What is the LGBT policy goal for the Church

[california boy]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

 

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

Yeah it is time to forget about it. I was never trying to dissuade CV from his beliefs.  What I was trying to do is to open eyes and realize that there are other possibilities that the scriptures support.  I guess even the idea of another point of view is treatening.

[CV75]

35 minutes ago, california boy said:

 

Yeah it is time to forget about it. I was never trying to dissuade CV from his beliefs.  What I was trying to do is to open eyes and realize that there are other possibilities that the scriptures support.  I guess even the idea of another point of view is treatening.

No problem, I didn't take it that way. I thought you were just having a hard time understanding or accepting my explanations. I think I understand yours, which is that you really don't know whether the Gods were all male or not (seemingly leaning toward the former), that others really don't / can't know (though I'm not sure why that is important, or how you can know that). If you have any questions about the interwoven concepts as I shared, I'd be happy to oblige.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

 

Yeah it is time to forget about it. I was never trying to dissuade CV from his beliefs.  What I was trying to do is to open eyes and realize that there are other possibilities that the scriptures support.  I guess even the idea of another point of view is treatening.

Cheap shot when it is you who do not get other views.

You don't understand the difference between:

1- a paradigm/ theory which is what MIGHT be compatible with scripture- my perspective 

2- Doctrine/ scripture- which is @CV75 's perspective 

3- Your perspective which is quasi-scientific stuff about God and DNA, forgetting scripture and the spiritual and symbolic, God's purpose in being embodied, and the SPIRITUAL PURPOSE our being made in the image of God, and not a test-tube imitation. 

As a former communist philosophy post grad student, and LDS bishop, I think I know a little about alternate viewpoints 

Edited September 29, 2021 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

No problem, I didn't take it that way. I thought you were just having a hard time understanding or accepting my explanations. I think I understand yours, which is that you really don't know whether the Gods were all male or not (seemingly leaning toward the former), that others really don't / can't know (though I'm not sure why that is important, or how you can know that). If you have any questions about the interwoven concepts as I shared, I'd be happy to oblige.

Great stuff as usual!

[HappyJackWagon]

On 9/27/2021 at 3:56 PM, bluebell said:

Taking into account their beliefs that they can't do anything to change our current understanding of doctrine without revelation from God commanding such a change, what fruit would you like to see from them?

They can do plenty of things policy-wise if they chose to.

Your suggestion makes it sound like they're hiding behind a big Meanie God who won't let them be nice to LGBTQ people.

[HappyJackWagon]

23 hours ago, jerryp48 said:

Short of endorsing behavior that is against God's law of chastity why don't you tell me how the church could be more welcoming.

There is plenty- for starters, stop singling out LTBTQ and SSM as the destruction of civilization and family life. There are plenty of other "sins" under the umbrella of Law of chastity. When is the last time you heard an apostle preach about counterfeit families in reference to unmarried couples? When is the last time you heard them declare fornicators as apostates? When is the last time you heard them the chastised divorced people? When is the last time... they seemed to purposely alienate any population of people who weren't perfectly keeping the LOC?  Don't get me wrong. I don't want them to treat others badly. I'm simply pointing out that treatment amongst Law of Chastity breakers is not equal.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

There is plenty- for starters, stop singling out LTBTQ and SSM as the destruction of civilization and family life. There are plenty of other "sins" under the umbrella of Law of chastity. When is the last time you heard an apostle preach about counterfeit families in reference to unmarried couples? When is the last time you heard them declare fornicators as apostates? When is the last time you heard them the chastised divorced people? When is the last time... they seemed to purposely alienate any population of people who weren't perfectly keeping the LOC?  Don't get me wrong. I don't want them to treat others badly. I'm simply pointing out that treatment amongst Law of Chastity breakers is not equal.

I think all this has already happened --- it's just new so the memories are still there. I think disciplinary councils for fornication and adultery are going to become almost non-existent, and the Church is minding its p's and q's about what it says about gay people and homosexuality (cf. pretty much every issue of the Liahona now, frequent diplomatic mentions by church officers in many venues, obvious treatment with the BYU things that are frequent and regular now, etc.). 

I would be fascinated to hear what else it could do that doesn't directly run counter to doctrine and commandments (obviously, accepting gay marriage and condoning active homosexuality as not a sin are off the table). What else can they really do?

[HappyJackWagon]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think all this has already happened --- it's just new so the memories are still there. I think disciplinary councils for fornication and adultery are going to become almost non-existent, and the Church is minding its p's and q's about what it says about gay people and homosexuality (cf. pretty much every issue of the Liahona now, frequent diplomatic mentions by church officers in many venues, obvious treatment with the BYU things that are frequent and regular now, etc.). 

