Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

What is the LGBT policy goal for the Church


Recommended Posts

On 8/29/2021 at 11:51 AM, carbon dioxide said:

The natural man is an enemy to God.   Many of us would like to think that God made us as we are but how we are is actually at opposition to God.  That is why God tells us to put off the natural man.  Put off what we are and become something else.  I may not be gay but I have many natural tendencies that I have to overcome.  I can not say that since that is how I am, I can justify myself in not working to overcome these traits, habits, ect.   Pretty much every sin is based in part of what we naturally do as human beings. 

Why is the "natural man" and enemy to God? God did create us this way.  According to Orthodox Christianity Adam  and Eve fell from paradise and introduced sin into the world.  So all humans are born into a sinful world.  Through no fault of their own. If Adam and Eve blew it why should we be punished?  Why didn't God start over with a new couple?

In LDS thought Adam and Even had to fall.  So that was part of the plan. And we are born into a  fallen natural world once again but it was planned.  And it is God's plan.  So if we are his enemy it is His fault not ours. One wonders why a God would make his own creations his enemy.

Link to comment

I have read many of the comments, but not all so someone may have already made the points I am about to make.

Here is my perspective as a exmo...

I think what the LGBTQ/allies want is full fellowship.  This means full equality, including Celestial Marriage to same sex partners.  From their perspective, anything less than this would be discriminatory, just like it was discriminatory when black people had access to a lesser membership in the church.
 

It is true that making this change with not bring very many people back to the church, if any at all, but the reason why people want this is not so they can go back to church.  It is to protect future LGBTQ people being born into the church from suffering the discrimination that the current folks do.

Having said all that, I personally don't think the church will ever bend on this one (although I hope to be proven wrong some day).

The church is a business and I don't think giving in will ever be a good business decision like giving in on the race issue was.  They currently stand to lose more members than gain on the change and I don't think that will ever change.  Those that take issue with the status quo will continue to leave and those that are fine with it will stay.  Since current leaders essentially choose their replacements, they are going to try and choose people that think like them.

Furthermore, I think this is a difficult doctrine to pivot on.  The basic plan of salvation is arguable the longest lasting unchanged doctrine in the church.  I don't see a way for them to pivot without seriously damaging their unique truth claims.

I think that the top brass has accepted that the church will continue to shrink and they are fine with it.  They don't need the money.

50 years from now the church will be even smaller and more regional than it is now and it will eventually become a very wealthy version of the what the Amish people are today...

That is my prediction.

 

Cheers

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Why is the "natural man" an enemy to God?

Because the natural man resists doing what God teaches the natural man to do, often resisting to the point of being in open rebellion against God.  

2 minutes ago, Teancum said:

God did create us this way. 

He created us with the power to choose between good and evil, between doing things God's way or Satan's way, yes.  But while he gave us the power to choose what we would do he doesn't like it when we rebel against him

.

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

According to Orthodox Christianity Adam  and Eve fell from paradise and introduced sin into the world.  So all humans are born into a sinful world.  Through no fault of their own. If Adam and Eve blew it why should we be punished?  Why didn't God start over with a new couple?

Each new couple still would have made their own choices and if they fell then their children would be born into a sinful world too.

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

In LDS thought Adam and Even had to fall.

No not really had to, but lots of us think they would have eventually fallen by doing what they did, and supposedly that was the only way they would have learned how and been able to reproduce themselves as children.

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

So that was part of the plan.

The plan was to have a Savior chosen and ready to step in when we would need one.

6 minutes ago, Teancum said:

And we are born into a  fallen natural world once again but it was planned.  And it is God's plan.  So if we are his enemy it is His fault not ours. One wonders why a God would make his own creations his enemy.

God doesn't make us his enemy.  We choose to become God's enemy when we do not do what God tells us to do which, if we did what God wanted us to do, would keep us out of trouble and in favor with God.

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I have read many of the comments, but not all so someone may have already made the points I am about to make.

Here is my perspective as a exmo...

I think what the LGBTQ/allies want is full fellowship.  This means full equality, including Celestial Marriage to same sex partners.  From their perspective, anything less than this would be discriminatory, just like it was discriminatory when black people had access to a lesser membership in the church.
 

