Mixed messages and the future of the church

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

Sigh...

First I retract my comment. After thinking about it I disagree with it myself.  Second I don't judge you at all.  Believe what you want. But I do think practicing  Latter-day Saints are among some of the most judgmental people around.  Where you get the idea I judge you for believing I have no idea.

You said-"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."

That's the kind of judgement I was talking about.  But really, it's o.k. that that's how you see me.  

[JLHPROF]

37 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

It seems the consensus is forming that any suggestion that there are mixed messages is evidence of bad faith on the part of the person seeing the mixed messages. Have I got that right?

No, messages are not mixed.  However messages may APPEAR mixed.  Perspective matters.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, LoudmouthMormon said:

 

@california boy, are you mad at folks like David Archuletta, for appearing to succeed at something you believe cannot be succeeded at?

Of course I am not mad.  I have no idea why you think I would be.  And I might add, David Archuletta's journey in how hie is going to handle his life has just begun.  We have had other poster boys (Josh Weed for example) who seem to have figured out a way to navigate an acceptable church path.   We also know that some individuals are more bisexual and can choose a different path that includes marriage to a woman  @Kindley on this board for example_

I, however, don't think it is prudent to prop up David Archuletta a couple of days after coming out as a shiny example on how those that are LGBT should or even can make choices that include Church membership.  We each have our own journey through life.  And we each have our own definition of what our plan of happiness looks like. We also each have our own relationship with God who can guide us to make the best choices for each of our lives.

[jkwilliams]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

Of course I am not mad.  I have no idea why you think I would be.  And I might add, David Archuletta's journey in how hie is going to handle his life has just begun.  We have had other poster boys (Josh Weed for example) who seem to have figured out a way to navigate an acceptable church path.   We also know that some individuals are more bisexual and can choose a different path that includes marriage to a woman  @Kindley on this board for example_

I, however, don't think it is prudent to prop up David Archuletta a couple of days after coming out as a shiny example on how those that are LGBT should or even can make choices that include Church membership.  We each have our own journey through life.  And we each have our own definition of what our plan of happiness looks like. We also each have our own relationship with God who can guide us to make the best choices for each of our lives.

I did an informal poll of some gay members/ex-members on whether there are mixed messages from the church about gay folks. 

Member: “They try to sound tolerant but they end up talking out of both sides of their mouths. At least they try, that’s something.”

Gay family member: “You’re not serious, are you?”

Ex-member: [unprintable righteous indignation]

[SeekingUnderstanding]

36 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Like Cal said, the church is dealing with eternal things, happiness included.  True happiness is another way to say lasting or eternal happiness.  Are there other kinds of happiness?  Sure.  

Nope. True is a way of saying ‘genuine’  ‘authentic’ and ‘not false’. I can pull the dictionary definition if you need it. 
 

It’s okay to just admit that the church uses similar rhetorical tactics as those used by California Boy. 

[california boy]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

Maybe I am not being very clear in what exactly I am saying.  I actually am fully supporting the right of the Church to take the position they have taken.  What I am asking for is to be even more clear on what this policy means to those that are LGBT.  I personally think those that are hoping for and even advocating for a change on SSM are doing a disservice to those that are attracted to the same sex. 

The message I think should be framed in the same way Elder Holland views eternity that has already been quoted in this thread.  Read this and similar quotes to those that have same sex attraction. 

"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."

                                                                -Elder Holland

Now sit them down and say, this is never going to be an option for you.  You aren't going to have this kind of relationship with anyone in this earth life.  If you stay in the Church and are expecting that to happen, don't.  If having that human connection that Elder Holland speaks of ia important to you, then this is not the Church for you.  You can find that kind of happiness in this life, but not if you stay a member of the Church.  The Church is not going to change its position.  

As far as what happens after you die?  Well we have NO revelation on how God will deal with you and your partner if you choose to have one.  We have NO revelation on whether your feelings of same sex attraction will continue in the next life.  If we believe as Elder Holland does, that our feelings for our loved ones will continue in the next life, then you will probably still be attracted to your same sex partner if you choose to have one.

Honestly, I can't see how a believing member could disagree with anything I have said.

 

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes. The church has taken a strong stand on that in conformity with the scriptures.

There are other aberrant types of marriage such as child, serial single parent childbirth, open marriages, incest, zoophilia, multiple partners, etc. Should the Church be forbidden to take a stand on those?

The church can take a stand on whatever it wishes. And then the consequences will follow. You know, that agency thing....

Edited June 14, 2021 by Teancum

[Teancum]

34 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You said-"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."

That's the kind of judgement I was talking about.  But really, it's o.k. that that's how you see me.  

It is a general statement not directed at any one person. And my LDS friends want to "help" me meaning they think I am a deceived apostate and spiritually bankrupt.

