SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 19 minutes ago, bluebell said: You said church leaders should say something that they don't believe is true. How is that not wanting church leaders to lie? I believe he said that if church leaders wanted to be loving and compassionate then they should change what they believe. Specifically "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. " I get that you disagree with his take, but California Boy has walked the church's path in a way that I will never be able to understand. I'm certainly not going to tell him he is wrong. Elder Holland said "I don't know how to speak about heaven in the traditional, lovely, paradisiacal beauty that we speak of heaven. I wouldn't know how to speak of heaven, without my wife or my children. It would not be heaven for me." For a church built on relationships, that describes Heaven in terms of those relationships, it seems to me (from my limited mortal perspective) an especially difficult path to walk for a faithful gay latter-day saint. 2
The Nehor Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 14 hours ago, Fether said: I bet they have a system set in place that all the 70 know of in the case of a complete wiping out of the Q15. I can’t imagine the church hasn’t prepared itself for such a situation. Do they have a 70 serve as “designated survivor” and not attend General Conference? 1
california boy Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 31 minutes ago, pogi said: Except that wouldn't be loving and compassionate from an eternal perspective. I'm not sure this is a fair consideration of our beliefs and an eternal perspective. 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. What eternal perspective does the Church offer? You are very clear what that "pinnacle of eternal joy" is for you. Can you tell LGBT members from revelation what actually happens to them when they die? Do they become completely different people when they die? Will they magically be transformed into desiring the opposite sex for eternity? Is everything you want and desire on earth going to completely change when you die? Do you tell them God won't make you straight in this life no matter how hard you try, no matter how much you fast and pray, no matter how much you want to change. And we don't even know that God will answer those pleadings after you die. Just exactly does the Church know through revelation about what a LGBT person "pinnacle of eternal joy" is for them? The Church seems to be able to get revelation about whether to save some murals in a temple, but no revelation on ANYTHING about LGBT issues except the one revelation calling them apostates and not allowing their underaged children to be baptized. This is the stark reality of this eternal persective you speak about. 1
Fether Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 (edited) 11 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Do they have a 70 serve as “designated survivor” and not attend General Conference? Duh 🙄 And a bunker underneath the conference center in the case of a missile attack Edited June 14, 2021 by Fether
pogi Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: 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. For me, the question and disconnect is not necessarily one of love and compassion, but more about one of belief. How love and compassion manifests is largely determined by what we believe. If we believe that there is no after-life, for example, then it is unthinkable to not endorse SSM. Endorsement of SSM from that belief/perspective = love and compassion. If we espouse an LDS belief/perspective, on the other hand, then endorsement of SSM does not necessarily = love and compassion. We need to respect that based on our individual fundamental beliefs/disbeliefs, both perspectives can be seen as loving and compassionate. Ironically, as the church is being accused of intolerance, what we are seeing is intolerance of our fundamental and long-held religious beliefs. People refuse to even acknowledge that our approach is indeed loving and compassionate from our eternal perspective. People often chafe at the LDS perspective of the one true church, but these same people then turn and shame anyone who believes differently than they do, in a very dogmatic one-true-church-kind-of-way. While the two perspectives may never see eye to eye (in mortality) and will inevitably collide, we can at least respect that the other side is indeed coming from a perspective of love and compassion. Edited June 14, 2021 by pogi 1
AtlanticMike Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 8 minutes ago, The Nehor said: “designated survivor” If I ever start a band I'm naming it "designated survivor", thanks for the idea! First I need to find some talent, I can barely whistle. 1
california boy Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 39 minutes ago, Maestrophil said: 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. I actually never suggested that the Church amend it's position on queer relationships. And I like your approach and counsel you give to those gay family/kids. I think it is a very honest approach. Some people may want a life without someone to love and cherish. But that is a rare condition in humans queer or straight. What I think is missing from church leaders is this statement you gave. " 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." I also think the Church should be very clear about actually having no revelation on how this will all work out in the eternities if you are queer. (see above post}. 1
LoudmouthMormon Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 (edited) 53 minutes ago, california boy said: 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? The church long ago noticed that very few of us actually fit into the perfect pattern of the plan of happiness, where everyone is born into a two-parent covenantally sealed marriage, where everyone is active and goes on missions and stays active with a strong testimony and marries in the temple and has lots of offspring that go on to repeat things. I mean, like long, LONG ago they dealt with it. Dealing with it in ways like this from 2008: General Patterns and Specific Lives - Elder Jeffrey R. Holland Quote Furthermore, we know that others in our audience and in the Church are not now married, nor do some have an intact family fitting the ideal we regularly refer to in the Church. Please be assured we are fully aware of the many different circumstances that exist among our members. We love every one of you. We also realize that as more and more families are in disarray and as many cultural forces devalue marriage, children, and traditional family life, the General Authorities and general officers of the Church feel increased urgency to speak of ideals and gospel-centered principles. Otherwise, the moral drift which the world inevitably experiences could take us to a point where earnest people in and out of the Church are truly at sea when it comes to divine expectations in marriage and eternal family standards. Let me use a parable that I hope can make this point, whatever your marital or family circumstance. The whole notion of "I can't have what I want and therefore I am doomed to never be happy", is the thing that can't survive in the church without something breaking. And folks who are unable or unwilling to discard that notion, will probably never be happy in the church, whether the want is same sex marriage, or something else. @california boy, are you mad at folks like David Archuletta, for appearing to succeed at something you believe cannot be succeeded at? Edited June 14, 2021 by LoudmouthMormon 1