It is true that making this change with not bring very many people back to the church, if any at all, but the reason why people want this is not so they can go back to church.  It is to protect future LGBTQ people being born into the church from suffering the discrimination that the current folks do.

Having said all that, I personally don't think the church will ever bend on this one (although I hope to be proven wrong some day).

The church is a business and I don't think giving in will ever be a good business decision like giving in on the race issue was.  They currently stand to lose more members than gain on the change and I don't think that will ever change.  Those that take issue with the status quo will continue to leave and those that are fine with it will stay.  Since current leaders essentially choose their replacements, they are going to try and choose people that think like them.

Furthermore, I think this is a difficult doctrine to pivot on.  The basic plan of salvation is arguable the longest lasting unchanged doctrine in the church.  I don't see a way for them to pivot without seriously damaging their unique truth claims.

I think that the top brass has accepted that the church will continue to shrink and they are fine with it.  They don't need the money.

50 years from now the church will be even smaller and more regional than it is now and it will eventually become a very wealthy version of the what the Amish people are today...

That is my prediction.

 

Cheers

I appreciate your thoughts here, especially about the desire to protect those LGBTQ members currently in the church and those who will be born into it, but just for fun I'll push back on a couple of issues.

Yes, the church is a business and if it calculates what it will lose by changing then it will definitely take time and a new generation of leaders for them to adjust on this topic, just like it did on racist doctrines. IMO the church's past racist doctrines were better defined than it's anti-LGBTQ policies today. I think that was a bigger shift than this would be.

I don't really believe it would be a difficult "doctrine" to pivot on because I don't believe it's actually a doctrine. I believe it is policy based on a particular understanding of the doctrine of eternal families and the plan of salvation. But that understanding is based largely on assumption because there currently is not any doctrine or theology about LGBTQ+ place in God's plan of salvation. I think a lot of (mis)understanding hinges on assumptions about how spirit children are created. In the hymn O My Father, there's a line about how "truth is reason, truth eternal, tells me there's a mother there." I think the human mind and LDS teachings have been sucked into a trap of thinking that families are created in a certain way here on earth so they must be created in the same way in heaven. I have a father and mother here so I must have one there too, right? But there is no revelation, no doctrine about how spirits are created, beyond saying they are "organized". Does organizing require male and female or could male and male or female and female also accomplish that purpose. I don't know because i don't know how it's done. In the temple women do not play a role in the creation of man. And I don't say this to diminish women, but only to say I don't think anyone else knows either how this works so leaders project what they do understand onto eternal life and the begetting of little spirit children coming to eternal families in some kind of way familiar to our current understanding. If sx between male and female is required for creation of spirits, the church may have a point about the necessity of male/female- only eternal marriage. But no one knows if that's how it is done, do they?

So there really is no doctrine about why a SS couple couldn't also organize spirits or create an eternal family in the unknown way a hetero couple might, beyond the obvious refusal of church leaders to allow sealings in the temple. Because there's no doctrine explaining the how, then it would simply require a change in policy and an admission by the church that it doesn't really understand the workings of eternity or the creation process of spirits. That would seem to be a pretty reasonable and humble admission.

The other point I would make is that the church seems to act like eternal marriage/exaltation is the only possible result for latter day saints. Sure, it may be the hope and the ideal, but is there a place for anyone in the church who doesn't meet that ideal? Sure there is. Non-sealed couples co-exist in our wards and stakes. They serve in callings. They can hold the priesthood and ordain son's and bless the sacrament etc. They can even attend the temple for baptisms, even if they don't necessarily qualify for sealing ordinances.

At the very least, perhaps the church could acknowledge that SSM, even if it doesn't meet their ideal, may still have positive benefits for society and the church and therefore stop it's war against SSM.

In any case, my only hope for the church is that they stop saying and doing things that harm the LGBTQ+ community and admit they don't know how it works. Be humble. Be compassionate. That's all I hope for.

Link to comment
23 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I envy Bernard’s friend. While I have found my love for God growing or at least stable my trust in God has been slowly eroding for years. Not in the ultimate sense. In the ultimate sense I trust that whatever is happening is for my good but that prospect is becoming more and more horrifying because if it is for my good God will make it happen no matter how severe it is or how much misery it inflicts.

