What do you believe is the current narrative for most LGTBQ members of the Church?

[Scott Lloyd]

23 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It seems like insinuating that a new poster is really Ahab in sock puppet form has become an all-too quick and convenient means of well poisoning. I say we give MacGyver a chance before jumping to a conclusion. 

 

11 hours ago, Chum said:

You may not be aware of this but initial steps that indicate familiarity with the board - they just indicate familiarity with the board.

 

I don’t get what you’re trying to say here or how it relates to what you quoted from me or anything else I said. 
 

Added later: Still trying to decipher your comment above. If you’re trying to use familiarity with  the board as a reason to rationalize an insinuation of sock puppetry, your reasoning is not solid. Many people become familiar with the board before they ever post. It’s called lurking. 

Edited December 14, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

9 hours ago, Chum said:

21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

before jumping to a conclusion. 

Yeah. About that.

I didn’t jump to a conclusion. I commented on wording in one of your posts. There’s a difference. 

[CV75]

13 hours ago, MacGyver said:

In my opinion when someone openly identifies as LGBTQ rather than saying that they are experiencing same-sex attraction and trying to overcome it, they are defining themselves by their weakness and temptation. I believe that identifying yourself by your temptation and weakness and telling yourself that there is nothing wrong with having these unnatural sexual desires leads to acting out on them. 

Which is why I wish the church would stick to calling it "same-sex attraction" and continue to try and help members who struggle with this to overcome it. 

I think the Church's aim is to invite and assist people to rely on Christ to become converted, keep the covenants, find happiness in discipleship, etc., semantics aside, given how the Spirit operates. Does the Church use both terms in official publications? if so, I'm sure there is an appropriate, inspired context for doing so.

[MacGyver]

48 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the Church's aim is to invite and assist people to rely on Christ to become converted, keep the covenants, find happiness in discipleship, etc., semantics aside, given how the Spirit operates. Does the Church use both terms in official publications? if so, I'm sure there is an appropriate, inspired context for doing so.

Using the phrases gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer in addition to same-sex attraction in church publications is a recent development. As I stated earlier, I suspect that the reason for this change is a desire not to drive those who identify themselves by these terms away. I'm sure the goal is to meet people where they are at and then try to bring them unto Christ. 

But I also think there was a reason why the church didn't use these terms before. I believe the reason was to avoid legitimizing these lifestyles and labeling people by their weaknesses and temptations. And this reason is still a valid concern, even with the recent change. It's a two edged sword in my opinion. 

Edited December 14, 2021 by MacGyver

[BRMC]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

How'd I know, it's a religious bent article. 

This is a religious bent discussion board.  

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, BRMC said:

This is a religious bent discussion board.  

Very much so, I guess I'll shut my mouth. The reason I fight back on the religious bend is that people believe what men say in the Bible, I don't know that we should trust words from men that might have got it wrong, or were fallible.  And maybe not even what God thinks.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Very much so, I guess I'll shut my mouth. The reason I fight back on the religious bend is that people believe what men say in the Bible, I don't know that we should trust words from men that might have got it wrong, or were fallible.  And maybe not even what God thinks.

On a board like this, if you rail against people for their belief in prophecy and revelation, you’re going to be railing an awful lot. It would be like going on a Christian-oriented board to fight against belief in the divinity of Christ. 

Edited December 14, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[BRMC]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Very much so, I guess I'll shut my mouth. The reason I fight back on the religious bend is that people believe what men say in the Bible, I don't know that we should trust words from men that might have got it wrong, or were fallible.  And maybe not even what God thinks.

That's why God chooses prophets.

[Nofear]

12 minutes ago, BRMC said:

That's why God chooses prophets.

Tacenda's reaction is also among the reasons why prophets got stoned (including the virtual "stonings" that we see today).
Though, to be fair, there are many false prophets then and now.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Nofear said:

Tacenda's reaction is also among the reasons why prophets got stoned (including the virtual "stonings" that we see today).
Though, to be fair, there are many false prophets then and now.

