What is the LGBT policy goal for the Church

[Ragerunner]

On 8/31/2021 at 9:42 PM, The Nehor said:

I think what most of the believing lgbt people want is to know what their destiny is.

I think you are right. 
I continue to prayer that the Lord will provide more light and knowledge on this subject. I really believe it could help lgbt members and their love ones have more comfort and hopefully some greater hope.

I think this is one area that makes lgbt issues more challenging than non married members. Non married have some understanding how they fit into the Plan. (They will have the opportunity to have an eternal marriage either later in life or in the next life.)  Currently lgbt members have very little knowledge of how they fit into the Plan.

We should all feel a profound sense of compassion for lgbt members. The lack of knowledge on how they fit into the Plan of Salvation must be very challenging.

Edited September 4, 2021 by Ragerunner

[FearlessFixxer]

On 8/31/2021 at 7:53 AM, poptart said:

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.  

 

I would include going inactive over this issue as part of the leaving crowd in this context.  By leave, I mean no longer participate.  I personally know at least 5 people who would 100% leave the church over accepting LGBTQ in full fellowship...they might even leave over a lesser degree of acceptance.  I doubt they are alone.

[Canadiandude]

54 minutes ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I would include going inactive over this issue as part of the leaving crowd in this context.  By leave, I mean no longer participate.  I personally know at least 5 people who would 100% leave the church over accepting LGBTQ in full fellowship...they might even leave over a lesser degree of acceptance.  I doubt they are alone.

Yeah, I know some people like that as well.

The next 30-40 years is gonna be interesting, particularly in my country where debates regarding 2SLGBTQ+ issues are much more settled than in the US as far as public acceptance is concerned.

I mean, I guess the Brethren are already trying to habituate members to the idea of receding Latter-Day Saint influence in the public sphere. But judging from what I hear from my relatives, I’m not sure the realities of what this will mean has hit home yet. 

Edited September 9, 2021 by Canadiandude

[poptart]

2 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I would include going inactive over this issue as part of the leaving crowd in this context.  By leave, I mean no longer participate.  I personally know at least 5 people who would 100% leave the church over accepting LGBTQ in full fellowship...they might even leave over a lesser degree of acceptance.  I doubt they are alone.

The next challenge, enduring what's coming.  With politics and many millenials/gen z just walking away from organized religion, I'd imagine it will become varying degrees of difficult to belong to and profess belief in a religion like yours.  Something I hear from some older LDS friends, the younger people really don't appreciate what people had to go through, how much safer the times we grew up in were compared to what's coming.  Sure, there are safe religious communities but unless you come from a family with money/have an income source where you don't have to watch what you say, I'd imagine it will become a lot more challenging to afford to live in sanctuaries such as that.  

Something else, people on the religious right end of things love to go on about how they have the birth rates, etc.  They forget, they still depend on society at large for safe places to raise and educate their children.  When you have an ever growing number of people who view them as racist, homophobic hypocritical bigots who really aren't about helping the poor anymore and would rather play politics, you end up in societies where things that happened last year become a greater possibility.  This was why when I heard years ago LDS folks associating themselves with Christians here stateside I thought that was a horrible idea.  I get where you guys are coming from but like it or not the Christian brand here has been tainted for a while now.  You guys help refugees, do more (in some cases where there is a DI you're it) for the poor/homeless than a lot, possibly most churches do now and get thrown under the bus for it.  Prop 8 is a great example.  Don't get me wrong, I hated it and am very much a fan of LGBTQ rights who acts and votes accordingly.  That being said, when the protests happened I believe the rest of the churches in the area threw you guys under the bus.  Personally I view Latter Day Saints as better people than Christians here in general, why you would associate with a people who would do everything they can to leave you holding the bag is beyond me.  

[JLHPROF]

3 hours ago, FearlessFixxer said:

I would include going inactive over this issue as part of the leaving crowd in this context.  By leave, I mean no longer participate.  I personally know at least 5 people who would 100% leave the church over accepting LGBTQ in full fellowship...they might even leave over a lesser degree of acceptance.  I doubt they are alone.

Well, if you truly believed that the Church was accepting something God considered immoral would you accept that organization as a moral compass for God's will?

I wouldn't stay in the Church if they condoned murder, abortion, abuse.  Many have chosen to leave the Church over plural marriage, SSM, tithing use etc.
We ALL expect our chosen faith to be a moral standard.  If our moral beliefs and the Church come in conflict I wouldn't blame anyone for leaving.

