Church Offers Resources Re: Faith Crisis Issues

[Rain]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have six children, four of whom are adults and have moved out but still live relatively close by.  Over the past while (6-8 months) my wife and I have been hosting a Sunday night dinner where everyone is invited, and most of the time all of them come.  We go out of our way to make the meal particularly tasty (next Sunday's will be gluten-free coconut shrimp tacos with mango salsa).  We have come to realize that our children - particularly those who have moved out - have come to value this meal and its aftermath (we typically spend most of the evening talking or doing something together) as a respite.  A breather.  A recharge.  A time of calm, peace, and spending time with people you love!

A while back one of my sons asked me to not bring up news items or other "heavy" topics during dinner.  I had done this on occasion mostly to hear what my family thinks of such matters.  However, my son explained that Sunday dinner was, for him and the other kids, what is described above.  It's not a time and place to discuss controversies or hot topics, which can be saved for another day or a family meeting or a one-on-one (or even not addressed at all).  I acquiesced to this request.  

I wonder if this is how most Latter-day Saints feel about the two-hour block.  It is a brief respite from the world, and one that ought not be taken up (at least not often) with addressing controversies, dissensions, criticisms, etc. regarding the Church, its leaders' flaws, its policies on disputed issues, its historical controversies and errors, sociopolitical topics, etc.

It is interesting that you label them "controversies, dissensions, criticisms" because many who seem to be the focus of these resources would name them things like "worries, concerns or things that make it seem like I'm not wanted". 

Church is a place many once/still loved and they have grown to love the people and they want help from those people they love.  This is the place they come because their eternity is on the line. But when they bring up their concerns as they try to work them out people often treat them as adversaries. Granted some communicate that in a very poor way and there really may be some who come out fighting, but I think for the most part people are just hoping to find answers and peace for their concerns. And where better to do that than in the place that teaches them to love one another?

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think it's not a place to hash out an individual's disagreement with or criticisms of the Church, its doctrines, leaders, policies, history, etc.

Thanks,

-Smac

 

Edited January 4, 2024 by Rain

[Tacenda]

16 hours ago, pogi said:

Let's just call it "the traditional narrative". 

I am finding myself triggered almost weekly.  

Open family vs closed family.  Open family discusses issues in a healthy way and build each other/support each other despite their differences and disagreements.  In closed families, members feel shamed for bringing up issues that "we don't talk about in this family", they feel unsafe to be themselves and feel like they have to present an image to the rest of the family that they deem appropriate in order to be accepted. 

I feel like church is a closed family.  Many people are hiding their true selves and feelings in order to feel like they fit in.  Here is a great bit on the difference of belonging and fitting in:

  My entire membership in the church, I have felt a strong social pressure to fit in but have only on rare occasion felt like I belong.  Mormons are really good at "fitting in" - that's how we are raised socially.   AT least that has been my experience in the church, others experience may vary.   I know that I am far from alone in my experience though, and that is concerning to me.   I would like to see that culture changed.   I would like to see the emphasis on belonging rather than fitting in. 

 

Unfortunately, I feel like "faith" and the "traditional narrative" are too often thought of being one and the same thing.  Faith is in Christ.  Not the church.  Not the prophet.   Not the current narrative.  We should cohere around faith, but unfortunately, many are being shamed and shunned despite their strong faith in Christ because they don't fit the image of the narrative. 

Hopefully, that is clear by now.  To feel safe to be open and honest like in a healthy family dynamic without the intense social blow back and feeling pushed out.   

Whatever it is that members are suffering from, including faith crisis, etc. 

Nope.  Not that at all.  That's not what healthy open families do all the time.  But they don't shun/silence/shame those difficult discussions either.  Healthy families have developed effective communication tools and expectations of engagement where, at times, pertinent issues that are affecting our own brothers and sisters in our shared faith are struggling and need support, even where there may be no answers.   It shouldn't be the extreme of bear all grievances all the time, or shut thyself up and fit in, all the time either.  I feel like it is an uphill battle to try and change such an engrained culture of closedness that the alternative will be too scary for many, with fears that it will turn into what you describe above.  But that is not what healthy open families do.   We simply don't have the social tools and wherewithal in our culture.  I don't know how to cultivate such tools either.   

 

Hopefully you understand better now.  

Thanks for this post! I often think of this quote by Robin Williams in different situations. But think it fits with what you're saying here, hopefully. 

I used to think that the worst thing in life was to end up alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel alone.

Robin Williams

[california boy]

18 hours ago, smac97 said:

I linked to the SL Tribune article, which included this concluding statement: "For those wondering where their gay sibling fits into the plan of salvation or if polygamy exists in heaven, giving them 'generic counsel about centering your life on Christ or "being patient with the Lord’s timing"' probably won’t, he said, resolve anything."

I could address this issue, but given the antipathy between us I do not think you would lend much credence to what I have to say.

I encourage you to read the article, which references the Church's material about "Seeking Answers to Questions" and "Helping Others with Questions."