bluebell Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I believe he said that if church leaders wanted to be loving and compassionate then they should change what they believe. Specifically "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. " I get that you disagree with his take, but California Boy has walked the church's path in a way that I will never be able to understand. I'm certainly not going to tell him he is wrong. Elder Holland said "I don't know how to speak about heaven in the traditional, lovely, paradisiacal beauty that we speak of heaven. I wouldn't know how to speak of heaven, without my wife or my children. It would not be heaven for me." For a church built on relationships, that describes Heaven in terms of those relationships, it seems to me (from my limited mortal perspective) an especially difficult path to walk for a faithful gay latter-day saint. CB might be saying that, and I have no problem with anyone expressing that point of view for themselves. Is it fair or reasonable to require it of others though? Can CB just stop believing something that he sincerely believes, because someone told him he had to if he wanted to be loving and compassionate? Can you? Could your wife? Could she jettison her beliefs about the best way to be loving and compassionate just because someone from church might say 'if you really wanted to be loving and compassionate you'd....' to her? Since she left the church rather than change her belief, I'm guessing she couldn't. If CB was speaking only for himself, then I would never tell him he was wrong either. But when he implies that he has the right to dictate how the leaders of the church must show love and compassion, then I feel fine disagreeing with him on that. As far as the underlined goes, I completely agree. I've said it on this board before that I would celebrate if the church suddenly allow SSM. But my beliefs, ideals, and wants are not the standard that I hold the church to. As long as I believe in a God who said "my ways are not your ways," I can't use my personal beliefs and wants as the standard to judge what God condones and what He doesn't. 1
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 (edited) 22 minutes ago, bluebell said: CB might be saying that, and I have no problem with anyone expressing that point of view for themselves. Is it fair or reasonable to require it of others though? We don’t choose our own beliefs so obviously we don’t get to require people to change theirs. There is no requirement here though. Just like Elder Callister is able to frame SSM as a thing from Satan, and just like church leaders can call certain types of relationships sinful and counterfeit, California Boy can certainly express his hard earned opinion that the church *should change. Quote Quote Can CB just stop believing something that he sincerely believes, because someone told him he had to if he wanted to be loving and compassionate? Can you? Could your wife? Could she jettison her beliefs about the best way to be loving and compassionate just because someone from church might say 'if you really wanted to be loving and compassionate you'd....' to her? Since she left the church rather than change her belief, I'm guessing she couldn't. If CB was speaking only for himself, then I would never tell him he was wrong either. But when he implies that he has the right to dictate how the leaders of the church must show love and compassion, then I feel fine disagreeing with him on that. First *should not must. Second, The church tells the world and its members how they should act all the time. The wickman oaks interview shows how church members should show love to their gay children. The church by being involved in things like prop 8 succeeded in telling California’s how they should treat same sex marriage. Why is it okay when you do it, but not California Boy? Edit I see that should is my word, so I guess I’m not sure in California boys intention. I still don’t see a difference between the church teaching what people need to do and California Boy doing this as well Edited June 14, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 42 minutes ago, pogi said: For me, the question and disconnect is not necessarily one of love and compassion, but more about one of belief. How love and compassion manifests is largely determined by what we believe. If we believe that there is no after-life, for example, then it is unthinkable to not endorse SSM. Endorsement of SSM from that belief/perspective = love and compassion. If we espouse an LDS belief/perspective, on the other hand, then endorsement of SSM does not necessarily = love and compassion. We need to respect that based on our individual fundamental beliefs/disbeliefs, both perspectives can be seen as loving and compassionate. Ironically, as the church is being accused of intolerance, what we are seeing is intolerance of our fundamental and long-held religious beliefs. People refuse to even acknowledge that our approach is indeed loving and compassionate from our eternal perspective. Talk about being dogmatic! People often chafe at the LDS perspective of the one true church, but these same people then turn and shame anyone who believes differently than they do, as if they belong to the one true church. While the two perspectives may never see eye to eye (in mortality) and will inevitably collide, we can at least respect that the other side is indeed coming from a perspective of love and compassion. I get where you are coming from to a point and mostly agree, but will point out a belief in an afterlife can justify any behavior. As a relatively mundane example, back in the good old days when the board has lots of evangelicals coming on and telling members they were all going to hell, I wonder how many here felt and thanked said evangelicals for all their love and compassion.