A main question of religion (among many questions) has always been, what does God consider right and wrong?

[bOObOO]

1 hour ago, poptart said:

The next challenge, enduring what's coming.  With politics and many millenials/gen z just walking away from organized religion, I'd imagine it will become varying degrees of difficult to belong to and profess belief in a religion like yours.  Something I hear from some older LDS friends, the younger people really don't appreciate what people had to go through, how much safer the times we grew up in were compared to what's coming.  Sure, there are safe religious communities but unless you come from a family with money/have an income source where you don't have to watch what you say, I'd imagine it will become a lot more challenging to afford to live in sanctuaries such as that.  

Something else, people on the religious right end of things love to go on about how they have the birth rates, etc.  They forget, they still depend on society at large for safe places to raise and educate their children.  When you have an ever growing number of people who view them as racist, homophobic hypocritical bigots who really aren't about helping the poor anymore and would rather play politics, you end up in societies where things that happened last year become a greater possibility.  This was why when I heard years ago LDS folks associating themselves with Christians here stateside I thought that was a horrible idea.  I get where you guys are coming from but like it or not the Christian brand here has been tainted for a while now.  You guys help refugees, do more (in some cases where there is a DI you're it) for the poor/homeless than a lot, possibly most churches do now and get thrown under the bus for it.  Prop 8 is a great example.  Don't get me wrong, I hated it and am very much a fan of LGBTQ rights who acts and votes accordingly.  That being said, when the protests happened I believe the rest of the churches in the area threw you guys under the bus.  Personally I view Latter Day Saints as better people than Christians here in general, why you would associate with a people who would do everything they can to leave you holding the bag is beyond me.  

It's just part of being like Jesus, as well as we believe we can be.  We do not live among only the people who agree with us and like us.  We live among all kinds of people and we are accustomed to other people not agreeing with us and not liking us and still we do what we think we can do to try to help other people whether they agree with us or not.  And whether they like us or not.  It's just how we roll.  We don't ever expect everyone to agree with us.  We just try to help others as well as we can.

Edited September 9, 2021 by bOObOO

[Canadiandude]

13 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, if you truly believed that the Church was accepting something God considered immoral would you accept that organization as a moral compass for God's will?

I wouldn't stay in the Church if they condoned murder, abortion, abuse.  Many have chosen to leave the Church over plural marriage, SSM, tithing use etc.
We ALL expect our chosen faith to be a moral standard.  If our moral beliefs and the Church come in conflict I wouldn't blame anyone for leaving.

A main question of religion (among many questions) has always been, what does God consider right and wrong?

Why are you making equivalent my consensual, loving, and devoted sexual relationship with another adult human being with violent acts such as murder and abuse?

😕

Edited September 9, 2021 by Canadiandude

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Why are you making equivalent my consensual, loving, and devoted sexual relationship with another adult human being with murder and abuse?

😕

I made no such specific reference.

I specifically said that we all expect the Church we belong to to be in agreement with our moral beliefs.  If they aren't we rarely choose to retain membership.
I named some moral items that I would have an issue with and couldn't accept in the Church.  I named some other moral items that others couldn't accept in the Church that I personally have no issue with.
And I recognized that to many homosexual relationships fall into that category of immoral.

Would you expect people to retain membership in a Church that taught something they considered immoral?
People left because SSM isn't accepted.  Others would leave if it were.  It's a case of personal moral code being in agreement or disagreement with our chosen religion.
I don't begrudge people not staying somewhere that teaches something that they think is morally wrong.

However I also stated that a vital tenet of religion is trying to understand what God considers moral/immoral.  That is something everyone should be pursuing.

Edited September 9, 2021 by JLHPROF

[poptart]

17 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

It's just part of being like Jesus, as well as we believe we can be.  We do not live among only the people who agree with us and like us.  We live among all kinds of people and we are accustomed to other people not agreeing with us and not liking us and still we do what we think we can do to try to help other people whether they agree with us or not.  And whether they like us or not.  It's just how we roll.  We don't ever expect everyone to agree with us.  We just try to help others as well as we can.

Until violence happens that is.  No offense, you seem reasonable, like most of the people here but whenever I hear someone from the Christian flavored end of the belief spectrum say that I almost never believe it.  Lets see you guys opt for martyrdom or what Christians in the middle east are suffering right now and I'll change my mind.  I love LDS communities but ye olde blessed are those who suffer for my sake?  Lol no to me that comes off as suburbanite entitlement speak which of course is of no value.  That can be somewhat canceled out with me via good works and charity.  Think that's the other reason why I'm fond of Mormons, they get like a +5 like bonus since they serve missions and go to poor areas.  +10 on top of that for DI.