If you do not see value in resources to assist people who are "seeking answers to questions," then I'll leave you to it.   However, I think people who are serious in their desire to seek out information and guidance on these issues can use these resources to do so.

What "question" did I say "the Church is now answering"?  What are you talking about here?

 

This is a "question"?

The Church has published a litany of resources to address it, notably including "No Blessings Denied the Faithful," "Is There a Place for Me?," "The Savior’s Grace," "LGBT People Who Live God’s Laws Can Fully Participate in Church" and several others, all of which you summarily ignore.

You said: "Is this how most of the questions are dodged with no real answer to the questions?" 

I responded by providing extensive resources which directly address the questions/issues you reference (polygamy and "gay siblings fits into the plan of salvation").

You respond by complaining and disparaging the information responsive to your inquiry.

That is, of course, your prerogative.  The resources referenced in the OP are not intended to provide pat and pithy answers to difficult and complex questions and issues.  They are, instead, intended to help individuals who are "seeking answers to questions."  And I think they do a pretty good job of it.

Thanks,

-Smac 

I think you have been very well trained on how to not answer real questions that people have about Church doctrine.  Just throw in a ton of talks that don't really provide any answers to the real question people have.  We see this approach on this board a lot when people don't want to actually answer a CFR.  People linking to some 2 hour video with no real answer to questions.  Or your favorite approach to just throw in the kitchen sink of any talk that might possibly have anything related to LGBT issues and tell the person that is suppose to be some kind of answer to their question.  It is not.  There is no answer because, while the Church seems to have a red line in the sand on not allowing gay marriage, what it doesn't have an answer to is what happens to someone who is gay when they die.  Literally, what is their role in the Plan of Salvation.  

You wonder why people don't feel like they can ask real questions that they need real answers to?  Look no further than your own answers.  A Google search on talks by Church leaders on any LGBT topic is not an answer to their question.  Eventually people realize that unless you are straight and want a family, you aren't going to get any answers to this question that YOU brought up and claimed that the Church was now finally giving some direction to.  It is clear that not much has changed.  The Church is doing what it has always done, repackage the same non answers in some new shiny package.  Now the Plan of Salvation will be called the Covenanted Path.  Repackaging doesn't give any answers, it just distracts SOME people who don't need real answers to their questions to believe that the Church is now being more open and understanding in their answers.  Not impressed.  

Unless you can actually answer the question that you stated the Church is now addressing, then don't bother to give me an index of talks that are unrelated to the question.  Save your response for someone who is not actually looking for a real answer.

And just so you don't feign ignorance and don't know what the actual question is, I will once again state the question you said the Church is now providing an answer to.

How do gay siblings fit into the Plan of Salvation?

A quote from any talk or any other authoritative statement you want to use is the only response I am looking for.  More kitchen sink talks that don't answer that question is not an answer.  

[california boy]

12 hours ago, Rain said:

It is interesting that you label them "controversies, dissensions, criticisms" because many who seem to be the focus of these resources would name them things like "worries, concerns or things that make it seem like I'm not wanted". 

Church is a place many once/still loved and they have grown to love the people and they want help from those people they love.  This is the place they come because their eternity is on the line. But when they bring up their concerns as they try to work them out people often treat them as adversaries. Granted some communicate that in a very poor way and there really may be some who come out fighting, but I think for the most part people are just hoping to find answers and peace for their concerns. And where better to do that than in the place that teaches them to love one another?

 

This is exactly the issue.  

 

Quote

 

I used to think that the worst thing in life was to end up alone. It's not. The worst thing in life is to end up with people who make you feel alone.

Robin Williams

 

 

 

Thank you Tacenda for that quote.  Your response to Pogi's post also nailed the problem.  There are many in the Church who feel like they don't fit the very narrow mold the Church gives members to follow.  If you don't fit that mold, then just sit in the corner and keep your mouth shut.  Leaving the Church offers hope that there is a family of people out there who will actually love you for who you are and not the facade that is required to be in the Church.  I know this is true.  I have lived that life and found that hope can be fulfilled. The lifting of those dark clouds that smothered me so much for years in trying to pretend to be something I was not or even able to do was the single best pivot I have ever made in my life.  This is the message that countless people who have left the Church have told me.  

"Where will you go?"  The answer to that question is simple.  Find a community that cares about you for who you are and thrive.  You will find that path back to God is one that actually leads to a relationship with God where you are a participant, and not a bystander wishing you could participate.

Edited January 4, 2024 by california boy

[webbles]

2 minutes ago, california boy said:

And just so you don't feign ignorance and don't know what the actual question is, I will once again state the question you said the Church is now providing an answer to.

How do gay siblings fit into the Plan of Salvation?

