What is the LGBT policy goal for the Church

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Thing is, I’m not entirely sure the Brethren have sufficiently actually prayed over, and deeply considered the possibility that former prophets got it wrong re: same sex marriage, Transgender identity, etc. 
 

I understand what you are saying in that there exists constraints upon the very powerful, and they are believed by themselves & the members to ultimately do what God inspires them to do, but I wasn’t very much impressed with the ‘fruits’ of these wrestling’s that you previously mentioned.

A lot of the softening of the church’s position towards myself and others like me gave little-no acknowledgement that the prior positions were wrong and not of God.

Some of them were more or less returning things to the status quo prior to greater doubling down as seen in Nov. 2015 policy.

I’m sorry but that’s just not enough, and I’m hardly alone in thinking that.

I’m just tired of these muskets, and many members/postmembers are beginning to find more ‘revelation’ if you will in the returning tide of progressive Latter-Day Saint scholars and influencers who’s messaging rings closer to the Saviour’s as they understand the latter to be.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/magazine/2021/09/27/rise-liberal-latter-day-saints/
 

Warning: paywall

 

And the thing is, this wouldn’t be the first time that the efforts & messaging of progressive members might be said to arrive prior to any greater acceptance among church members as a whole. It’s cyclical.
 

 

I get it.  But is it rational or reasonable to expect people to do what they sincerely believe is wrong?  We can disagree with others and believe they are wrong, sure, but can we require them to act against what they sincerely believe God wants before we will accept that are trying to follow Christ?

Our leaders might be wrong on this whole thing, but until they are convinced of it, I don't believe it's fair to ask them to act against their beliefs.  Knowing what God wants, and not doing it--that is one thing.  But believing that you are doing exactly what God wants of you, that is something completely different.  

My personal pet peeve is double standards.  I detest them in myself and I can't really stand them in others.  Just as I would never ask you to behave contrary to your sincere beliefs no matter how much I might disagree with you, I believe it would be the ultimate in hypocrisy to demand anyone else behave contrary to theirs. 

[Canadiandude]

16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But is it rational or reasonable to expect people to do what they sincerely believe is wrong?

It honestly depends on the thing I guess.

I agree that religious freedom is important in that there needs to exist necessary limits to the kinds of persuasions and social/institutional pressures that can be applied.

Yet I also believe it’s well within people’s right (whether external/internal to the group) to vocally problematize the behaviour and its ramifications. 
 

The church is free to remain opposed to a more progressive definition of marriage, gender, and/or sexuality within its own religious body, regardless of what I or anyone else says (So long as it doesn’t cross legal boundaries re: hate speech, employment equality, etc)

However, this cannot be construed as being free from the social costs of such a position. So long as it doesn’t cross into hate speech, people are free to communicate that the church’s policies are harmful.

Edited September 28, 2021 by Canadiandude
Edited for clarity

[Vanguard]

22 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

It honestly depends on the thing I guess.

I agree that religious freedom is important in that there needs to exist necessary limits to the kinds of persuasions and social/institutional pressures that can be applied.

Yet I also believe it’s well within people’s right (whether external/internal to the group) to vocally problematize the behaviour and its ramifications. 

The church is free to remain opposed to a more progressive definition of marriage, gender, and/or sexuality within its own religious body, regardless of what I or anyone else says (So long as it doesn’t cross legal boundaries re: hate speech, employment equality, etc)

However, this cannot be construed as being free from the social costs of such a position. So long as it doesn’t cross into hate speech, people are free to communicate that the church’s policies are harmful.

I don't think anyone is arguing another shouldn't have the right to "vocally problematize the behaviour and its ramifications" - that was never the issue. I stand with anyone in vocalizing their concerns to their heart's content as informed by the laws of the land. This should not  be construed, however, to be an endorsement of liberties taken as informed by the rules of membership in the church. These are two wholly different standards. 

Regards to bluebell's comments, it must be particularly difficult for the general leadership to navigate these waters considering the possibility some of their own personal beliefs may be more sympathetic to the LGBT cause than what they believe their Father-in-Heaven would endorse. This kind of stewardship I wouldn't wish on anyone.  