I don't want to diminish Bernard's friend if he is happy where he  is at.  But personally it is a mystery to me why we put this "noble faith" on a pedestal.  Do we put the faith of the extreme Islamist on a pedestal? If someone has undying faith that the earth is flat do we cheer that on and admire it?  It seems that we only really cheer unquestioning  and unwavering faith when it is in something we agree with.  I am really quite fine with how someone chooses to live and believe even if that puts them personally into a life that may be denying them some very fulfilling and wonderful experiences. It it their life not mine. If it does not hurt them or anyone else more power to them.   I may find it personally sad because I think that there really may be nothing beyond this life and if there is, and there is some higher power, I think that higher power is more along the lines of Spinoza's god and that being will be ultimately merciful to us. 

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I appreciate your thoughts here, especially about the desire to protect those LGBTQ members currently in the church and those who will be born into it, but just for fun I'll push back on a couple of issues.

Yes, the church is a business and if it calculates what it will lose by changing then it will definitely take time and a new generation of leaders for them to adjust on this topic, just like it did on racist doctrines. IMO the church's past racist doctrines were better defined than it's anti-LGBTQ policies today. I think that was a bigger shift than this would be.

I don't really believe it would be a difficult "doctrine" to pivot on because I don't believe it's actually a doctrine. I believe it is policy based on a particular understanding of the doctrine of eternal families and the plan of salvation. But that understanding is based largely on assumption because there currently is not any doctrine or theology about LGBTQ+ place in God's plan of salvation. I think a lot of (mis)understanding hinges on assumptions about how spirit children are created. In the hymn O My Father, there's a line about how "truth is reason, truth eternal, tells me there's a mother there." I think the human mind and LDS teachings have been sucked into a trap of thinking that families are created in a certain way here on earth so they must be created in the same way in heaven. I have a father and mother here so I must have one there too, right? But there is no revelation, no doctrine about how spirits are created, beyond saying they are "organized". Does organizing require male and female or could male and male or female and female also accomplish that purpose. I don't know because i don't know how it's done. In the temple women do not play a role in the creation of man. And I don't say this to diminish women, but only to say I don't think anyone else knows either how this works so leaders project what they do understand onto eternal life and the begetting of little spirit children coming to eternal families in some kind of way familiar to our current understanding. If sx between male and female is required for creation of spirits, the church may have a point about the necessity of male/female- only eternal marriage. But no one knows if that's how it is done, do they?

So there really is no doctrine about why a SS couple couldn't also organize spirits or create an eternal family in the unknown way a hetero couple might, beyond the obvious refusal of church leaders to allow sealings in the temple. Because there's no doctrine explaining the how, then it would simply require a change in policy and an admission by the church that it doesn't really understand the workings of eternity or the creation process of spirits. That would seem to be a pretty reasonable and humble admission.

The other point I would make is that the church seems to act like eternal marriage/exaltation is the only possible result for latter day saints. Sure, it may be the hope and the ideal, but is there a place for anyone in the church who doesn't meet that ideal? Sure there is. Non-sealed couples co-exist in our wards and stakes. They serve in callings. They can hold the priesthood and ordain son's and bless the sacrament etc. They can even attend the temple for baptisms, even if they don't necessarily qualify for sealing ordinances.

At the very least, perhaps the church could acknowledge that SSM, even if it doesn't meet their ideal, may still have positive benefits for society and the church and therefore stop it's war against SSM.

In any case, my only hope for the church is that they stop saying and doing things that harm the LGBTQ+ community and admit they don't know how it works. Be humble. Be compassionate. That's all I hope for.

While I might quibble with a few specific points, I agree broadly with your pushback, but only in the context of the the status quo being policy and not doctrine.  

My anecdotal observations, both online and in person, tell me that your view that this is policy and not doctrine is held by very small minority of members and, if my assessment is accurate, I think it negates your points.