I would be fascinated to hear what else it could do that doesn't directly run counter to doctrine and commandments (obviously, accepting gay marriage and condoning active homosexuality as not a sin are off the table). What else can they really do?

That's the point. Church leaders have railed against these other things in the past, but they stopped. Why is that? God no longer cares? Or perhaps does it have something to do with helping people feel welcome and not singled out as unworthy? The church could do the same for LGBTQ. It is literally the Least they could do, but they don't do it. So when people ask, "what could leaders possibly do?" The answer is, treat them like everyone else. Stop singling them out as pariah. Actually be happy if they come to church. I don't think most LDS people would be happy if a gay family came to church. The first time they put their arm around each other, or hold hands, or give a peck on the lips, people would be up in arms because it would be so "inappropriate". 

The church doesn't want LGBTQ people. Everyone should just admit it and stop pretending that the church wants LGBTQ people. Admit it and move on. Sure, it's still hurtful but at least it's honest.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's the point. Church leaders have railed against these other things in the past, but they stopped. Why is that? God no longer cares? Or perhaps does it have something to do with helping people feel welcome and not singled out as unworthy?

Regarding fornication/adultery, the Church still cares --- it's just not going to apply formal discipline nearly as much any more. Self-esteem and feelings of unworthiness are part of it, I'm sure. 

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church could do the same for LGBTQ. It is literally the Least they could do, but they don't do it.

 I think this "equal treatment under the law" is well under way. I think in most units, repentant gay transgressors will get the exact same treatment as straight transgressors --- probably not a disciplinary council. Unrepentant, in both categories? Probably not a disciplinary council, but obviously more than repentant. 

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Stop singling them out as pariah. Actually be happy if they come to church.

I don't think they really are, and I think most would and are happy if they come to church. If they simply come, participate, and socialize, I think most people are happy. Really and truly. The tricky part is if they want to join the church or advance (priesthood and temple). Then, it's like investigators on our missions who were guilty of "the Big Five." We still gladly brought them to church, taught them, and integrated them --- but we knew they were going to need mission president approval (and sometimes First Presidency), and they were going to have to at least commit to repenting and abandoning certain things. 

If we got flooded with gay people committing to that, I think everyone would be very happy and welcoming. 

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

The church doesn't want LGBTQ people. Everyone should just admit it and stop pretending that the church wants LGBTQ people. Admit it and move on. Sure, it's still hurtful but at least it's honest.

The Church does, but under its conditions. Those conditions usually don't align with what most gay people want, as far as the Church goes. 

I do agree that our outreach efforts, without upfront acknowledging the obvious conditions, can seem like disingenuous PR. 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Cheap shot when it is you who do not get other views.

You don't understand the difference between:

1- a paradigm/ theory which is what MIGHT be compatible with scripture- my perspective 

2- Doctrine/ scripture- which is @CV75 's perspective 

3- Your perspective which is quasi-scientific stuff about God and DNA, forgetting scripture and the spiritual and symbolic, God's purpose in being embodied, and the SPIRITUAL PURPOSE our being made in the image of God, and not a test-tube imitation. 

As a former communist philosophy post grad student, and LDS bishop, I think I know a little about alternate viewpoints 

Oh, is #3 the artificial gamete idea, where an advanced divine technology generates human life from the cells of single individuals (e.g., Eve generated from Adam), same-sex couples or single-sex councils (“the Gods”), or taking it a step further, artificial DNA (the dust of the earth) in a way that also maintains the direct connection between the spiritual and natural creations and their mutual likenesses, including the record they bear and the covenants they keep (from baptism through marriage) as set forth in the books of Genesis, Abraham and Moses? Maybe not, just thought I'd ask.

[Chum]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

for starters, stop singling out LTBTQ and SSM as the destruction of civilization and family life.

I think there's some wisdom to be found here. Speaking under the larger umbrella of Christianity, we've done a fairly crappy job of safeguarding things we're losing now, like historical marriage. We kept attaching countless critical financial incentives to marriage, which made it strongly about money. We whizzed away our last chance by refusing to embrace civil unions. Our own divorced rates climbed while we loudly wailed over climbing secular divorce rates. We still compulsively try to put women under thumbs or up on pedestals instead of embracing them as meaningfully equal partners (read: reciprocal subjection). And we still fail the grasp that parenting means we are in service to children.

Frankly, we earned every lost cultural battle - by losing our way at every turn, by vicious cross-faith infighting, by greed, by endlessly giving a pass to the arrogant, toxic dipwits in our own camps and by failing to offer better alternatives because we keep redefining the Savior's lessons instead of just doing the stuff He actually did.