[california boy]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

The Gods organized everything spiritually in preparation for organizing them naturally upon the earth, “that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual (D&C 77:2).” This is describing their organization activities before the Fall, after which things didn’t necessarily match up so nicely. But all these things were also organized looking ahead to reflect the likeness, or to bear record of, the Only Begotten Son and His advancement from grace to grace on the path from spirit to the fallen world to exaltation, giving rise to Gods that organize everything spiritually  in preparation for organizing them naturally upon the earth, and so on; it's a cycle with likenesses and witnesses of things past, present and yet to come, all along the way.

Except Abraham 4 doesn't talk about a spiritual creation.  It is talking about the actual physical creation of the universe with multiple Gods performing the tasks of the creation process.  Given that this was done with the power of the priesthood, do you think it was only men that were doing the creation?  How do women even fit into the creation process according to scripture?

[california boy]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

No, not at all, but it cannot be denied that it holds us back from big recruitment initiatives in that community. 

I know some (including missionaries) who would hem and haw, and try to avoid the obvious in teaching interested gay people. I've always been upfront when asked or when the obvious needs to be explained (no, I don't lead with that, but it's the elephant in the room). I think that elephant would prevent an ad campaign push. The media coverage of such a thing would be epic, though.  

Are there gay people who don't know about the Church's stance? Would that come as an unpleasant shock to many people still? 

 

I see your point.  I wasn't even thinking about a targeted campaign to LGBT.  I was thinking more along the lines of someone stating in conference that all are welcome to attend LDS services including gay couples and their families.  I doubt this would influence anyone outside the Church.  But there may be gay couples who used to be members and want to have some relationship with the Church.  Personally I don't.  While I have attended Church since coming out, it hasn't really been a pleasant experience.  The last time I attended, several anti gay remarks were made. Once in priesthood before they broke into quorums. (Not sure if they still do that). And then once again that day in the High Priest quorum.  But it was worth the experience to see of things had changed at all.  Maybe I just hit a bad week.

Well I live in California.  I have never met a gay person who doesn't know the Church excludes gay couples.  Most assume the church is not welcoming to anyone who is LGBT.  And I don't personally know any gay couples that have a strong desire to attend LDS services.  But it would be a possible gesture that would actually help some families dealing with this issue.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

It honestly depends on the thing I guess.

I agree that religious freedom is important in that there needs to exist necessary limits to the kinds of persuasions and social/institutional pressures that can be applied.

Yet I also believe it’s well within people’s right (whether external/internal to the group) to vocally problematize the behaviour and its ramifications. 
 

The church is free to remain opposed to a more progressive definition of marriage, gender, and/or sexuality within its own religious body, regardless of what I or anyone else says (So long as it doesn’t cross legal boundaries re: hate speech, employment equality, etc)

However, this cannot be construed as being free from the social costs of such a position. So long as it doesn’t cross into hate speech, people are free to communicate that the church’s policies are harmful.

I agree.  Though a country full of people who secretly believe one way but behave differently in public because they are afraid of the repercussions if they don't, is probably not long for anything good.  But using social pressure to get people to publicly do or say what you want is a whole different topic of discussion.   

 

Edited September 28, 2021 by bluebell

[Vanguard]

9 minutes ago, california boy said:

I see your point.  I wasn't even thinking about a targeted campaign to LGBT.  I was thinking more along the lines of someone stating in conference that all are welcome to attend LDS services including gay couples and their families.  I doubt this would influence anyone outside the Church.  But there may be gay couples who used to be members and want to have some relationship with the Church.  Personally I don't.  While I have attended Church since coming out, it hasn't really been a pleasant experience.  The last time I attended, several anti gay remarks were made. Once in priesthood before they broke into quorums. (Not sure if they still do that). And then once again that day in the High Priest quorum.  But it was worth the experience to see of things had changed at all.  Maybe I just hit a bad week.

Well I live in California.  I have never met a gay person who doesn't know the Church excludes gay couples.  Most assume the church is not welcoming to anyone who is LGBT.  And I don't personally know any gay couples that have a strong desire to attend LDS services.  But it would be a possible gesture that would actually help some families dealing with this issue.