In regards to this being an easier/smaller shift than the race issue, I will say this....I don't know what metrics we would use to determine the size of each shift, but the key distinction I see is that there was nothing inherently against black people being accepted in full fellowship in the basic tenets of the plan of salvation (pre-existence, come to earth as a test, get married for time and all eternity, enter the celestial kingdom).  With same sex marriage is would require a change in one of the most fundamental teachings of the church (I say doctrine, you say policy).

As for unsealed hetero couples being able to fully participate now, the problem there is that they have a path to being sealed, either in this life or the next.  also, a gay couple would currently be automatically barred from serving in certain callings like youth and primary (unless that policy has recently changed)....

As a side note, I personally know a handful of very active, true believing members who would be completely done with the church if they accepted gay people.  they would not seek to follow the prophet or understand god's will, they would see it as a sign that the church has fallen into apostasy. My gut tells me they are far from alone.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Yes, the church is a business and if it calculates what it will lose by changing then it will definitely take time and a new generation of leaders for them to adjust on this topic, just like it did on racist doctrines. IMO the church's past racist doctrines were better defined than it's anti-LGBTQ policies today. I think that was a bigger shift than this would be.

I don't really believe it would be a difficult "doctrine" to pivot on because I don't believe it's actually a doctrine. I believe it is policy based on a particular understanding of the doctrine of eternal families and the plan of salvation. But that understanding is based largely on assumption because there currently is not any doctrine or theology about LGBTQ+ place in God's plan of salvation. I think a lot of (mis)understanding hinges on assumptions about how spirit children are created. In the hymn O My Father, there's a line about how "truth is reason, truth eternal, tells me there's a mother there." I think the human mind and LDS teachings have been sucked into a trap of thinking that families are created in a certain way here on earth so they must be created in the same way in heaven. I have a father and mother here so I must have one there too, right? But there is no revelation, no doctrine about how spirits are created, beyond saying they are "organized". Does organizing require male and female or could male and male or female and female also accomplish that purpose. I don't know because i don't know how it's done. In the temple women do not play a role in the creation of man. And I don't say this to diminish women, but only to say I don't think anyone else knows either how this works so leaders project what they do understand onto eternal life and the begetting of little spirit children coming to eternal families in some kind of way familiar to our current understanding. If sx between male and female is required for creation of spirits, the church may have a point about the necessity of male/female- only eternal marriage. But no one knows if that's how it is done, do they?

Some people claim that this would be a comparatively easy change to make, but I disagree. It presupposes that the Brethren aren't already extremely risk-averse and that our recent history doesn't include stepping on rakes when trying to rescind something. e.g., the November 2015 policy. President Nelson doubling down that it was a revelation, and that they had war-gamed "every possible permutation" of possibilities, only to undo it less than 3 years later, noting that they were unaware of the "pain" this would cause. Or, the recent abolition of Saturday evening sessions of conference, only to reverse this two weeks later "after much study and prayer."). Having been burned when having to make embarrassing reversals, I think the Brethren are cautious to a fault about making monumental changes because of the risk. Preferring the "revelation through councils," outsourcing difficult issues to academics, and President Nelson's watering down of the concept of revelation to "whatever thoughts I am thinking" all tend to work against the Brethren swinging for the fences and not laying down bunts. The unknown joker in the deck is what such a change would do to a large number of active, loyal, committed members. I think the fallout would be much more significant than with the 1978 change, and I think they know it. This also factors into hesitancy and reticence. 

Edited by rongo
Link to comment
7 minutes ago, rongo said:

President Nelson's watering down of the concept of revelation to "whatever thoughts I am thinking"

Do you have a source that this is what President Nelson believes revelation to be?  Preferably from President Nelson himself, as he would seem to be the best source for his beliefs on revelation.

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Some people claim that this would be a comparatively easy change to make, but I disagree. It presupposes that the Brethren aren't already extremely risk-averse and that our recent history doesn't include stepping on rakes when trying to rescind something. e.g., the November 2015 policy. President Nelson doubling down that it was a revelation, and that they had war-gamed "every iteration" of possibilities, only to undo it less than 3 years later, noting that they were unaware of the "pain" this would cause. Or, the recent abolition of Saturday evening sessions of conference, only to reverse this two weeks later "after much study and prayer."). Having been burned when having to make embarrassing reversals, I think the Brethren are cautious to a fault about making monumental changes because of the risk. Preferring the "revelation through councils," outsourcing difficult issues to academics, and President Nelson's watering down of the concept of revelation to "whatever thoughts I am thinking" all tend to work against the Brethren swinging for the fences and not laying down bunts. The unknown joker in the deck is what such a change would do to a large number of active, loyal, committed members. I think the fallout would be much more significant than with the 1978 change, and I think they know it. This also factors into hesitancy and reticence. 