bluebell Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: 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. Well, I including the relevant part of the quote in my post so... 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. Ok, I get what you are saying now. I didn't understand what you were saying at first because it didn't occur to me this was a new idea to you and so something unique to Callister's talk. Marriage is good--but think of all the evil that people do in the name of marriage. Think of all the heartache that exists in the world because someone has used 'love' to convince people to do terrible things. Think of all the horrible things that satan has caused people to do in the name of religion--in the name of Christ, even. And this doesn't just exist for people who are being deceptive. Think of all the things that people do when they are trying to be sincerely good that end up causing harm. There is no good thing that satan cannot twist to his use. That's mortality. Everything has fallen. Even good things like our desires for love and compassion can be used to get us to do things that will ultimately hurt someone. Have you really never done something sincerely, that you believed was kind or compassionate or some other positive thing, that caused harm to someone else because you didn't understand the full consequences of your loving actions? I have. It sucks. Edited June 14, 2021 by bluebell 1
bluebell Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 7 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I get where you are coming from to a point and mostly agree, but will point out a belief in an afterlife can justify any behavior. As a relatively mundane example, back in the good old days when the board has lots of evangelicals coming on and telling members they were all going to hell, I wonder how many here felt and thanked said evangelicals for all their love and compassion. I have said before, many times, that I would personally be annoyed if they behaved differently. If someone sincerely believes that I am in danger then the only loving and compassionate thing to do is to tell me that. If they believe i'm in danger but tell me I'm not or or keep quiet about it then they are kind of being jerks. Now, does them doing something in love mean I'm just going to believe then or replace their opinion for my own? Of course not. But even if I think they are completely deluded, if they are sincerely trying to help me, then I'm (mostly--don't be a tool about it) good with that. I think we can all tell the difference between actual love and compassion and lip service. If someone is sincerely trying to show Christ-like love then I respect that immensely. Especially if sharing the message is going to cause them to receive some hate on their end. 1
Amulek Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 20 hours ago, jkwilliams said: The essay focuses on how the church simultaneously preaches love and tolerance and condemns love and tolerance. But the church doesn't condemn love and tolerance. What the church rightly points out, however, is that the notions of love and tolerance can be appropriated / manipulated and used to support positions other than those which authentic love and tolerance demand. Quote The author suggests that this mixed messaging may play well to older, more conservative members but risks alienating younger members. I don't think younger members have a hard time grasping the concept that authentic love doesn't mean that you are automatically required to accept everything someone does in order to truly love them.
bluebell Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 19 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: We don’t choose our own beliefs so obviously we don’t get to require people to change theirs. There is no requirement here though. Just like Elder Callister is able to frame SSM as a thing from Satan, and just like church leaders can call certain types of relationships sinful and counterfeit, California Boy can certainly express his hard earned opinion that the church *should change. He can. But can he say that they aren't being sincerely loving and compassionate until they do? I mean, he can say that, but is it reasonable? If I said that your wife can't be sincerely loving and compassionate if she endorses SSM, is that a reasonable and fair statement? Quote First *should not must. Second, The church tells the world and its members how they should act all the time. The wickman oaks interview shows how church members should show love to their gay children. The church by being involved in things like prop 8 succeeded in telling California’s how they should treat same sex marriage. Why is it okay when you do it, but not California Boy? The church teaches what they believe is truth and presents it to the world to accept or not. Does the church say, the only way to be loving and compassionate is to agree with us?