A quote from any talk or any other authoritative statement you want to use is the only response I am looking for.  More kitchen sink talks that don't answer that question is not an answer.  

smac didn't say the church is now providing an answer to that.  He quoted from the SL Tribune who said that.  SL Tribune didn't link to the church for that statement and I don't see why the SL Tribune said that since I don't see anything in the official church guides that seem to answer that.  Here's the actual guide from the church dealing with family and friends who are gay - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/family-and-friends?lang=eng

 

[Rain]

Just read this in "The Whole Language: The Power of Extravagant Tenderness" and thought it fit here.  Homeboy Industries is a Catholic charity that works with gang members and does some amazing things in turning around their lives.

"Homeboy Industries isn't just a sanctuary and sacred place.  It's a Petri dish cultivating an ability to find the sacred beyond this place. Someone like Grizz walks in and can't help but attach to this cherishing community. He's held by a no-matter-whatnes. Only in such a culture can you identify and accept yourself with a mystical wholeness. You can then discard all those things that previously held you back. The places where you used to get stuck. 'The point of Homeboy', one of the trainees told another, 'is not just to pay your bills, but to heal your ills.' After that, it's not so much smooth sailing as it is resilient and integrated enough to deepen the sense of your own truth."

To clarify from context by "own truth" I don't think he means it like many use it today, but as a sense of that child of God in you.

Can you imagine how church would be not just for those who believe strongly, but for all those seeking for a better way for themselves if church was a sanctuary where the community held everyone with such tenderness that they could find a way to heal and become whole?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

smac didn't say the church is now providing an answer to that.  He quoted from the SL Tribune who said that.  SL Tribune didn't link to the church for that statement and I don't see why the SL Tribune said that since I don't see anything in the official church guides that seem to answer that.  Here's the actual guide from the church dealing with family and friends who are gay - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/family-and-friends?lang=eng

 

Well then why did SMAC throw in countless unrelated talks rather than just answer the question that you so simply answer.  Your link also didn't provide any doctrinal direction on how a gay person is suppose to see how they could possibly fit into Church doctrine, but at least you answered the question simply and honestly instead of pretending there was an answer to that question. 

It all boils down to this.  The Church has a red line in the sand against gay marriage, has no answers on how an LGBT person fits into the Mormon version of what they think is God's plan, but we can still love them.  Do you think that is a fair assessment?

The big reason for bringing all of this up is because there seems to be a culture within the Church among a lot of leaders and members that if we just throw enough scriptures and talks, even if they don't answer actual questions, maybe those asking sincere questions will just give up and no longer seek answers.  Most of the time they are right.  People that have questions, no matter what the issue is do just fade away. The throw in the kitchen sink approach is actually more frustrating than helpful.  People figure that out eventually.  

Edited January 4, 2024 by california boy

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, california boy said: 

How do gay siblings fit into the Plan of Salvation?

The same way as everyone else does.  Gay people are not special.  They don’t get exemptions from any law of God.  They must walk the same path and be in compliance with eternal laws as any heterosexual has to.  They might have to make some sacrifices to do that but so what.  We all have to make sacrifices in various aspects of our lives to come into compliance.  The are not many paths to the plan of salvation.  One for the heterosexual.  One for the bisexual.  One for the gay.  One for the polygamist.  One for the swinger and one for all the unmentionables.  The is just one plan of salvation all must walk the same path to find their eternal destiny.

[california boy]

19 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

The same way as everyone else does.  Gay people are not special.  They don’t get exemptions from any law of God.  They must walk the same path and be in compliance with eternal laws as any heterosexual has to.  They might have to make some sacrifices to do that but so what.  We all have to make sacrifices in various aspects of our lives to come into compliance.  The are not many paths to the plan of salvation.  One for the heterosexual.  One for the bisexual.  One for the gay.  One for the polygamist.  One for the swinger and one for all the unmentionables.  The is just one plan of salvation all must walk the same path to find their eternal destiny.

OMGosh.  Is it so difficult for members to understand that LGBT people have no answers on what happens to them in the next life?????

Just tell them they are sinning if they want to find love and happiness in this life and hope they will just shut up and go away is not really a helpful answer.  If the Church is really expecting members to make such a horrific sacrifice, it would be helpful to know what the end game is.  Can you really not see that?

You guys are like an echo chamber, regurgitation the same answer you have been told to say without even understanding the question.  While I have been focusing on LGBT issues, all of these comments relate to all the questions people have about the Church.  It is pretty clear that approach is not working all that well for those seeking real answers to their questions.

Edited January 4, 2024 by california boy

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think you have been very well trained on how to not answer real questions that people have about Church doctrine.  

You haven't asked me any questions.

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just throw in a ton of talks that don't really provide any answers to the real question people have.  

Again, I think you misapprehend the purpose of the resourced referenced in the OP.  They are intended to assist an individual who is "seeking answers to questions."

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

We see this approach on this board a lot when people don't want to actually answer a CFR.  People linking to some 2 hour video with no real answer to questions.  Or your favorite approach to just throw in the kitchen sink of any talk that might possibly have anything related to LGBT issues and tell the person that is suppose to be some kind of answer to their question.  It is not.  