[bOObOO]

10 minutes ago, poptart said:

Until violence happens that is.  No offense, you seem reasonable, like most of the people here but whenever I hear someone from the Christian flavored end of the belief spectrum say that I almost never believe it.  Lets see you guys opt for martyrdom or what Christians in the middle east are suffering right now and I'll change my mind.  I love LDS communities but ye olde blessed are those who suffer for my sake?  Lol no to me that comes off as suburbanite entitlement speak which of course is of no value.  That can be somewhat canceled out with me via good works and charity.  Think that's the other reason why I'm fond of Mormons, they get like a +5 like bonus since they serve missions and go to poor areas.  +10 on top of that for DI.

Say that?  What 'that' are you talking about?  That we try to be like Jesus as well as we can be, while trying to help others as well as we can?  You don't believe that we try to do all of that as well as we can?  

I'd like to think that if somebody tried to shoot me that I'd tell them that they really don't want to do that.  That they would be in big trouble if they did that.  I would never give anyone a good reason to shoot me and would even try to save them the trouble they would be getting themselves into if they voluntarily chose to shoot me, but of course they could still choose to shoot me if they wanted to do that.  Not good for them but I would still be okay.  And I have an insurance plan to take care of the rest of my family.  So I'd still be doing all that I could to help others even if they were trying to decide whether or not to shoot me.

Edited September 9, 2021 by bOObOO

[Canadiandude]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I made no such specific reference.

I specifically said that we all expect the Church we belong to to be in agreement with our moral beliefs.  If they aren't we rarely choose to retain membership.
I named some moral items that I would have an issue with and couldn't accept in the Church.  I named some other moral items that others couldn't accept in the Church that I personally have no issue with.
And I recognized that to many homosexual relationships fall into that category of immoral.

Would you expect people to retain membership in a Church that taught something they considered immoral?
People left because SSM isn't accepted.  Others would leave if it were.  It's a case of personal moral code being in agreement or disagreement with our chosen religion.
I don't begrudge people not staying somewhere that teaches something that they think is morally wrong.

However I also stated that a vital tenet of religion is trying to understand what God considers moral/immoral.  That is something everyone should be pursuing.

But if they are not similar then they need not be spoken of in the same sentence and paragraph as being examples of so-called immorality.

 

When you do this, you are creating an association, and one that is extremely harmful.

Such associations are not necessary to make your point but the fact that you make them is no mere mistake, as it only further marginalizes those who merely believe and behave differently than you do, and lessens the need to demonstrate empathy.

If you expect me to use the full name of the church so as to not offend; not use your deity’s name in vain; and not associate the church with villainous acts- even acts that were actually practiced upon people like me by the church-—

-Then yes, I expect you to take the time, to demonstrate greater imagination in explaining your point without making these kinds of associations. 
 

 

Edited September 9, 2021 by Canadiandude

[MrShorty]

36 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Well, if you truly believed that the Church was accepting something God considered immoral would you accept that organization as a moral compass for God's will?

I wouldn't stay in the Church if they condoned murder, abortion, abuse.

In the 19th century, the Church accepted and condoned slavery. Granted, much of the US (including many Christians) also accepted and condoned slavery, so the LDS Church was not really that different from everyone else. If God allowed the Church to accept and condone something as immoral as slavery, is it also possible the Church of today is accepting and condoning other immoral things? What should we do with this? Is leaving the Church the only real option?

[bOObOO]

3 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

In the 19th century, the Church accepted and condoned slavery. Granted, much of the US (including many Christians) also accepted and condoned slavery, so the LDS Church was not really that different from everyone else. If God allowed the Church to accept and condone something as immoral as slavery, is it also possible the Church of today is accepting and condoning other immoral things? What should we do with this? Is leaving the Church the only real option?

I think we should accept the idea that we each decide for ourselves what is good and what is evil and that to determine what is good we should try our best to receive personal guidance from God through personal revelation from God.

And then we should be able work things out with God and with each other when some of us get the same revelations from God as some others of us.

[JLHPROF]

1 minute ago, Canadiandude said:

But if they are not similar then they need not be spoken of in the same sentence and paragraph as being examples of so-called immorality.
When you do this, you are creating an association, and one that is extremely harmful.

