] disguises his plan of attack with alluring labels such as ... 'love and compassion'" seems pretty equivalent to Satan using "love and compassion" as a tool.

It is only equivalent if the terms are understood in the same way.  Clearly there is some manipulation of the terms 'love and compassion' to mean endorsement.  They are not necessarily equivalent.  Thus, those who do not endorse ______ are not loving or compassionate but are the enemy of love and compassion - very cunning indeed. 

[LoudmouthMormon]

19 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The essay focuses on how the church simultaneously preaches love and tolerance and condemns love and tolerance.

 

18 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Which is why he’s pleading for people not to judge or exclude him. 

 

18 hours ago, ttribe said:

Yes, it sure seems like he is feeling perfectly comfortable within the LDS paradigm, so much so that he doesn't have to plead with the community to accept him...

 

Heh-sorry, I thought the article was about what the church preaches, not what members do.

From the standpoint of what the church preaches, Archuletta seems to be having no problem at all finding a place for himself in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ.

From the standpoint of how random churchgoers react to someone like him, well, you'll have to look elsewhere for people willing to defend some of the dumbness.

[Maestrophil]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

Now if we could only get the Church to be more honest and just come out and say it.  

If the Church really wanted to be loving and compassionate with their LGBT members, they would be up front and tell them, this is not the Church for you. Church leaders should be telling its LGBT members, if you are unable to have a meaningful relationship with someone of the opposite sex, walk away.   

Church leaders certainly understand the importance and value in living a life with someone you love, to share the burdens and trials and joys of life.  You will never find that love and joy in this Church.  Walk away and find the happiness that you deserve but can never have as a member of our church.  It would end this battle of those that want the Church to change.  This is the counsel I wish bishops and stake presidents would and should give those that are LGBT.   Wish them well and send them on their way. Sometimes the most compassionate and loving thing you can do is to be honest and tell people the truth about what the Church believes and the implications of that belief.  The Church shouldn't and won't change.  Move on.

I agree with much of the sentiment of what you are saying here, but also think you are creating a false dichotomy.  I certainly don't know how to address this issue globally as far as the church goes - my hope and faith is that more inspired and educated minds than mine are working on the issue.

 

That said, I think the dichotomy I mentioned is that you state the church has to amend its stance on queer relationships, sexually speaking, OR tell queer people that the only way they can be happy is outside of the church.  Not necessarily true.  Some I know have found hope and solace in living an asexual life (both homo and heterosexuals) having hope things will be for their good in the eternal scope of things.  They have sacrificed their sexuality on the altar as it were.   Who am I or you to say those people are living a lie?  I also am not naive enough to think that this is universally an acceptable path for even many gay people.  It is a hard life to choose (the abstinence, not the SSA - I know that isn't chosen).  

The part I agree with, is that part of the compassion comes from not condemning or judging those who feel they need to leave - The message I convey to my gay family/kids is 1.  I love you always and accept you for who you are. 2. I totally understand and respect that you might feel the best way to live your best authentic life is outside the church. 3.  I wish you only joy in your journey. 5.  I do believe God can help you live a satisfying life in the gospel, should you pray and receive a personal witness you should stay - but that is between you and Him.  4.  I love you always and respect you for who you are.  🙂  I have heard a few GA's express things along this lines in some private conversations I have been a part of, and would love to hear more of that tone from the pulpit. 

Edited June 14, 2021 by Maestrophil

[california boy]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

They believe this is the church for them though.  Are you saying they should lie?

I think I was pretty clear.  It is a more honest approach.  What part did I write that is a lie?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is only equivalent if the terms are understood in the same way. 

Which terms? "love and compassion" as a label vs "love and compassion" as a tool?

19 minutes ago, pogi said:

Clearly there is some manipulation of the terms 'love and compassion' to mean endorsement.  They are not necessarily equivalent.  Thus, those who do not endorse ______ are not loving or compassionate but are the enemy of love and compassion - very cunning indeed. 

Church members (like my wife - who has subsequently left) who embrace SSM aren't doing it because they are afraid of being labeled the enemy of "love and compassion".  They embrace SSM, because after wrestling with the tension between the church's stance on SSM, and their core value of love and compassion, they come to the conclusion that denying gay people the sacrament of marriage is not loving nor compassionate. You have come to a different conclusion. That's fine. 

But yes very cunning of Satan to use love and compassion as a tool to lead people down to hell. It is a refreshing change from his usual offerings, of hate, envy, deceit and strife. 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Um, "[Satan] disguises his plan of attack with alluring labels such as ... 'love and compassion'" seems pretty equivalent to Satan using "love and compassion" as a tool. I'm not seeing much daylight between the two statements.

Agree with this.

Really?  You sincerely believe that Elder Callister is teaching that love and compassion are a tool of satan?  That seems like a reasonable interpretation of his words to you, given what you know about his belief system?

Does it help clarify if you see the actual quote?  "He disguises his plan of attack with alluring labels such as “pro-choice” for abortion, “love and compassion” for endorsement of same-sex marriage."

Elder Callister is saying that satan tries to get us to justify endorsement of sin (such as support of abortion or SSM) by using alluring labels like "love and compassion."  We've got examples right on this thread.  Teancum told me that I can't show love and compassion unless I endorse SSM.  He's making the same argument that Elder Callister is talking about above.  

Elder Callister isn't saying that we can't/shouldn't show love and compassion for lgtbq+ people, he's saying that we don't have to agree with SSM in order to show it.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

I think I was pretty clear.  It is a more honest approach.  What part did I write that is a lie?

You said church leaders should say something that they don't believe is true.  How is that not wanting church leaders to lie?

[california boy]

35 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying.

The message the church gave in the 80's is the exact same message the Church gives today.  It is a family centered church.  Its doctrine and plan of salvation is solely built around the family unit of a father/mother/children.  Nothing has changed.  Why wouldn't that message of the 80's still be relevant to that targeted audience?

[SeekingUnderstanding]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Really?  You sincerely believe that Elder Callister is teaching that love and compassion are a tool of satan?  That seems like a reasonable interpretation of his words to you, given what you know about his belief system?

I'm not sure how else to interpret it. Satan is appealing to our "love and compassion" to further his goals. How is that not using "love and compassion" as a tool? I'm honestly not getting the objection here. 

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Does it help clarify if you see the actual quote?  "He disguises his plan of attack with alluring labels such as “pro-choice” for abortion, “love and compassion” for endorsement of same-sex marriage."

 

Well, I including the relevant part of the quote in my post so...

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

Elder Callister is saying that satan tries to get us to justify endorsement of sin (such as support of abortion or SSM) by using alluring labels like "love and compassion."  We've got examples right on this thread.  Teancum told me that I can't show love and compassion unless I endorse SSM.  He's making the same argument that Elder Callister is talking about above.  

Elder Callister isn't saying that we can't/shouldn't show love and compassion for lgtbq+ people, he's saying that we don't have to agree with SSM in order to show it.

Um, I don't disagree that Elder Callister believes this. But in the quote in quesiton, he says Satan uses labels like "love and compassion". Why is this label "alluring"? It's because love and compassion drive people to accept things like same sex marriage. That's why it's alluring. If love and compassion didn't drive people that way, the label wouldn't be alluring would it? I mean I get that you believe in an afterlife where gay people will be all fixed up and be better off if they don't get married in this life. But if you didn't believe that, I would suspect that love and compassion might just drive you to accept same sex marriage as well. 

So I don't see how it can be interpreted in any other way. Satan is appealing to people's love and compassion (using love and compassion as a tool) to further his agenda.