CV75 Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: 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. Well, I including the relevant part of the quote in my post so... 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. All emotions, and the words that evoke the desired response can be manipulated for contradicting purposes. I do not think it is uncommon for influencers to appeal to people's love and compassion (using love and compassion as a tool) to further their interests, while recognizing that others do the same to further contrary interests. Especially in opinion pieces like Wilson's and Callister's.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 (edited) 23 minutes ago, bluebell said: He can. But can he say that they aren't being sincerely loving and compassionate until they do? I mean, he can say that, but is it reasonable? If I said that your wife can't be sincerely loving and compassionate if she endorses SSM, is that a reasonable and fair statement? The church teaches what they believe is truth and presents it to the world to accept or not. Does the church say, the only way to be loving and compassionate is to agree with us? The church teaches that ‘true’ happiness only comes by obeying the commandments. The church teaches that non-traditional families are ‘counterfeit’. Is it okay for them to do that? I guess I view California Boy’s statement in that vein. And he is one that experienced ‘true’ happiness in a church approved marriage, and what life is like to live in a ‘counterfeit’ family. ETA: I do wish we all could use less alienating language. Like we could accept that people can have good intentions even if we think those intentions have disasterous results. Edited June 14, 2021 by SeekingUnderstanding 2
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 18 minutes ago, CV75 said: All emotions, and the words that evoke the desired response can be manipulated for contradicting purposes. I do not think it is uncommon for influencers to appeal to people's love and compassion (using love and compassion as a tool) to further their interests, while recognizing that others do the same to further contrary interests. Especially in opinion pieces like Wilson's and Callister's. We aren’t disagreeing.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 22 minutes ago, Amulek said: however, is that the notions of love and tolerance can be appropriated / manipulated and used to support positions other than those which authentic love @bluebell See the use of authentic here.
bluebell Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 2 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: The church teaches that ‘true’ happiness only comes by obeying the commandments. The church teaches that non-traditional families are ‘counterfeit’. Is it okay for them to do that? I guess I view California Boy’s statement in that vein. And he is one that experienced ‘true’ happiness in a church approved marriage, and what life is like to live in a ‘counterfeit’ family. Yes, it's ok if the church teaches that. And it's o.k. if CB teaches that the church is wrong. Is it o.k. if the church teaches that CB isn't being loving and compassionate unless he agrees with them? No, it's not. Just like it's not o.k. for CB to teach that someone isn't being loving and compassionate unless they agree with him. We can be both loving and compassionate and completely wrong at the same time. Nothing wrong with believing someone is both. But tying someone's ability to show "love and compassion" to them agreeing with me....I have a problem with that. 2
bluebell Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 3 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: @bluebell See the use of authentic here. I'm not sure what amulek is trying to say there so I'm not sure what you are trying to say by bringing it to my attention.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 38 minutes ago, bluebell said: Ok, I get what you are saying now. I didn't understand what you were saying at first because it didn't occur to me this was a new idea to you and so something unique to Callister's talk. Marriage is good--but think of all the evil that people do in the name of marriage. Think of all the heartache that exists in the world because someone has used 'love' to convince people to do terrible things. Think of all the horrible things that satan has caused people to do in the name of religion--in the name of Christ, even. And this doesn't just exist for people who are being deceptive. Think of all the things that people do when they are trying to be sincerely good that end up causing harm. There is no good thing that satan cannot twist to his use. That's mortality. Everything has fallen. Even good things like our desires for love and compassion can be used to get us to do things that will ultimately hurt someone. Have you really never done something sincerely, that you believed was kind or compassionate or some other positive thing, that caused harm to someone else because you didn't understand the full consequences of your loving actions? I have. It sucks. I agree with everything in here. Just know this is how I view attempts to persuade LGBT youth to sacrifice earthly happiness to chase after a divine reward promised by people that don’t have a great track record (in my opinion obviously). 2
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 6 minutes ago, bluebell said: Yes, it's ok if the church teaches that. And it's o.k. if CB teaches that the church is wrong. Is it o.k. if the church teaches that CB isn't being loving and compassionate unless he agrees with them? No, it's not. Just like it's not o.k. for CB to teach that someone isn't being loving and compassionate unless they agree with him. We can be both loving and compassionate and completely wrong at the same time. Nothing wrong with believing someone is both. But tying someone's ability to show "love and compassion" to them agreeing with me....I have a problem with that. So it’s okay for the church to tell self described happy people that they aren’t really truly happy. But it’s not okay for California Boy to tell self described loving people that they aren’t really loving? 1
Amulek Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 10 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: @bluebell See the use of authentic here. I see it. And?
bluebell Posted June 14, 2021 Posted June 14, 2021 1 minute ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: I agree with everything in here. Just know this is how I view attempts to persuade LGBT youth to sacrifice earthly happiness to chase after a divine reward promised by people that don’t have a great track record (in my opinion obviously). I hope no one would do that just because someone told them too. The only way any of us deny ourselves anything that we otherwise want with any real success (and positive outcome) is if we are doing it because we personally believe it's what God has asked of us. But I get what you are saying. I think you are wrong (and point out that you also don't have a track record that you can point to to bolster the validity of that belief ) but I have no problem with you expressing that belief and it doesn't change the way I see you.
Recommended Posts