Your comments remind me of one particular EQ meeting I attended ~6 years ago where the EQ president commented that we needed to step up due to the gay population overtaking all things civically in the community and how things were going downhill quickly. And this was in Palm Springs of all places! This comment roiled me as I worked with a gay man at the time who I utterly respected beyond measure. I wondered to myself what would have happened to our own relationship had I invited him to church on that particular Sunday. ; ( There are still many instances where we need to improve. Fortunately, these are more the exception though they still happen. It's already hard enough navigating what could potentially be a difficult effort (actively including the LGBT community in our worship services) without having to deal with this type of 'low-lying-fruit' occurrence.

[Canadiandude]

26 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

I don't think anyone is arguing another shouldn't have the right to "vocally problematize the behaviour and its ramifications" - that was never the issue. I stand with anyone in vocalizing their concerns to their heart's content as informed by the laws of the land. This should not  be construed, however, to be an endorsement of liberties taken as informed by the rules of membership in the church. These are two wholly different standards. 

Regards to bluebell's comments, it must be particularly difficult for the general leadership to navigate these waters considering the possibility some of their own personal beliefs may be more sympathetic to the LGBT cause than what they believe their Father-in-Heaven would endorse. This kind of stewardship I wouldn't wish on anyone.  

I don’t pretend to support the membership rules of the church.

I don’t & won’t pretend to believe them to be of god.

I’m not so certain I get your point. Nobody can institutionally coerce the church into changing it’s rules of membership.

But we can, do, and will continue to problematize those same rules. We can’t change ya, and ya can’t change us in advocating for such changes.

I’m not even certain that anyone’s disputing that but just do that we’re clear.

If y’all want to believe that the Brethren have somehow been at pains to understand and be more empathetic and responsive to the issues faced by sexual & gender minorities, that’s really up to you.

 

But I’m not convinced. The kinds of people who really take the pains to become uncomfortable on behalf of the well-being of sexual & gender minorities among their membership, are going to be the kinds of leaders that dedicate greater criticism towards members involved in stuff like Deznat than gay valedictorians coming out of the closet, or progressive faculty & scholars.

 Many of generation are realizing this, and we’re responding emphatically that we’re not ok with the status quo.

The church is admittedly more likely to double down rather than not (see the last few tweets in Dr. Park’s thread) but so be it. 
 

So be it.

[CV75]

32 minutes ago, california boy said:

Except Abraham 4 doesn't talk about a spiritual creation.  It is talking about the actual physical creation of the universe with multiple Gods performing the tasks of the creation process.  Given that this was done with the power of the priesthood, do you think it was only men that were doing the creation?  How do women even fit into the creation process according to scripture?

Chapter 4 covers what the Gods counselled and decided to do. Chapter 5 picks up their execution of this spiritual organization. Note how this parallels Moses 3 which more fully explains that “I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth.” This is partly why the order of the natural organization did not coincide with the order described for the spiritual organization:

“… I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air; But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.”

So yes, having the rest of the story, Chapter 4 does talk about a spiritual creation in terms of counsel and decision. And because all things were thus created spiritually and naturally to bear record of the Only Begotten Son, that includes the manner in which He was created, spiritually and naturally upon the earth. His Gospel describes how we continue to bear record of Him through His Atonement and His associated covenant path of discipleship.

And women do have priesthood power: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/callings/relief-society-organization/work-and-purpose/women-and-priesthood?lang=eng

The Gods in Chapter 4 were male and female, as indicated by organizing Adam and Eve in their image (v. 26 and 27), spiritually and then naturally.

[Canadiandude]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree.  Though a country full of people who secretly believe one way but behave differently in public because they are afraid of the repercussions if they don't, is probably not long for anything good.  But using social pressure to get people to publicly do or say what you want is a whole different topic of discussion.   

 

I understand the humour of the situation and what you’re implying but I mean, can a message of tolerance stand if it tolerates intolerance? 
 

Yeah, topic for another day. 

 

[california boy]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Chapter 4 covers what the Gods counselled and decided to do. Chapter 5 picks up their execution of this spiritual organization. Note how this parallels Moses 3 which more fully explains that “I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth.” This is partly why the order of the natural organization did not coincide with the order described for the spiritual organization:

“… I, the Lord God, made the heaven and the earth, And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, created all things, of which I have spoken, spiritually, before they were naturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had created all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ground; for in heaven created I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air; But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. And I, the Lord God, formed man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul, the first flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.”