I agree with everything you've said here.

When I suggested it wouldn't be a difficult "doctrine" to pivot on that is because I don't think there is an organized theology around LGBTQ exclusion so I don't think leaders would need to make major doctrinal changes. But yes, they would need to eat a little crow like they did with the black/priesthood change. All the difficulties you listed seem to have more to do with the collective ego of the church and leaders than any actual doctrinal changes.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I don't want to diminish Bernard's friend if he is happy where he  is at.  But personally it is a mystery to me why we put this "noble faith" on a pedestal.  Do we put the faith of the extreme Islamist on a pedestal? If someone has undying faith that the earth is flat do we cheer that on and admire it?  It seems that we only really cheer unquestioning  and unwavering faith when it is in something we agree with.  I am really quite fine with how someone chooses to live and believe even if that puts them personally into a life that may be denying them some very fulfilling and wonderful experiences. It it their life not mine. If it does not hurt them or anyone else more power to them.   I may find it personally sad because I think that there really may be nothing beyond this life and if there is, and there is some higher power, I think that higher power is more along the lines of Spinoza's god and that being will be ultimately merciful to us. 

The difference is I am convinced there is a God. Evidentially convinced. Not 'believe it very much'. I have no interest in pretending all faiths are created equal or I would have to praise people willing to die consuming horse paste instead of proven medical treatments because they have a deep and stupid faith that it will save them.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, rongo said:

Some people claim that this would be a comparatively easy change to make, but I disagree. It presupposes that the Brethren aren't already extremely risk-averse and that our recent history doesn't include stepping on rakes when trying to rescind something. e.g., the November 2015 policy. President Nelson doubling down that it was a revelation, and that they had war-gamed "every iteration" of possibilities, only to undo it less than 3 years later, noting that they were unaware of the "pain" this would cause. Or, the recent abolition of Saturday evening sessions of conference, only to reverse this two weeks later "after much study and prayer."). Having been burned when having to make embarrassing reversals, I think the Brethren are cautious to a fault about making monumental changes because of the risk. Preferring the "revelation through councils," outsourcing difficult issues to academics, and President Nelson's watering down of the concept of revelation to "whatever thoughts I am thinking" all tend to work against the Brethren swinging for the fences and not laying down bunts. The unknown joker in the deck is what such a change would do to a large number of active, loyal, committed members. I think the fallout would be much more significant than with the 1978 change, and I think they know it. This also factors into hesitancy and reticence. 

So they wouldn't change it because it would be an "embarrassing reversal" and then you cite various "embarrassing reversals" they have done as proof they will never do it? There is a break in the logic there.

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The difference is I am convinced there is a God. Evidentially convinced. Not 'believe it very much'. I have no interest in pretending all faiths are created equal or I would have to praise people willing to die consuming horse paste instead of proven medical treatments because they have a deep and stupid faith that it will save them.

So just to confirm, your faith and your beliefs are the ones that have "noble faith.'  The rest are just mislead and wrong?  Even though many came to their conclusions likely is similar ways you did for yours?

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

So they wouldn't change it because it would be an "embarrassing reversal" and then you cite various "embarrassing reversals" they have done as proof they will never do it? There is a break in the logic there.

Not really. They don't like "embarrassing reversals" (nobody does --- they're embarrassing), but this issue would be DEFCON 5 compared to the priesthood ban, I think. There's embarrassing, and then there's embarrassing. I think it would be very hard to act like prophets, seers, and revelators are meaningful if literally anything and everything can be overturned. Plus, we've pretty much burned our ships on the shore as far as gender and sexuality being essential characteristics of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. 

It's not just the embarrassing aspect, though that factors into risk-aversion and extreme caution. 

Link to comment
34 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with everything you've said here.