Yes, I can see that you would feel that way.

Quote

Such associations are not necessary to make your point but the fact that you make them is no mere mistake, as it only further marginalizes those who merely believe and behave differently than you do, and lessens the need to demonstrate empathy.

I don't expect people to believe as I do.  But I also don't see a need to accept other's beliefs as equal to my own.  I have a testimony of my beliefs that I believe came from God and I won't place contradictory beliefs on an equal footing with that.
Tolerance is not the same as acceptance.  You can choose to follow Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam.  I'll respect your beliefs and your faith.  But I won't be placing the words of the Koran or the Buddhist scriptures in the same sacred category as the New Testament or revelations to Joseph.

Quote

If you expect me to use the full name of the church so as to not offend; not use your deity’s name in vain; and not associate the church with villainous acts- even acts that were actually practiced upon people like me by the church-— -Then yes, I expect you to take the time, to demonstrate greater imagination in explaining your point without making these kinds of associations. 

I don't particularly care what name you use for the Church.  And if you feel the Church teachings are immoral (villainous) then I don't see why you would associate with the Church.  That was the point of my post.
There is a difference between treating other beliefs and choices with respect vs accepting them as equally correct or moral.
You have every right to believe differently than I do.  Don't expect me to agree with it.  I happen to believe certain things are immoral.  My respect for my fellow man walking through this life doesn't change that.

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

In the 19th century, the Church accepted and condoned slavery. Granted, much of the US (including many Christians) also accepted and condoned slavery, so the LDS Church was not really that different from everyone else. If God allowed the Church to accept and condone something as immoral as slavery, is it also possible the Church of today is accepting and condoning other immoral things? What should we do with this? Is leaving the Church the only real option?

Cognitive dissonance is a real thing.  I don't think it's spiritually beneficial for someone to be a member of a group that fundamentally has a moral belief system that differs from their own.
I'm not talking about the Church being wrong historically.  I'm guessing the members at the time thought the Church was right.  I'd be surprised if there were very many abolitionists in the Church who disagreed with the position you are referencing.

Also, the prophet Joseph specifically said slavery should be abolished.
If the Church ignored Joseph on this issue...

[poptart]

23 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Say that?  What 'that' are you talking about?  That we try to be like Jesus as well as we can be, while trying to help others as well as we can?  You don't believe that we try to do all of that as well as we can?  

I'd like to think that if somebody tried to shoot me that I'd tell them that they really don't want to do that.  That they would be in big trouble if they did that.  I would never give anyone a good reason to shoot me and would even try to save them the trouble they would be getting themselves into if they voluntarily chose to shoot me, but of course they could still choose to shoot me if they wanted to do that.  Not good for them but I would still be okay.  And I have an insurance plan to take care of the rest of my family.  So I'd still be doing all that I could to help others even if they were trying to decide whether or not to shoot me.

I meant like the early church fathers, saints i.e st Francis etc. I don't see your average American suburbanite being that devout.

[bOObOO]

24 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

But if they are not similar then they need not be spoken of in the same sentence and paragraph as being examples of so-called immorality.

 

When you do this, you are creating an association, and one that is extremely harmful.

Such associations are not necessary to make your point but the fact that you make them is no mere mistake, as it only further marginalizes those who merely believe and behave differently than you do, and lessens the need to demonstrate empathy.

If you expect me to use the full name of the church so as to not offend; not use your deity’s name in vain; and not associate the church with villainous acts- even acts that were actually practiced upon people like me by the church-—

-Then yes, I expect you to take the time, to demonstrate greater imagination in explaining your point without making these kinds of associations. 
 

 

The association in that case was with 'what can be considered immoral', which often varies from person to person. 

One person can think killing someone in a particular situation is immoral while another person can think it is moral in that situation to do so.  

Likewise, one person can think having sexual relations with someone of the same sex is immoral while another person can think it is moral in that situation to do so.  

Whether something is good or evil is often up for debate among various groups of people, and God will judge in the end.

Edited September 9, 2021 by bOObOO

[bOObOO]

5 minutes ago, poptart said:

I meant like the early church fathers, saints i.e st Francis etc. I don't see your average American suburbanite being that devout.

Maybe.  Maybe not.  I am often inspired by how much good other people try to do in their lives even in the midst of opposition.  Doing all we can do to be good and be like Jesus is relative from person to person, with some able to do more than some others. , 

[Canadiandude]

3 hours ago, bOObOO said:

The association in that case was with 'what can be considered immoral', which often varies from person to person. 