So yes, having the rest of the story, Chapter 4 does talk about a spiritual creation in terms of counsel and decision. And because all things were thus created spiritually and naturally to bear record of the Only Begotten Son, that includes the manner in which He was created, spiritually and naturally upon the earth. His Gospel describes how we continue to bear record of Him through His Atonement and His associated covenant path of discipleship.

And women do have priesthood power: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/callings/relief-society-organization/work-and-purpose/women-and-priesthood?lang=eng

The Gods in Chapter 4 were male and female, as indicated by organizing Adam and Eve in their image (v. 26 and 27), spiritually and then naturally.

Where are you reading that this is only a spiritual creation in Chapter 4?  I reread it.  Couldn't find anything that would indicate this is only a spiritual creation.  It seems pretty clear that it is actually how the creation took place.

Quote

 

Abraham 4

1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the ^aGods, ^borganized and formed the ^cheavens and the earth.

2 And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and ^adarkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods ^bwas brooding upon the face of the waters.

3 And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.

4 And they (the Gods) comprehended the light, for it was ^abright; and they divided the light, or caused it to be divided, from the darkness.

5 And the Gods called the light Day, and the darkness they called Night. And it came to pass that from the evening until morning they called ^anight; and from the morning until the evening they called day; and this was the first, or the beginning, of that which they called day and night.

6 And the Gods also said: Let there be an ^aexpanse in the midst of the waters, and it shall divide the waters from the waters.

7 And the Gods ordered the expanse, so that it divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so, even as they ordered.

8 And the Gods called the expanse, Heaven. And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and this was the second ^atime that they called night and day.

9 And the Gods ordered, saying: Let the ^awaters under the heaven be gathered together unto ^bone place, and let the earth come up dry; and it was so as they ordered;

10 And the Gods pronounced the dry land, Earth; and the gathering together of the waters, pronounced they, ^aGreat Waters; and the Gods saw that they were obeyed.

11 And the Gods said: Let us prepare the earth to bring forth ^agrass; the herb yielding seed; the fruit tree yielding fruit, after his kind, whose seed in itself yieldeth its own likeness upon the earth; and it was so, even as they ordered.

12 And the Gods organized the ^aearth to bring forth grass from its own seed, and the herb to bring forth herb from its own seed, yielding seed after his kind; and the earth to bring forth the tree from its own seed, yielding fruit, whose seed could only bring forth the same in itself, after his kind; and the Gods saw that they were obeyed.

13 And it came to pass that they numbered the days; from the evening until the morning they called night; and it came to pass, from the morning until the evening they called day; and it was the third time.

14 And the Gods organized the ^alights in the expanse of the heaven, and caused them to divide the day from the night; and organized them to be for signs and for seasons, and for days and for years;

15 And organized them to be for lights in the expanse of the heaven to give light upon the earth; and it was so.

16 And the Gods organized the two great lights, the ^agreaterlight to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; with the lesser light they set the stars also;

17 And the Gods set them in the expanse of the heavens, to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to cause to divide the light from the ^adarkness.

18 And the Gods watched those things which they had ^aordereduntil they obeyed.

19 And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that it was night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that it was day; and it was the fourth time.

20 And the Gods said: Let us prepare the waters to bring forth abundantly the moving creatures that have life; and the fowl, that they may fly above the earth in the open expanse of heaven.

21 And the Gods prepared the waters that they might bring forth great ^awhales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters were to bring forth abundantly after their kind; and every winged fowl after their kind. And the Gods saw that they would be obeyed, and that their plan was good.

22 And the Gods said: We will bless them, and cause them to be fruitful and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas or ^agreat waters; and cause the fowl to multiply in the earth.

23 And it came to pass that it was from evening until morning that they called night; and it came to pass that it was from morning until evening that they called day; and it was the fifth time.

24 And the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their kind; and it was so, as they had said.

25 And the Gods organized the earth to bring forth the beasts after their kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after its kind; and the Gods saw they would obey.