Again, you have not asked me any questions.

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

There is no answer

Respectfully, I think there are plenty of answers.  I just think you do not want to hear them or accept them.

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

because, while the Church seems to have a red line in the sand on not allowing gay marriage, what it doesn't have an answer to is what happens to someone who is gay when they die.  

I don't understand what you mean by "what happens to someone who is gay when they die."

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

Literally, what is their role in the Plan of Salvation.  

Again, I could address this issue, but given the antipathy between us I do not think you would lend much credence to what I have to say.

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

You wonder why people don't feel like they can ask real questions that they need real answers to?  Look no further than your own answers.  

I have not provided answers, nor have I been asked questions.

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

A Google search on talks by Church leaders on any LGBT topic is not an answer to their question.  

I did not suggest otherwise.

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

Eventually people realize that unless you are straight and want a family, you aren't going to get any answers to this question that YOU brought up and claimed that the Church was now finally giving some direction to.  

I did not bring up any questions, nor have I provided any answers.

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is clear that not much has changed.  

I think plenty has changed.  The resources in the OP are notably novel in their approach.

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

The Church is doing what it has always done, repackage the same non answers in some new shiny package.  

You are summarily disregarding and dismissing the resources being provided by the Church.

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

Now the Plan of Salvation will be called the Covenanted Path.  Repackaging doesn't give any answers, it just distracts SOME people who don't need real answers to their questions to believe that the Church is now being more open and understanding in their answers.  Not impressed.  

I don't know what "questions" and "answers" you are referencing here.

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

Unless you can actually answer the question that you stated the Church is now addressing,

I don't know what you are referencing here.

And again, I could answer questions posed to me, but given the antipathy between us I do not think you would lend much credence to what I have to say.  

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

then don't bother to give me an index of talks that are unrelated to the question.  

The resourced I provided are entirely relevant to the two general areas of inquiry references in the Trib article (polygamy and "gay siblings").

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

Save your response for someone who is not actually looking for a real answer.

You have not asked me any questions, so should I include you in the category of people who are "not actually looking for a real answer"?  That's how you are coming across.

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

And just so you don't feign ignorance and don't know what the actual question is, I will once again state the question you said the Church is now providing an answer to.

I did not say this.  The resources are intended to assist someone in finding answers.

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

How do gay siblings fit into the Plan of Salvation?

I think this question is amply, but not totally, addressed in the materials I have provided previously.  

39 minutes ago, california boy said:

A quote from any talk or any other authoritative statement you want to use is the only response I am looking for.  More kitchen sink talks that don't answer that question is not an answer.  

From this video ("LGBT People Who Live God’s Laws Can Fully Participate in the Church") (comments by Elder Christofferson) :

Quote

Someone who is adhering to the norm of chastity, someone who is following the covenants and the standards {and} teachings of the Gospel of Christ, though they may be dealing with same-sex attraction, really there's no reason they cannot be fully participative, can't be a full-fledged member of the Church, and hold callings and speak and enter the temple and serve there, and all the other opportunities and blessings that can come from church membership will be available to them.

• "Fully participative."
• "A full-fledged member of the Church."
• "{Can} hold callings and speak and enter the temple and serve there."
• "{All the} opportunities and blessings that can come from church membership will be available to them."

From this video ("No Blessings Denied the Faithful") (comments by Elder Stevenson) (transcript taken from here) :

Quote

All of us look at our lives sometimes and try to evaluate, where are we? Where am I in my life?

I've always said that when you begin to compare yourself one with another, it either leads to discouragement or it leads to pride. Neither of those are good, but that's often what happens when people begin comparing. They start to think, "My lot in life is better," or "My lot in life is much worse." And so it's not a constructive exercise for us to try to compare our circumstance to another.

Blessings come in the near term; blessings come in the long term. Sometimes blessings are in store for us, I believe, after we pass through the veil, in our postmortal existence.

And so we're in a very finite space right now. And in this finite space, it's just not beneficial to try to compare adversity that we've had or to try to compare the blessings that we have. We remember when Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden, one of the things that was introduced when they left was thorns and thistles. And we all have them in our lives, but we can have confidence that all of those can be overcome, whatever those might be that are placed in front of us. The Lord tells us that there's going to be adversity along the way. And He even suggests to us that our afflictions will be consecrated for our gain.

Now, sometimes we have to wait some years for this. But ultimately, we can be assured that the promise of eternal life is for everyone. Everyone will be rewarded for their faithfulness, equally. If you endure to the end, you'll be blessed. It might be hard today and tomorrow and next month, but it will not always be hard. You can do this as you exercise your faith in Jesus Christ and His Atonement. There will be, sometimes, adversity and trials that will come to us that seem like they're almost too hard to bear. But then He says, "Nevertheless, be of good cheer, for I will lead you along." That's a promise from the Lord. Be of good cheer in the midst of your adversity. "Be of good cheer, for I will lead you along." And I bear testimony that Jesus Christ will lead you along in any adversity that you have.