[Teancum]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yes. The church has taken a strong stand on that in conformity with the scriptures.

There are other aberrant types of marriage such as child, serial single parent childbirth, open marriages, incest, zoophilia, multiple partners, etc. Should the Church be forbidden to take a stand on those?

It is telling how you use qualifiers for the aberrance of polygamy. 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

It seems the consensus is forming that any suggestion that there are mixed messages is evidence of bad faith on the part of the person seeing the mixed messages. Have I got that right?

Yes.  Did you expect anything differently?  🙄

[Bernard Gui]

44 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is telling how you use qualifiers for the aberrance of polygamy. 

Telling what? 

[Bernard Gui]

52 minutes ago, Teancum said:

The church can take a stand on whatever it wishes. And then the consequences will follow. You know, that agency thing....

Not an answer. 

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I suppose this comparison has to be inevitable in these threads.

Not an answer. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, ttribe said:

The fact you refer to SSM as "aberrant" and then equate it with those other behaviors (in bold), is why there is absolutely no reason to take seriously anything you have to say in this discussion.

Aberrant: 
The definition of aberrant is something that does not follow the correct or expected course or something that is not typical or normal.

Aberrant. wandering or deviating from the usual or normal course.

Edited June 14, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[ttribe]

Just now, Bernard Gui said:

Aberrant: 
The definition of aberrant is something that does not follow the correct or expected course or something that is not typical or normal.

Don't play coy.  You were clearly using the term in the pejorative sense.

Also, you may not be willing to accept this, but SSM is in fact a pretty normal thing now in many communities.

[Calm]

57 minutes ago, Teancum said:

It is a general statement not directed at any one person. And my LDS friends want to "help" me meaning they think I am a deceived apostate and spiritually bankrupt.

I consider you a friend as much as most of my church friends, I talk and share more with you and others on the board than most of my church friends these days, after all, being homebound and not in the mood for visitors. 
 

I would also like to help you if possible (don’t have a clue how I would do it though) as some of your comments convey to me that you have been hurt and some of the wounds haven’t healed yet, but I could be wrong as part of that is from memory of your posts over the years and my memory is not reliable at times.
 

I do not believe you are deceived (at least no more than anyone else since we all see through a glass darkly), rather I believe your view of reality likely makes the best sense of your collection of experiences. Nor do I see you as spiritually bankrupt. You don’t have any of the indicators I assume are required for that (extreme selfishness to the point of caring nothing in harming others, a violation of the second greatest commandment, being the biggest red flag for me).

Edited June 14, 2021 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

10 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Don't play coy.  You were clearly using the term in the pejorative sense.

Also, you may not be willing to accept this, but SSM is in fact a pretty normal thing now in many communities.

Don’t pretend to know what I think. Aberrant is a word that correctly describes this situation. It is not a pejorative in my usage, although I do believe such unions are unnatural and against God’s law. 

aberrant: Departing from an accepted standard.

(biology) being or becoming different from the normal type

Edited June 14, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, Teancum said:

es.  Did you expect anything differently? 

It is unfortunate in my view, but generally we receive the answers we are expecting from what I see, though very often it isn’t the answers we were given. 

Edited June 14, 2021 by Calm

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not an answer. 

Answering asinine questions only encourages more of the same.

[jkwilliams]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

You said-"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."

That's the kind of judgement I was talking about.  But really, it's o.k. that that's how you see me.  

For my part, I don’t consider my LDS friends and family as living a harmful fantasy. They just believe things I don’t. I think the LDS church is great for some people, just not for me. 

I have pretty much discarded “friends” who consider me evil or deceived. Life’s too short to have that kind of stuff around. 

Edited June 14, 2021 by jkwilliams

[Bernard Gui]

8 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Answering asinine questions only encourages more of the same.

Thanks, friend. The Church cannot take a moral stance regarding ssm. Should it also not take be allowed a stance on other departures from the traditional scriptural understanding of marriage? How do you define marriage?

Edited June 14, 2021 by Bernard Gui

[The Nehor]

1 minute ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thanks, friend. 

No problem.

[Bernard Gui]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No problem.

What is your definition of marriage?

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

The Church cannot take a moral stance regarding ssm.

Where did Nehor say this?

My impression why he called the original question about extreme behaviours asinine was that it was not really a question in that typically people hold the same viewpoint on them being inappropriate, the question is a nobrainer in my terminology, you know others’ stances without asking. 
 

My other impression now I have reread his post again...

Or he could have been saying asking if the church can take a moral stand is asinine/nobrainer because of course the church can.

Edited June 14, 2021 by Calm

[jkwilliams]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is unfortunate in my view, but generally we receive the answers we are expecting from what I see, though very often it isn’t the answers we were given. 

You may be right. I sometimes don’t read carefully enough before I respond.