When I suggested it wouldn't be a difficult "doctrine" to pivot on that is because I don't think there is an organized theology around LGBTQ exclusion so I don't think leaders would need to make major doctrinal changes. But yes, they would need to eat a little crow like they did with the black/priesthood change. All the difficulties you listed seem to have more to do with the collective ego of the church and leaders than any actual doctrinal changes.

The most important factor is, of course, whether something is actually true. But yes, these other factors have an impact, no question. 

I think it would be more than a little crow. I think it would be an avalanche, not a slippery slope. 

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, rongo said:

The most important factor is, of course, whether something is actually true. But yes, these other factors have an impact, no question. 

I think it would be more than a little crow. I think it would be an avalanche, not a slippery slope. 

The first step would be for them to simply stop fixating on the topic. The more they talk about it, the more crow they will have to eat. With the priesthood issue, there was crow to eat. Apostles had made comments. The first presidency had made official statements...but time passed. As time passes it is easier to be both humble enough to make changes and also accept the crow. If Pres. Kimball had made comments about blacks and the priesthood a few years prior to the change, it would have been a much harder change. But there were natural shifts in leadership and time softened the blow. When members weren't fed a steady diet of anti-black/priesthood rhetoric it became easier for them to accept the changes.

But you're right that the "right thing" should make the difference. Personally, from my own limited perspective I only see church leaders sharing their own opinions based on their own bias and understanding. Obviously those opinions carry a lot of weight in the church, but that is not an insurmountable problem. But of course there needs to be a recognition that maybe they don't have it all figured out and then a desire to figure it out and make it right

Link to comment
3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But of course there needs to be a recognition that maybe they don't have it all figured out and then a desire to figure it out and make it right

This quote from him seems, to me at least, to be recognition that they don't have it all figured out and are desperately trying to do what is right. 

“I and many of my brethren have spent more time and shed more tears on this subject than we could ever adequately convey to you this morning, or any morning. We have spent hours discussing what the doctrine of the church can and cannot provide the individuals and families struggling over this difficult issue. So, it is with scar tissue of our own that we are trying to avoid — and hope all will try to avoid — language, symbols, and situations that are more divisive than unifying at the very time we want to show love for all of God’s children.”

I'm not sure what else we can ask of them.  

Link to comment

David Archuleta's story seems a lot like most, and Matt Easton's too, similar in that they knew since a young age, and felt broken or something's wrong with them. Matt was interviewed on MS's last Sunday. But cannot share on this board because Mods don't want that website linked. It's a good one and sort of answers some questions on his faith. He's not all out but he does struggle after reading things he didn't know about. Matt is sporting a long hair look and living in Berkeley California working on his degree in political science. 

David's story is here: 

https://www.today.com/popculture/david-archuleta-opens-about-coming-out-publicly-god-told-me-t229344?fbclid=IwAR0wndOWnVlHLGYxBClQ5ZrndNQPfu-dW7tf90uyfqe_EuuSn9D5jdN44LA

Link to comment
17 hours ago, rongo said:

 President Nelson doubling down that it was a revelation, and that they had war-gamed "every possible permutation" of possibilities, only to undo it less than 3 years later, noting that they were unaware of the "pain" this would cause. Or, the recent abolition of Saturday evening sessions of conference, only to reverse this two weeks later "after much study and prayer."). Having been burned when having to make embarrassing reversals, I think the Brethren are cautious to a fault about making monumental changes because of the risk. Preferring the "revelation through councils," outsourcing difficult issues to academics, and President Nelson's watering down of the concept of revelation to "whatever thoughts I am thinking" all tend to work against the Brethren swinging for the fences and not laying down bunts.  

Careful, you're starting to sound like me. 😉

And I agree with this.

Link to comment
16 hours ago, rongo said:

Not really. They don't like "embarrassing reversals" (nobody does --- they're embarrassing), but this issue would be DEFCON 5 compared to the priesthood ban, I think. There's embarrassing, and then there's embarrassing. I think it would be very hard to act like prophets, seers, and revelators are meaningful if literally anything and everything can be overturned. Plus, we've pretty much burned our ships on the shore as far as gender and sexuality being essential characteristics of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. 