• "Sometimes blessings are in store for us, I believe, after we pass through the veil, in our postmortal existence."
• "{W}e can be assured that the promise of eternal life is for everyone."
• "Everyone will be rewarded for their faithfulness, equally. If you endure to the end, you'll be blessed."

From this video ("Is There a Place for Me?") (transcript here) :

Quote

I don't believe I've ever met anybody who didn't want to belong to something that made them feel worthwhile, that made them feel that they had value.  When people wonder, "Is there a place for me?" it may be any number of things behind that. And now they ask themselves, "Do I fit? Do I belong here? Do they really need me?" And I want to say emphatically, "Yes."

I think of the metaphor of Paul, which I love very much, about the Church is the body of Christ. And he says we're baptized into that body, and he says it's one body. Many members, but one body. I understand people's feelings at times that they may not be needed. And sometimes others are guilty of saying, "We don't need this person. We don't need that person. We're fine as we are." Neither one is true. That's not the Christian way. That's not the way Christ sees us. He sees all of us with infinite worth, and whatever our condition at the moment may be, the body of Christ is there to sustain each member.

When a person feels isolated, I don't deny the reality of the feeling and why it's so natural to feel that way. But each of us, whenever that sense may come upon us, need to stop and think, "Jesus Christ died for me. Jesus Christ thought me worthy of His blood. And He loves me, He has hopes for me, and He can make a difference in my life. His grace can transform me. And maybe this person sitting next to me, ignoring me or even wanting to move away, maybe he or she doesn't. But that doesn't change the reality of what Christ feels toward me and the possibilities I have in Christ."

And it breaks my heart if someone comes and is very vulnerable and says, "I want to try it, I want to be here," and then get a cold shoulder or a lack of interest. And that's tragic. It really is tragic. We have to be better than that. The diversity we find now in the Church may be just the beginning. Frankly, I think we'll see greater and greater diversity. In the ancient Church there was tremendous diversity. And it's not just diversity for diversity's sake, but the fact that people can bring different gifts and perspectives.

And the wide range of experience and backgrounds and challenges that people face will show us what really is essential in the gospel of Christ. And much of the rest that's been perhaps acquired over time and is more cultural than doctrinal can slip away, and we can really learn to be disciples. So we've, on the one hand, got to be better as a people at receiving and helping and walking together with everybody. And on the other hand, every individual needs to be determined that they're going to have a place in the kingdom of God, they're going to have a place in the body of Christ. And others who are thoughtless or careless or worse can't prohibit that, can't drive them away, can't take it away from them.

• "'Do I fit? Do I belong here? Do they really need me?' And I want to say emphatically, 'Yes.'"
• "So we've, on the one hand, got to be better as a people at receiving and helping and walking together with everybody. And on the other hand, every individual needs to be determined that they're going to have a place in the kingdom of God, they're going to have a place in the body of Christ."

From this video ("Love and Law") (partial transcript here) :

Quote

“As Latter-day Saints, many of us—not all of us, but many of us—are inclined to insist on the law and do so in an unloving way.

“I receive many letters from people who are devastated at the choices being made by someone in their family. And they say, ‘What are we to do?’ And the first thing I always suggest is keep loving them. In the end, that is something you can always do. We have to have in mind the commandments of the Lord, which I’ll refer to as the law, and also the great commandment to love one another. And those will come into conflict when someone we associate with is not keeping the commandments, or keeping the law. And that makes it harder for us to associate with them and to love them. And yet if we love the individual and at the same time keep a tight hold on what we know to be our responsibilities to the law, it is possible to do so. …

“We should not start off our interaction with people who are making different choices than we desire by arguing about their choices. It’s better for us to start off talking about: Where are you coming from? What are your basic values? What do you want to accomplish? And then in that context we can explain that we are concerned about the Lord’s commandments because what’s important to us is to stay on the path to eternal life.

“We’re given commandments. When we obey those commandments, we are obedient. The consequence of being obedient to commandments is to put ourselves in harmony with the eternal law that permits us to grow and progress toward eternal life. The Savior commanded His followers to ‘love one another; as I have loved you’ (John 13:34). So we look at how He loved us. He sacrificed Himself for us. He was concerned always with the individual. He had a wonderful outreach for people. I think those are all indicators of how we can love one another like He loved us. If we make Him our role model, we should always be trying to reach out to include everyone.”

• "We have to have in mind the commandments of the Lord, which I’ll refer to as the law, and also the great commandment to love one another. And those will come into conflict when someone we associate with is not keeping the commandments, or keeping the law. And that makes it harder for us to associate with them and to love them. And yet if we love the individual and at the same time keep a tight hold on what we know to be our responsibilities to the law, it is possible to do so."
• "We’re given commandments. When we obey those commandments, we are obedient. The consequence of being obedient to commandments is to put ourselves in harmony with the eternal law that permits us to grow and progress toward eternal life."
• "I think those are all indicators of how we can love one another like He loved us. If we make Him our role model, we should always be trying to reach out to include everyone.”