What you quoted only mentions God creating thing spiritually, not the Gods

I don't want to make this a back and forth thing.  I am just trying to figure out how you are jumping to the conclusions you are making.

Quote

 

 

[Senator]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

The struggle I think is: most Mormons, including me, truly want everyone to come to church and learn and grow in the gospel. But, if a gay couple really take to the Church and want to join and progress in it, it comes to a screeching halt, because they literally can't receive ordinances or make progress, other than simply attending. 

I don't think we treat fornicating or adulterous straight couples differently, it's just that most people know many more of them than they do gay couples. They also would have to make big changes --- including in their sex lives and living arrangements --- before they can receive ordinances and make progress.

 

I don't know about this. I understand the reasoning, but I wonder if it is right.   It brings to mind the anecdotal story ( and I don't know who to attribute it to)  of a church leader who was known to say, I love the smell of cigarette smoke in the chapel!  I take it mean, that instead of holding the attitude of inappropriateness or offence,  he was delighted that such an individual was responding to the desire to be there, vices and all.   Growing up there was such a man in our ward that attended sacrament service fairly often. As a kid I remember the strong smell of cigarette smoke on him and thinking to myself, "what is he doing here?"   As far as I know, he never held any callings or made temple covenant.  But he showed up.

Is an all-or-nothing approach all there is?  Is our message to this community, "Know we love you, we pray for you, we strive to treat every soul with fairness and dignity, but unfortunately,  unless you make drastic changes to your behavior and lives, you simply cannot obtain the fulness of the Gospel through its sacraments and ordinances; therefore, we really have nothing to offer you within these  walls." I don't know that that is right.

Now as CB has mentioned,  not many LGBQT couples even have a desire to attend LDS services and I fully understand that.  But perhaps having some couples "showing up"  is needed to help us mature our hearts; as that young Senator needed, in regards to the smoky man sitting next to him.  And maybe showing up is all they can offer.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Senator said:

I don't know about this. I understand the reasoning, but I wonder if it is right.   It brings to mind the anecdotal story ( and I don't know who to attribute it to)  of a church leader who was known to say, I love the smell of cigarette smoke in the chapel!  I take it mean, that instead of holding the attitude of inappropriateness or offence,  he was delighted that such an individual was responding to the desire to be there, vices and all.   Growing up there was such a man in our ward that attended sacrament service fairly often. As a kid I remember the strong smell of cigarette smoke on him and thinking to myself, "what is he doing here?"   As far as I know, he never held any callings or made temple covenant.  But he showed up.

Is an all-or-nothing approach all there is?  Is our message to this community, "Know we love you, we pray for you, we strive to treat every soul with fairness and dignity, but unfortunately,  unless you make drastic changes to your behavior and lives, you simply cannot obtain the fulness of the Gospel through its sacraments and ordinances; therefore, we really have nothing to offer you within these  walls." I don't know that that is right.

Now as CB has mentioned,  not many LGBQT couples even have a desire to attend LDS services and I fully understand that.  But perhaps having some couples "showing up"  is needed to help us mature our hearts; as that young Senator needed, in regards to the smoky man sitting next to him.  And maybe showing up is all they can offer.

I definitely think we want everyone there. And we also want sinners to be pricked in their hearts and repent and follow the fulness of the restored gospel. Maybe we do need to do a blitz in the Bay Area and Key West and try to get as many gay couples at church as possible --- and to try to get them appointments with the missionaries. The original question was: why doesn't the Church do something like that? And my answer was that there is hesitancy of running into a brick wall almost immediately on that. No different from doing an all out blitz in rural Mississippi to get born-again Christians at church. Why don't we do that (much as we'd like them to be there)? 

[Senator]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

I definitely think we want everyone there. And we also want sinners to be pricked in their hearts and repent and follow the fulness of the restored gospel. Maybe we do need to do a blitz in the Bay Area and Key West and try to get as many gay couples at church as possible --- and to try to get them appointments with the missionaries. The original question was: why doesn't the Church do something like that? And my answer was that there is hesitancy of running into a brick wall almost immediately on that. No different from doing an all out blitz in rural Mississippi to get born-again Christians at church. Why don't we do that (much as we'd like them to be there)? 