I offer that we (collective) Christians are the stupidest people possible because we will learn from anything except our own mistakes.

[gopher]

Since we are mostly being told that LGBTQ people can't be happy in the church by gay former members who no longer believe and heterosexual critics in and out of the church, is it time for those faithful, believing LGBTQ members in the church to make more of an effort to have their voices heard?  I know one dude who is very, very gay, but married a woman and says he intends to remain in the church.  I realize that the statistics aren't favorable to his marriage lasting, but he claims he has a testimony of the restored Gospel and intends to stay faithful to his wife and the church the rest of his life.  I can't confirm it, but he claims he was approached by a high ranking church leader who asked if he would be willing to give firesides about being gay and LDS.  He declined, however, since he didn't want to become the poster boy for gay LDS, plus he didn't want to give off the impression that what works for him will work for everyone else.

I'm guessing most people leaving the church over LGBTQ issues aren't actually LGBTQ themselves.  I know several parents of gay children who have left, for example.  Maybe they would reconsider if they heard positive stories from LGBTQ members such as the guy I know instead of from people who even don't believe the church is led by revelation.  But maybe that's asking too much.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

Regarding fornication/adultery, the Church still cares --- it's just not going to apply formal discipline nearly as much any more. Self-esteem and feelings of unworthiness are part of it, I'm sure. 

 I think this "equal treatment under the law" is well under way. I think in most units, repentant gay transgressors will get the exact same treatment as straight transgressors --- probably not a disciplinary council. Unrepentant, in both categories? Probably not a disciplinary council, but obviously more than repentant. 

I don't think they really are, and I think most would and are happy if they come to church. If they simply come, participate, and socialize, I think most people are happy. Really and truly. The tricky part is if they want to join the church or advance (priesthood and temple). Then, it's like investigators on our missions who were guilty of "the Big Five." We still gladly brought them to church, taught them, and integrated them --- but we knew they were going to need mission president approval (and sometimes First Presidency), and they were going to have to at least commit to repenting and abandoning certain things. 

If we got flooded with gay people committing to that, I think everyone would be very happy and welcoming. 

The Church does, but under its conditions. Those conditions usually don't align with what most gay people want, as far as the Church goes. 

I do agree that our outreach efforts, without upfront acknowledging the obvious conditions, can seem like disingenuous PR. 

I don't see any kind of "equal treatment" under way. The only positive thing has been when the church changed the policy that it had changed to list LGBTQ as apostacy. So it removed a new negative, but that's hardly positive

I really don't believe people want LGBTQ people at church unless they act straight. You may call that boundaries but I think it's because they are uncomfortable with LGBTQ people. Do you truly believe that members would be ok with gay couple exhibiting the same kind of basic PDA that straight couples do in church? I don't think that would be tolerated.

Are obvious conditions for participation shared with all new people who come to church, or is it only LGBTQ people?  There are some universal conditions that apply to everyone, but I believe there are additional conditions placed on LGBTQ people and having "upfront communication" about how they'll be allowed to participate is itself discriminatory.

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, gopher said:

Since we are mostly being told that LGBTQ people can't be happy in the church by gay former members who no longer believe and heterosexual critics in and out of the church, is it time for those faithful, believing LGBTQ members in the church to make more of an effort to have their voices heard?  I know one dude who is very, very gay, but married a woman and says he intends to remain in the church.  I realize that the statistics aren't favorable to his marriage lasting, but he claims he has a testimony of the restored Gospel and intends to stay faithful to his wife and the church the rest of his life.  I can't confirm it, but he claims he was approached by a high ranking church leader who asked if he would be willing to give firesides about being gay and LDS.  He declined, however, since he didn't want to become the poster boy for gay LDS, plus he didn't want to give off the impression that what works for him will work for everyone else.

I'm guessing most people leaving the church over LGBTQ issues aren't actually LGBTQ themselves.  I know several parents of gay children who have left, for example.  Maybe they would reconsider if they heard positive stories from LGBTQ members such as the guy I know instead of from people who even don't believe the church is led by revelation.  But maybe that's asking too much.

Sounds like a wise man.

You seem to be calling for a propaganda push to tell people how the church is welcoming, instead of just being welcoming.

12 minutes ago, Chum said:

I think there's some wisdom to be found here. Speaking under the larger umbrella of Christianity, we've done a fairly crappy job of safeguarding things we're losing now, like historical marriage. We kept attaching countless critical financial incentives to marriage, which made it strongly about money. We whizzed away our last chance by refusing to embrace civil unions. Our own divorced rates climbed while we loudly wailed over climbing secular divorce rates. We still compulsively try to put women under thumbs or up on pedestals instead of embracing them as meaningfully equal partners (read: reciprocal subjection). And we still fail the grasp that parenting means we are in service to children.