See also FAIR's compilation of quotes here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

This is exactly the issue.  

 

 

 

Thank you Tacenda for that quote.  Your response to Pogi's post also nailed the problem.  There are many in the Church who feel like they don't fit the very narrow mold the Church gives members to follow.  If you don't fit that mold, then just sit in the corner and keep your mouth shut.  Leaving the Church offers hope that there is a family of people out there who will actually love you for who you are and not the facade that is required to be in the Church.  I know this is true.  I have lived that life and found that hope can be fulfilled. The lifting of those dark clouds that smothered me so much for years in trying to pretend to be something I was not or even able to do was the single best pivot I have ever made in my life.  This is the message that countless people who have left the Church have told me.  

"Where will you go?"  The answer to that question is simple.  Find a community that cares about you for who you are and thrive.  You will find that path back to God is one that actually leads to a relationship with God where you are a participant, and not a bystander wishing you could participate.

Very true! ❤️

[Tacenda]

I listened to this podcast a few days ago. I think many women are facing faith crisis over feeling like the leaders of the church aren't willing to make changes to give women some authority, or even give it back to when they actually once had authority. Even to be included in councils such as worthiness or disciplinary ones. Can you imagine men, if you had to sit among only women every time to get judged? Imagine a woman having to deal with being in front of a bunch of men and having to explain something very personal that many men may not comprehend? Our young women see what's going on, they may have been brain washed to think it's all good, like I was, but really...women do not need the priesthood necessarily, they just need power to make decisions that affect them and their families lives. 

https://atlastshesaidit.org/episode-168-revisiting-what-women-dont-get-in-our-church/

Made me think back to a time when my RS president, I was her secretary, couldn't even get a food order done because the bishop was always on business trips. She was frustrated. Why couldn't the RS make those decisions! 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2024 by Tacenda

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

smac didn't say the church is now providing an answer to that.  He quoted from the SL Tribune who said that.  SL Tribune didn't link to the church for that statement and I don't see why the SL Tribune said that since I don't see anything in the official church guides that seem to answer that.  Here's the actual guide from the church dealing with family and friends who are gay - https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/family-and-friends?lang=eng

Well then why did SMAC throw in countless unrelated talks rather than just answer the question that you so simply answer.  

First, the links I provided are directly related to the two topics briefly referenced in the Trib article in the OP.

Second, I provided the links to rebut your inaccurate characterization of the Church dodging questions and not providing "real answer{s}."

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

Your link also didn't provide any doctrinal direction on how a gay person is suppose to see how they could possibly fit into Church doctrine, but at least you answered the question simply and honestly instead of pretending there was an answer to that question. 

You have not asked me a question.

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

It all boils down to this.  The Church has a red line in the sand against gay marriage,

The Church's teachings about marriage and sexuality are pretty clear.  The Church delineates between proper and improper sexual behavior, and also lays out parameters regarding marriage.  We've all known this for quite a while.

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

has no answers on how an LGBT person fits into the Mormon version of what they think is God's plan, but we can still love them.  Do you think that is a fair assessment?

No, it is not.

"{A}n LGBT person fits into ... God's plan" by obeying the same commandments that are given to all of us, by keeping the same covenants we are all invited to take upon ourselves.

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

The big reason for bringing all of this up is because there seems to be a culture within the Church among a lot of leaders and members that if we just throw enough scriptures and talks, even if they don't answer actual questions,

See, I think the Church is answering questions. An individual may choose to ignore them, or to not accept them, but it is simply incorrect to claim, over and over, that the answers don't exist at all.

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

maybe those asking sincere questions will just give up and no longer seek answers.

"{A}sking sincere questions" is indeed the crux here.

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

Most of the time they are right.  People that have questions, no matter what the issue is do just fade away. The throw in the kitchen sink approach is actually more frustrating than helpful.  People figure that out eventually.  

I think that some get answers to their questions, and are simply unwilling to abide by or accept them.  See, e.g., Matthew 19:

Quote

16 ¶ And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He saith unto him, Which? Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
20 The young man saith unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet?
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me.
22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions.

"{H}e went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions."

There was nothing inherently wrong with the young man's "great possessions," it's just that he prioritized them over obedience to God.  Virtually all of us struggle with this in various ways.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

don't see why the SL Tribune said that

Wishful thinking?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

The same way as everyone else does.  Gay people are not special.  They don’t get exemptions from any law of God.  They must walk the same path and be in compliance with eternal laws as any heterosexual has to.  They might have to make some sacrifices to do that but so what.  We all have to make sacrifices in various aspects of our lives to come into compliance.  The are not many paths to the plan of salvation.  One for the heterosexual.  One for the bisexual.  One for the gay.  One for the polygamist.  One for the swinger and one for all the unmentionables.  The is just one plan of salvation all must walk the same path to find their eternal destiny.