Pleeease, no blitzes!  I'm really triggered by new goal oriented missionary programs.  

 

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, california boy said:

Where are you reading that this is only a spiritual creation in Chapter 4?  I reread it.  Couldn't find anything that would indicate this is only a spiritual creation.  It seems pretty clear that it is actually how the creation took place.

What you quoted only mentions God creating thing spiritually, not the Gods

I don't want to make this a back and forth thing.  I am just trying to figure out how you are jumping to the conclusions you are making.

 

You seem to have trouble understanding my posts because you keep re-reading Chapter 4 in isolation, when the full description continues in Chapter 5 which is reiterated in Moses 3.

I suggest you read the posts and referenced scriptures, and ask questions specific to the connections I made.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Canadiandude said:

I understand the humour of the situation and what you’re implying but I mean, can a message of tolerance stand if it tolerates intolerance? 
 

Yeah, topic for another day. 

 

That's the conundrum.  Both sides believe that they are the side being asked to tolerate intolerance.  Both sides believe they hold the morally superior high ground.  

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

can a message of tolerance stand if it tolerates intolerance? 

I think it has to at some degree, otherwise it may too easily move into what amounts to force and is negating its own message/goal.  I see something along the lines of acceptance of limited intolerance in individuals (no violence or abuse is acceptable) while insisting on removal of systemic or community intolerance.  Community support of intolerant behaviour is removed, individuals speaking privately and acting intolerant in personal life (perhaps refuses to hire certain groups to work on the owner’s land vs the owner and others pushing the city government to place restrictions on others).  Remove the community mechanisms of intolerance and hopefully that minimizes it without turning the “tolerant” position into an intolerant one, where now there are two groups who only accept and tolerate those who agree with or maybe are neutral,

[Canadiandude]

49 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it has to at some degree, otherwise it may too easily move into what amounts to force and is negating its own message/goal.  I see something along the lines of acceptance of limited intolerance in individuals (no violence or abuse is acceptable) while insisting on removal of systemic or community intolerance.  Community support of intolerant behaviour is removed, individuals speaking privately and acting intolerant in personal life (perhaps refuses to hire certain groups to work on the owner’s land vs the owner and others pushing the city government to place restrictions on others).  Remove the community mechanisms of intolerance and hopefully that minimizes it without turning the “tolerant” position into an intolerant one, where now there are two groups who only accept and tolerate those who agree with or maybe are neutral,

I’m gonna have to ponder on this a bit more,  I’m not entirely sure I disagree or agree, but it’s a perennial issue and one that has taken my country by storm as well, albeit with different outcomes/solutions.

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, Senator said:

I don't know about this. I understand the reasoning, but I wonder if it is right.   It brings to mind the anecdotal story ( and I don't know who to attribute it to)  of a church leader who was known to say, I love the smell of cigarette smoke in the chapel!  I take it mean, that instead of holding the attitude of inappropriateness or offence,  he was delighted that such an individual was responding to the desire to be there, vices and all.   Growing up there was such a man in our ward that attended sacrament service fairly often. As a kid I remember the strong smell of cigarette smoke on him and thinking to myself, "what is he doing here?"   As far as I know, he never held any callings or made temple covenant.  But he showed up.

Is an all-or-nothing approach all there is?  Is our message to this community, "Know we love you, we pray for you, we strive to treat every soul with fairness and dignity, but unfortunately,  unless you make drastic changes to your behavior and lives, you simply cannot obtain the fulness of the Gospel through its sacraments and ordinances; therefore, we really have nothing to offer you within these  walls." I don't know that that is right.

Now as CB has mentioned,  not many LGBQT couples even have a desire to attend LDS services and I fully understand that.  But perhaps having some couples "showing up"  is needed to help us mature our hearts; as that young Senator needed, in regards to the smoky man sitting next to him.  And maybe showing up is all they can offer.

I am concerned when monogamous, married gay couples are compared to adulterers, fornicators, smokers, and other “sinners”. Why would they want to come and sit in our pews and sing “Families Can be together forever” if they feel that they are not considered worthy by the members? If members look at them as sinners in need of fixing, then that would be an uncomfortable spot to be in. Why would anyone with high self esteem and confidence put themselves in that position? 