Frankly, we earned every lost cultural battle - by losing our way at every turn, by vicious cross-faith infighting, by greed, by endlessly giving a pass to the arrogant, toxic dipwits in our own camps and by failing to offer better alternatives because we keep redefining the Savior's lessons instead of just doing the stuff He actually did.

I offer that we (collective) Christians are the stupidest people possible because we will learn from anything except our own mistakes.

Great comments, Chum!

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

They can do plenty of things policy-wise if they chose to.

Your suggestion makes it sound like they're hiding behind a big Meanie God who won't let them be nice to LGBTQ people.

What do you believe they could do policy wise that would not go against their beliefs?

[Kenngo1969]

17 minutes ago, gopher said:

Since we are mostly being told that LGBTQ people can't be happy in the church by gay former members who no longer believe and heterosexual critics in and out of the church, is it time for those faithful, believing LGBTQ members in the church to make more of an effort to have their voices heard?  I know one dude who is very, very gay, but married a woman and says he intends to remain in the church.  I realize that the statistics aren't favorable to his marriage lasting, but he claims he has a testimony of the restored Gospel and intends to stay faithful to his wife and the church the rest of his life.  I can't confirm it, but he claims he was approached by a high ranking church leader who asked if he would be willing to give firesides about being gay and LDS.  He declined, however, since he didn't want to become the poster boy for gay LDS, plus he didn't want to give off the impression that what works for him will work for everyone else.

I'm guessing most people leaving the church over LGBTQ issues aren't actually LGBTQ themselves.  I know several parents of gay children who have left, for example.  Maybe they would reconsider if they heard positive stories from LGBTQ members such as the guy I know instead of from people who even don't believe the church is led by revelation.  But maybe that's asking too much.

https://deseretbook.com/p/cd-that-we-may-be-one?variant_id=154976-audiobook-cd-&gclid=CjwKCAjwndCKBhAkEiwAgSDKQfR1fjHBCcO3aNNVsglTQIJRk1qZKyOV1-_-a6gi5YQbR80dNH0NqRoCrBwQAvD_BwE

[Chum]

6 minutes ago, gopher said:

Since we are mostly being told that LGBTQ people can't be happy in the church by gay former members who no longer believe and heterosexual critics in and out of the church, is it time for those faithful, believing LGBTQ members in the church to make more of an effort to have their voices heard?

No matter what's suggested, my reply is "To what end?" Most interaction with the Church happens thru wards. Wards are fairly well packed with members who don't treat LGBTQ folks as the Savior would.  I'd offer that most of us don't know how the Savior would treat LGTBQ members because those Church teachings never seem as clear as the secular stuff = evil lessons.

[rongo]

26 minutes ago, gopher said:

Since we are mostly being told that LGBTQ people can't be happy in the church by gay former members who no longer believe and heterosexual critics in and out of the church, is it time for those faithful, believing LGBTQ members in the church to make more of an effort to have their voices heard?  I know one dude who is very, very gay, but married a woman and says he intends to remain in the church.  I realize that the statistics aren't favorable to his marriage lasting, but he claims he has a testimony of the restored Gospel and intends to stay faithful to his wife and the church the rest of his life.  I can't confirm it, but he claims he was approached by a high ranking church leader who asked if he would be willing to give firesides about being gay and LDS.  He declined, however, since he didn't want to become the poster boy for gay LDS, plus he didn't want to give off the impression that what works for him will work for everyone else.

Ugghhh. "Back of the Ensign," fireside circuit people usually don't turn out well, long-term. Good instincts and self-awareness on his part. 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What do you believe they could do policy wise that would not go against their beliefs?

I guess that depends upon what their personal beliefs are. IF they believe that LGBTQ aren't worthy of kindness and welcoming, then probably nothing.

But assuming they believe LGBTQ are children of God and therefore worthy of kindness and love, then the first thing they could do is stop treating them differently. Leaders believe SS relationships are a sin. Attraction is apparently OK (or so they say) but any kind of relationship appears to be treated as sin. There is a different criteria and expectation for how a SS couple is allowed to act (even following the law of chastity) versus how a hetero couple can appropriately interact. Treat unmarried couples the same when it comes to dating and LoC. Piece of cake.  I suppose it could be harder when dealing with married couples insofar as the LoC distinguishes between married and unmarried. Obviously the church is now adding to that a differentiation between SSM and hetero marriage, but still, there is so much that could be accommodating. Could individuals in a SS relationship hold callings? If the answer is NO, that would be a policy that could change without a change to doctrine. In fact, even though we don't often think about it, most "worthiness" issues in general are treated via policy, not doctrines.