I actually agree with you on this, but it might be for different reasons as there is some foundation lacking in the above. I don’t see anyone actually matching the ideal of ready and completely willing for the Celestial Life at the time of death, even those who outwardly appear to match just fine as I never have met someone who is willing to open up who has not had at least one major issue and who has felt at times they don’t belong anywhere, so how can we predict in any way how they are going to turn out (what they will accept of God’s grace and what they will not) and therefore how they will fit in?

Plus all the future of eternity is described in church and by leaders in ways easily compared to how we live now (basically our family life all continues except it is perfect and we serve God by helping with his work, just in much grander ways than we do now because God will have led us to become one with him, this we will be gods) and yet Brigham Young (maybe it was Joseph) said he could not find the words to describe what life was like from his vision of it. If he couldn’t describe it, it means the description of the future we have is very different than the one that we show in a 20 minute lesson with flip charts or sing of in a children’s song. 

I think all we can say therefore is any person fits into the Plan of Salvation into the future in the same way as everyone else if we truly trust that God is no respector of persons. What that way will be is beyond our understanding it appears to me in the same way anatomy class in a medical school is beyond a four year old’s drawing of stick figures. 

Edited January 4, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Again, I could address this issue, but given the antipathy between us I do not think you would lend much credence to what I have to say.

I am interested in how you would describe this.  Always looking for others’ insights in this area. 

[smac97]

14 hours ago, Rain said:

It is interesting that you label them "controversies, dissensions, criticisms" because many who seem to be the focus of these resources would name them things like "worries, concerns or things that make it seem like I'm not wanted". 

As long as we're speaking in conspicuously vague generalities, the conversation is not going to progress very far.

My ward is great at having candid discussions in church meetings, but that does not typically include commentary centering on patent (and, obviously, public) criticism / disparagement / rejection of the Church, its doctrines, history, practices, leaders, etc.  Such sentiments are inimical to the purpose of Sunday services.  If this is what is being proposed as the sort of "difficult issues" being vaguely referenced here, then I object to that. 

Pogi noted that Church "doesn't feel like a safe place to seek understanding and clarity in reasoning together."  I interpret this as a tacit admission that the "difficult issues" which Pogi wants to hash out during Sunday services are thinks aptly described as "controversies, dissensions, criticisms" (which is likely why Pogi thinks such topics would be "perceived as hijacking the meeting with alternative agendas and being subversive"). 

Sunday services as a "safe place" are precisely what I have in mind, but not for hashing out controversies, dissensions, criticisms, etc.  Again, I think most Latter-day Saints want Sunday services to be "a brief respite from the world, and one that ought not be taken up (at least not often) with addressing controversies, dissensions, criticisms, etc. regarding the Church, its leaders' flaws, its policies on disputed issues, its historical controversies and errors, sociopolitical topics, etc."  

There is a time and place and manner for hashing out concerns, complaints, grievances, etc.  The two-hour block ain't it.

14 hours ago, Rain said:

Church is a place many once/still loved and they have grown to love the people and they want help from those people they love.  This is the place they come because their eternity is on the line. But when they bring up their concerns as they try to work them out people often treat them as adversaries.

Again, as long as we're speaking in conspicuously vague generalities, the conversation is not going to progress very far.  I don't know what "want help" and "bring up their concerns mean in this context, but I suspect it's code for "I want to be able to stand up in Sacrament Meeting or Sunday School and publicly condemn or reject this or that doctrine, or Church practice/policy, or criticize Joseph Smith, etc."  If that is what is being proposed, then I disagree with it.  If I am in error, then what are we talking about here?

14 hours ago, Rain said:

Granted some communicate that in a very poor way and there really may be some who come out fighting, but I think for the most part people are just hoping to find answers and peace for their concerns.

By publicly hashing out "concerns," criticisms, etc. in Sunday School?  Why choose that venue?  

14 hours ago, Rain said:

And where better to do that than in the place that teaches them to love one another?

There are many places, and times, and manners, that are better suited than Sunday services.

As I noted previously: "{Sunday services are} a brief respite from the world, and one that ought not be taken up (at least not often) with addressing controversies, dissensions, criticisms, etc. regarding the Church, its leaders' flaws, its policies on disputed issues, its historical controversies and errors, sociopolitical topics, etc."

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

31 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"{A}n LGBT person fits into ... God's plan" by obeying the same commandments that are given to all of us, by keeping the same covenants we are all invited to take upon ourselves.

I think the questions are not about what is going on now, but what comes later in the eternities as in what will that obedience lead them to?  What kind of blessings will they receive?  If the same as everyone else, what kind of happiness will they experience since they don’t anticipate wanting the same things as everyone else?  What role will they be given to fill and can they anticipate being happy and fully fulfilled by it as the individuals that they are without being forced to change into something they believe they are fundamentally, eternally not?