One person can think killing someone in a particular situation is immoral while another person can think it is moral in that situation to do so.  

 

Most people consider murder immoral and it’s such a severe expression of the immoral (to most) that the association is still extremely negative.

it simply isn’t necessary for the argument being made.

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

don't particularly care what name you use for the Church.  And if you feel the Church teachings are immoral (villainous) then I don't see why you would associate with the Church. 

Obviously the church and yourself do care, if naming the church wrongly is a ‘victory for Satan’.

And no, I’m not just talking about doctrines though those are harmful enough. I’m talking about stuff like electro-shock therapy, incitement of violence, mobilization against equal rights such as marriage. 

Progressive members hang on within the church and are helping to foster change within it because they’re not ‘throwing the baby out with the bath-water’ so to speak.

They believe such metaphorical babies exist within the church, and in a good way.

If people react negatively and disagree with your particular construction of tolerance, that too is within their/our purview.

But I’ve read our own accounts of our history, I know that we’ve nursed severe grudges and persecution-based identities, it’s only fair for others such I, to not wish to also be a hiss and a byword. 

 

-And if we are made so, then yes, be prepared to drink the last dregs of that bitter cup that you gave, be given back unto you.

drop for drop.

Reciprocity made divine, but more akin to Nemesis than Christ if charity isn’t given in kind.

My generation is pretty clear on that.

Edited September 9, 2021 by Canadiandude
Edit: Grammar. “Do” not “does”. No “That” before Nemesis.

[bOObOO]

1 minute ago, Canadiandude said:

Most people consider murder immoral and it’s such a severe expression of the immoral (to most) that the association is still extremely negative.

I didn't say murder.  I said kill someone.  Usually when we think the killing is evil we call it murder and we do not call killing murder when we think the killing was moral.  And we each decide whether a killing is moral or not.

I'm not interested in responding to everything else you said in your post.

[Canadiandude]

Just now, bOObOO said:

I didn't say murder.  I said kill someone.  Usually when we think the killing is evil we call it murder and we do not call killing murder when we think the killing was moral.  And we each decide whether a killing is moral or not.

I'm not interested in responding to everything else you said in your post.

I didn’t say you said murder, but the person I was quoting from when you quoted me did say murder and did make that association, along with abuse.

I don’t much care if your interested in responding or not but I very much would like my argument to be kept in its proper context thanks.

This is just part of dealing in good-faith arguments- as well as intellectual honesty.

[JLHPROF]

7 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Progressive members hang on within the church and are helping to foster change within it because they’re not ‘throwing the baby out with the bath-water’ so to speak.

They believe such metaphorical babies exist within the church, and in a good way.

Oh, I'm very much aware of this.  And when one change is successfully achieved another will follow.  And God will be forced to intervene to avoid another complete apostasy.

Heaven help us all when current culturally accepted norms change eternal truths revealed from heaven.  There are already more than enough changes that were made to ordinances because of these cultural changes that God will end up reversing.

[Canadiandude]

2 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Oh, I'm very much aware of this.  And when one change is successfully achieved another will follow.  And God will be forced to intervene to avoid another complete apostasy.

Heaven help us all when current culturally accepted norms change eternal truths revealed from heaven.  There are already more than enough changes that were made to ordinances because of these cultural changes that God will end up reversing.

So long as that intervention is done independent of any institutional/individual calls for/acts of violence done by people upon people in God’s name, then we’ll, so be it.

I personally think it’d be a dastardly move for a deity to cause folks/folx like me to spontaneously combust, and I think even the visitation of an external Being would not (by itself) alleviate everyone’s ethical problematization of Their rule- but hey, you’re free to expect that too.

 

[Canadiandude]

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

There are already more than enough changes that were made to ordinances because of these cultural changes that God will end up reversing.

Which changes are these might I ask?

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

I personally think it’d be a dastardly move for a deity to cause folks/folx like me to spontaneously combust, and I think even the visitation of an external Being would not (by itself) alleviate everyone’s ethical problematization of Their rule- but hey, you’re free to expect that too.

Depends if you lean OT or NT...and what you think God considers wicked.  

10 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

Which changes are these might I ask?

Changes to the temple that the Church considers cosmetic that I fundamentally disagree on.  The ones that have been made due to social changes, to covenants, to clothing, to ceremonies etc.
Obviously, not eligible for discussion here.