There are indeed. But letting that fact blind us to the reality of true prophets is as big an error as heeding false ones. 

[Canadiandude]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There are indeed. But letting that fact blind us to the reality of true prophets is as big an error as heeding false ones. 

Your falsifiable, valid and reliable evidence for the ‘fact’ of true prophets?

Some of us have been waiting for a long time for y’all to demonstrate this.

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by Canadiandude

[CV75]

2 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Using the phrases gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer in addition to same-sex attraction in church publications is a recent development. As I stated earlier, I suspect that the reason for this change is a desire not to drive those who identify themselves by these terms away. I'm sure the goal is to meet people where they are at and then try to bring them unto Christ. 

But I also think there was a reason why the church didn't use these terms before. I believe the reason was to avoid legitimizing these lifestyles and labeling people by their weaknesses and temptations. And this reason is still a valid concern, even with the recent change. It's a two edged sword in my opinion. 

I think as time rolls on, words change their meaning and impact as labels, and I think that has a great deal to do with balancing the use of the two terms in meeting people where they are in inviting them to Christ, while not legitimizing sin. It seems that "having same-sex attraction" can be misconstrued as labeling people by their temptations, but that isn't the point any more than "LGBTQ+" is labeling people by their sins. These have become, in Church use, more descriptive terms of sexuality, not peoples' identities, which is where people can stray from their identity as children of God -- just as they can with any other social/political/national/professional/avocational/ideological identity that becomes a major filter for viewing life and setting standards for what is right and wrong.

Edited December 14, 2021 by CV75

[Olmec Donald]

9 hours ago, MacGyver said:

Yes we should love everyone, regardless of whether we agree with their choices or not. We are to strive to have charity, the pure love of Christ, for all people.

Yes, but we don't actually have to strive to be filled with the pure love of Christ.  Nor can we force ourselves to have love for everyone.  But we CAN strive to remove the barriers to our awareness of the pure love of Christ (and our unloving thoughts are those barriers), and then we will find that love has been there all along.  You might try running the Alma Chapter 32 experiment on deliberately choosing to not treasure any unloving thoughts, not even our favorite ones, and see what naturally shows up once those barriers have been let go. 

9 hours ago, MacGyver said:

If we truly love someone, we will warn them of the dangers of pursuing a course that we know will lead to misery and suffering. We will also do all we can to help them overcome whatever challenges they are facing. 

And if we truly love someone we will continue to show love for them, even if they are not receptive to our efforts to warn and help them. In which case we can pray for the person and have trust in God to help them, while we continue to love. 

Religion can be used as a weapon or as a blessing, and once you know your material well, if you ask, the Spirit will bring to your mind how to use it to only bless.  This is what Jesus was talking about when he sent his apostles out with the instruction to "be shrewd as serpents and harmless as doves."   The King James renders the Greek word as "wise", but "shrewd" is a better translation.  People are naturally defensive, so if you can get your message across without activating their defensive reflexes, you are far more likely to have a beneficial effect. 

Edited December 14, 2021 by Olmec Donald

[Nofear]

59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There are indeed. But letting that fact blind us to the reality of true prophets is as big an error as heeding false ones. 

Moreover, today it is not vogue to call the false prophets, "prophets". Instead words such as gurus, experts, media influencers, politicians, etc. are used. And they are disposable. This, I believe, is by design of the Adversary so as to keep people "tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine". Adds some significance to the Savior's characterization of Peter as a rock.
 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

Moreover, today it is not vogue to call the false prophets, "prophets". Instead words such as gurus, experts, media influencers, politicians, etc. are used. And they are disposable. This, I believe, is by design of the Adversary so as to keep people "tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine". Adds some significance to the Savior's characterization of Peter as a rock.
 

Yes. I think the false prophet is more often a conceptual archetype than a precise designation.