It's not just the embarrassing aspect, though that factors into risk-aversion and extreme caution. 

I wonder if this is what has delayed any attempt to canonize the Proclamation by vote.  Concern it may have to be removed down the road.  🤨

Link to comment
13 hours ago, bluebell said:

This quote from him seems, to me at least, to be recognition that they don't have it all figured out and are desperately trying to do what is right. 

“I and many of my brethren have spent more time and shed more tears on this subject than we could ever adequately convey to you this morning, or any morning. We have spent hours discussing what the doctrine of the church can and cannot provide the individuals and families struggling over this difficult issue. So, it is with scar tissue of our own that we are trying to avoid — and hope all will try to avoid — language, symbols, and situations that are more divisive than unifying at the very time we want to show love for all of God’s children.”

I'm not sure what else we can ask of them.  

In the context of the rest of the speech this quote is so out of place. Hoping all will try to avoid language symbols and situations that are more divisive than unifying while simultaneously talking about musket fire to combat the flag waving and parading is laughable. But this kind of comment is common for the brethren. They regularly say that all are loved and we should treat them with dignity and respect but then go and do otherwise. Stating that people should be treated well in no way recognizes that he(they) may not have it all figured out. It seems more like recognizing the pain caused in peoples lives as inevitable because God has spoken.

Link to comment
19 hours ago, rongo said:

President Nelson's watering down of the concept of revelation to "whatever thoughts I am thinking"

 

19 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Do you have a source that this is what President Nelson believes revelation to be?  Preferably from President Nelson himself, as he would seem to be the best source for his beliefs on revelation.

 

Link to comment
21 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I have read many of the comments, but not all so someone may have already made the points I am about to make.

Here is my perspective as a exmo...

I think what the LGBTQ/allies want is full fellowship.  This means full equality, including Celestial Marriage to same sex partners.  From their perspective, anything less than this would be discriminatory, just like it was discriminatory when black people had access to a lesser membership in the church.
 

It is true that making this change with not bring very many people back to the church, if any at all, but the reason why people want this is not so they can go back to church.  It is to protect future LGBTQ people being born into the church from suffering the discrimination that the current folks do.

Having said all that, I personally don't think the church will ever bend on this one (although I hope to be proven wrong some day).

The church is a business and I don't think giving in will ever be a good business decision like giving in on the race issue was.  They currently stand to lose more members than gain on the change and I don't think that will ever change.  Those that take issue with the status quo will continue to leave and those that are fine with it will stay.  Since current leaders essentially choose their replacements, they are going to try and choose people that think like them.

Furthermore, I think this is a difficult doctrine to pivot on.  The basic plan of salvation is arguable the longest lasting unchanged doctrine in the church.  I don't see a way for them to pivot without seriously damaging their unique truth claims.

I think that the top brass has accepted that the church will continue to shrink and they are fine with it.  They don't need the money.

50 years from now the church will be even smaller and more regional than it is now and it will eventually become a very wealthy version of the what the Amish people are today...

That is my prediction.

 

Cheers

You really think they'll leave entirely?  I've known people who went inactive, they never really leave.  Even those who resign their membership are still on very good terms with family.  One branch of my family has a lot of members.  While the other half aren't they are still on very, very good terms with them.  The LDS church has other things besides a lot of money, stable, self sustaining communities.  Something else I see in 50 years, besides being more regional, their communities will be far more sound and safe, sort of like some of the Catholic communities in the Midwest and Orthodox communities in the North.  My understanding is the LDS church has something similar (and likely far larger/prosperous) than this in FL.

Ave Maria, Florida - Wikipedia

I'd imagine having it under a religious umbrella is a fantastic tax and political work around, if I'm right I think it's brilliant.  As times get worse you're going to see states strapped for cash and people with kids desperate for safe communities.  My hope is this is one way they can keep their communities pristine so they don't end up going down the drain like so many are now thanks to transplants.  Like E.Asian, Muslim and Jewish communities stricter religious communities tend not to be too popular with outsiders due to the rules.  It's amazing,  have family that live next to an LDS temple, they have no qualms with the standards their LDS neighbors live by.  The transplants moving in are frustrated to no end over it.  

 

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...