 

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, Chum said:

No matter what's suggested, my reply is "To what end?" Most interaction with the Church happens thru wards. Wards are fairly well packed with members who don't treat LGBTQ folks as the Savior would.  I'd offer that most of us don't know how the Savior would treat LGTBQ members because those Church teachings never seem as clear as the secular stuff = evil lessons.

I'm pretty confident I know how Jesus would treat LGBTQ people. It just doesn't reflect the LDS church

[rongo]

23 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't see any kind of "equal treatment" under way. The only positive thing has been when the church changed the policy that it had changed to list LGBTQ as apostacy. So it removed a new negative, but that's hardly positive

Yeah, that whole thing was a "stepping on a rake" fiasco, from beginning to end. The apostasy thing was an unforced error, too. 

25 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I really don't believe people want LGBTQ people at church unless they act straight. You may call that boundaries but I think it's because they are uncomfortable with LGBTQ people. Do you truly believe that members would be ok with gay couple exhibiting the same kind of basic PDA that straight couples do in church? I don't think that would be tolerated.

In all honesty, I dislike straight PDA in public (which includes, but also especially at church) just as much. If it stays at the hand-holding or arm-holding level (either gay or straight), I'm okay. I think society has so much exposure to gayness now, I really don't think anyone would act differently if they saw gay couples interacting like straight families at church. 

 

[Chum]

1 minute ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I'm pretty confident I know how Jesus would treat LGBTQ people. It just doesn't reflect the LDS church

I suspect that the Church's position would be that it is teaching us. This would mean most of us are incapable of translating those principles into action. We'd likely need a Church vid to show us what being welcoming looks like.

[gopher]

27 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sounds like a wise man.

You seem to be calling for a propaganda push to tell people how the church is welcoming, instead of just being welcoming.

No, I'm calling for LGBTQ members to refute your claim that they can't be happy in the church.  We often hear from those who aren't happy (and from those that claim to speak on their behalf).  I'd like to hear more from those who understand the unique sacrifices they are asked to make and still remain faithful believers.  It may be a very small group, I don't know.

[rongo]

20 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But assuming they believe LGBTQ are children of God and therefore worthy of kindness and love, then the first thing they could do is stop treating them differently. Leaders believe SS relationships are a sin. Attraction is apparently OK (or so they say) but any kind of relationship appears to be treated as sin. There is a different criteria and expectation for how a SS couple is allowed to act (even following the law of chastity) versus how a hetero couple can appropriately interact. Treat unmarried couples the same when it comes to dating and LoC. Piece of cake.  I suppose it could be harder when dealing with married couples insofar as the LoC distinguishes between married and unmarried. Obviously the church is now adding to that a differentiation between SSM and hetero marriage, but still, there is so much that could be accommodating. Could individuals in a SS relationship hold callings? If the answer is NO, that would be a policy that could change without a change to doctrine. In fact, even though we don't often think about it, most "worthiness" issues in general are treated via policy, not doctrines.

This is probably the 800 pound gorilla in the room (gay dating) we get to before the elephant in the room (sex) with this issue. I think if the principles taught by Elder Paul Johnson with the gay dating blow-up at BYU (gay dating is incompatible with the plan of salvation, because it cannot lead towards where they need to be and only leads away), if these principles were reversed (disavowed) --- it would be a titanic change akin to simply not considering homosexuality a sin at all. The camel would mostly be in the tent at that point. 

I understand why gay people and allies feel this is an outrage. I agree with it, and think most of the active church does as well. If we disavow/change this, that will be a huge bombshell. Aside from whether or not it's true, I think that the Brethren's experience stepping on rakes recently leaves them very risk-averse, and hesitant to make waves. Other than the fact that I feel our current understanding is correct, I think that factor also works against a change like that. 

[gopher]

32 minutes ago, Chum said:

No matter what's suggested, my reply is "To what end?" Most interaction with the Church happens thru wards. Wards are fairly well packed with members who don't treat LGBTQ folks as the Savior would.  I'd offer that most of us don't know how the Savior would treat LGTBQ members because those Church teachings never seem as clear as the secular stuff = evil lessons.

There are members that don't treat straight people as the Savior would.  I think most members are willing to welcome LGBTQ members - I've seen it in my ward.  But I'm thousands of miles from SLC so maybe it only happens here.