I was in a similar position as a part member family. My kids’ dad never joined and my children were never sealed to me. Until I grew in confidence, I felt less-than because of it. And yes, things were said by members that added to that feeling. No one can really tell me where my children will end up in relation to me in the next life. It is something I’ve had to come to terms with and really wrestle with in order to stay in. At least I could hold callings, do work in the temple and take sacrament even when I was married to a non-member. Maybe we could allow same sex married couples the same? The problem, though, is if you have two temple-worthy people (with the exception of being in a same-sex marriage) with children, then it doesn’t seem fair to say you aren’t worthy to be sealed and have your children sealed to you. So, where I always end up is since there has been no direct revelation on the subject, why not let them be sealed to each other and their family and then Heavenly Father and Jesus will be the final judge.

Sorry for rambling. It’s been a long, few days. Daughter just had a baby but he has had some issues and is still in hospital. Hubby tested positive for Covid with at home test and waiting on Dr. test results. Fires to put out at work. Etc. Etc. 

Edited September 29, 2021 by Peacefully

[california boy]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

You seem to have trouble understanding my posts because you keep re-reading Chapter 4 in isolation, when the full description continues in Chapter 5 which is reiterated in Moses 3.

I suggest you read the posts and referenced scriptures, and ask questions specific to the connections I made.

I am reading everything you write.   I am not reading them in isolation. What I am not reading is where it says that the Gods only did spiritual planning in Chapter 5. Of course I understand that Mormons teach that God created everything spiritually.  And the scriptures clearly state that God created everything spiritually before they were created physically.  But the Gods did the creating of the physical universe.  In not a single reference have you been able to show that the Gods only participated in the spiritual planning.  That is not what the scriptures say.

But you obviously know that.  I was trying to understand where you were coming up with the idea that the gods did not create the universe. I don't really like pointless back and forth.  You have not presented any scripture that disputes what is in Abraham 4-5.

Edited September 29, 2021 by california boy

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Peacefully said:

I am concerned when monogamous, married gay couples are compared to adulterers, fornicators, smokers, and other “sinners”. Why would they want to come and sit in our pews and sing “Families Can be together forever” if they feel that they are not considered worthy by the members? If members look at them as sinners in need of fixing, then that would be an uncomfortable spot to be in. Why would anyone with high self esteem and confidence put themselves in that position? 

I was in a similar position as a part member family. My kids’ dad never joined and my children were never sealed to me. Until I grew in confidence, I felt less-than because of it. And yes, things were said by members that added to that feeling. No one can really tell me where my children will end up in relation to me in the next life. It is something I’ve had to come to terms with and really wrestle with in order to stay in. At least I could hold callings, do work in the temple and take sacrament even when I was married to a non-member. Maybe we could allow same sex married couples the same? The problem, though, is if you have two temple-worthy people (with the exception of being in a same-sex marriage) with children, then it doesn’t seem fair to say you aren’t worthy to be sealed and have your children sealed to you. So, where I always end up is since there has been no direct revelation on the subject, why not let them be sealed to each other and their family and then Heavenly Father and Jesus will be the final judge.

Sorry for rambling. It’s been a long, few days. Daughter just had a baby but he has had some issues and is still in hospital. Hubby tested positive for Covid with at home test and waiting on Dr. test results. Fires to put out at work. Etc. Etc. 

God bless your hubby and new baby grandson. 🤗 

Edited September 29, 2021 by Tacenda

[MrShorty]

8 hours ago, rongo said:

The struggle I think is: most Mormons, including me, truly want everyone to come to church and learn and grow in the gospel. But, if a gay couple really take to the Church and want to join and progress in it, it comes to a screeching halt, because they literally can't receive ordinances or make progress, other than simply attending. 

When I put forth the question on the Church's goals for its policies, this was one of the things that came to my mind -- the tension between having policies whose goals include encouraging LGBT people to come and worship with us and other policies whose goals include discouraging them from truly joining in full fellowship. It's quite a conundrum.

One of my concerns is the amount of speculation that goes into defending the "discourage from full fellowship" part. IMO, the theological and revelatory foundation of the parts that discourage full fellowship seem pretty weak and sandy. It seems to me that, if some our policy goals include "discourage full fellowship", then the theological and revelatory foundations for those policies had better be pretty solid. Because the foundations for these policies seems weak to me, I am inclined towards something like @Peacefully suggested -- encourage full fellowship and let God sort it out later.

For those who think that yielding on this foundationally weak issue sets us on a slide down the slippery slope to where we have no standards for full fellowship, I would note that many of the other sins where our policies also discourage full fellowship (adultery, murder, thievery, assault, abuse, etc.) have pretty solid theological and revelatory foundations.

[mfbukowski]

On 9/27/2021 at 7:08 PM, california boy said:

You automatically leap to that conclusion with actually no evidence, just a guess.  There may have been male and female Gods.  But there is nothing to indicate they were married.  And no one is disputing that the Gods created male and female.  

All of these extrapolations comes from just one point of view. . Your own paradigm.  Understandable.  But that doesn't make it true.  There is no indication that any of these Gods were married

I am showing a different paradigm from my point of view. And what I am speculating just like you.  It also doesn't make it true.  

The point is, people have made their own guesses about this issue from their perspective and not from actual knowledge.

Ridiculous 

How could we even know they EXIST on your criteria.

Obviously we can't.  You are not getting this

"True" doesn't even enter into the equation!

It's about a PARADIGM taken on faith.

Just forget about it all.

Edited September 29, 2021 by mfbukowski

[Peacefully]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

God bless your hubby and new baby grandson. 🤗 

Thank you:)

[CV75]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

I am reading everything you write.   I am not reading them in isolation. What I am not reading is where it says that the Gods only did spiritual planning in Chapter 5. Of course I understand that Mormons teach that God created everything spiritually.  And the scriptures clearly state that God created everything spiritually before they were created physically.  But the Gods did the creating of the physical universe.  In not a single reference have you been able to show that the Gods only participated in the spiritual planning.  That is not what the scriptures say.

But you obviously know that.  I was trying to understand where you were coming up with the idea that the gods did not create the universe. I don't really like pointless back and forth.  You have not presented any scripture that disputes what is in Abraham 4-5.

I've been saying all along that the Gods created (organized, formed) everything spiritually before naturally. From Abraham 5, which ties in with Moses 3 (which explains Moses 2 in teh same way that Abraham 5 explains Abraham 4):

1 And thus we will finish the heavens and the earth, and all the ^ahosts of them.

2 And the Gods said among themselves: On the seventh time we will end our work, which we have counseled; and we will ^arest on the ^bseventh time from all our work which we have counseled.

3 And the Gods concluded upon the seventh time, because that on the seventh time they would ^arest from all their ^bworks which they (the Gods) counseled among themselves to form; and ^csanctified it. And thus were their decisions at the time that they counseled among themselves to form the heavens and the earth.

4 And the Gods came down and formed these the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were formed in the day that the ^aGods formed the earth and the heavens,

5 According to all that which they had said concerning every plant of the field before it was in the ^aearth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Gods had not caused it to rain upon the earth when they counseled to do them, and had not formed a man to till the ground.

(Moses 3):

4 And now, behold, I say unto you, that these are the generations of the heaven and of the earth, when they were ^acreated, in the day that I, the Lord God, made the ^bheaven and the earth,

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew. For I, the Lord God, ^acreated all things, of which I have spoken, ^bspiritually, before they were ^cnaturally upon the face of the earth. For I, the Lord God, had not caused it to rain upon the face of the earth. And I, the Lord God, had ^dcreated all the children of men; and not yet a man to till the ^eground; for in ^fheaven ^gcreated I them; and there was not yet flesh upon the earth, neither in the water, neither in the air;

6 But I, the Lord God, spake, and there went up a ^amist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

7 And I, the Lord God, formed man from the ^adust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the ^bbreath of life; and ^cman became a living ^dsoul, the ^efirst flesh upon the earth, the first man also; nevertheless, all things were before created; but spiritually were they created and made according to my word.

PS: The eventual point of course (from Moses 6) is that everything bears record of itself spiritually and naturally, to bear record of the Only Begotten Son, including His spiritual and natural creation.

Edited September 29, 2021 by CV75