[smac97]

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

Quote

The same way as everyone else does.  Gay people are not special.  They don’t get exemptions from any law of God.  They must walk the same path and be in compliance with eternal laws as any heterosexual has to.  They might have to make some sacrifices to do that but so what.  We all have to make sacrifices in various aspects of our lives to come into compliance.  The are not many paths to the plan of salvation.  One for the heterosexual.  One for the bisexual.  One for the gay.  One for the polygamist.  One for the swinger and one for all the unmentionables.  The is just one plan of salvation all must walk the same path to find their eternal destiny.

OMGosh.  Is it so difficult for members to understand that LGBT people have no answers on what happens to them in the next life?????

First, I don't think you can speak for all "LGBT people." 

Second, they do have answers.  The issue, really, is whether they accept the answers provided."

Third, none of us is claiming to have all the answers, but CO2's point is quite astute: All the answers given to non-LGBT folks are the same answers for LGBT folks.  We are all commanded to obey the same laws and commandments.

Fourth, CO2 provides an "answer," and you immediately assert that "LGBT people have no answers."  What are we supposed to do with that?

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

Just tell them they are sinning if they want to find love and happiness in this life and hope they will just shut up and go away is not really a helpful answer.  

Nobody has said that.

The "sin" is in violating the Law of Chastity.  Again, CO2 is correct: "Gay people are not special. They don’t get exemptions from any law of God. They must walk the same path and be in compliance with eternal laws as any heterosexual has to."

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

If the Church is really expecting members to make such a horrific sacrifice,

"Horrific sacrifice" here means . . . what?

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

it would be helpful to know what the end game is.  Can you really not see that?

What do you mean by "end game" here?

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

You guys are like an echo chamber, regurgitation the same answer you have been told to say without even understanding the question.  

We are all reasonably intelligent adults here.  And I think we do understand the questions being posed here.  If you feel otherwise, please clarify what it is you want answered.

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

While I have been focusing on LGBT issues, all of these comments relate to all the questions people have about the Church.

Not really.

51 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is pretty clear that approach is not working all that well for those seeking real answers to their questions.

I think you are demonstrating the No True Scotsman fallacy here.  Any answers you don't like you simply label as not being "real" answers, then proceed to insist that nobody is providing answers at all.  That is not the case.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I interpret this as a tacit admission that the "difficult issues" which Pogi wants to hash out during Sunday services are thinks aptly described as "controversies, dissensions, criticisms" (which is likely why Pogi thinks such topics would be "perceived as hijacking the meeting with alternative agendas and being subversive").

I don’t interpret it in the same way. I can think of many questions that are not controversial at all, but are very difficult to answer besides “just trust God will work it out”, such as a man wondering about his eternal relationship with his children and his wife if they are sealed to his wife’s first husband. Perhaps someone will say he will receive other children of his own because no blessing will be lacking, but how does that address the pain of not believing he gets to be a part of their “forever family”, that he will be an outsider and not their father as that is promised to another man.  Or a woman who can’t imagine being happy when her husband has another wife because she imagines celestial marriage as something you give your all to (all you have and all you are) and how can you do that if there is another who also is looking for that kind of connection with your husband?

Unfortunately I have seen even simple, straightforward dissatisfaction with being told they have to trust and grieving because they anticipate eternal loss of their families as asking more than they should from God and the Church and therefore it gets interpreted as complaining about the Church and wanting to change the rules (subversive).

[Calm]

24 minutes ago, smac97 said:

There is a time and place and manner for hashing out concerns, complaints, grievances, etc. 

Where is this done effectively? Not just giving voice to concerns to those who can do nothing about it, but actually having a chance at resolving them?

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Horrific sacrifice" here means . . . what?

Not having romantic love and companionship, the ability to believe you can become “one flesh” with your spouse and not anticipating ever being able to have that chance…so no promise of future happiness in an eternal marriage to console for the absence of such in this life. 
 

“What do you mean by "end game" here?”

What is life going to be like for them after the Final Judgment?

Edited January 4, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

30 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Any answers you don't like you simply label as not being "real" answers, then proceed to insist that nobody is providing answers at all.  That is not the case.

So far the only answer to their place/role in eternity I have heard besides “trust in God that you will be happy” is “God will change you so that you can love someone if the opposite sex and be happy with them” or the variation of “your feelings of attraction to the same sec aren’t really you, they are just an artifact of mortality, so once you are dead you will of course want to be married to someone of the opposite sex”.

When someone cannot conceive of loving someone of the opposite sex and is instead very disturbed by the thought and can only imagine it if they are no longer who they actually are, the uniqueness that makes them an individual having been in part destroyed by having to become a certain ideal in order to progress according to God’s rules…that isn’t a real answer for them, it is an answer for the creature God has created out of the remnants of them. 
 

In essence, how much of a person can be changed into something seen as fundamentally different and still the person remains?

Edited January 4, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think the questions are not about what is going on now, but what comes later in the eternities as in what will that obedience lead them to?  

We all know what the Church teaches about "the eternities."  The basics are summed up well in the Gospel Principles manual.

So I'm not sure that this is the "question" being asked, since we already answers to it.

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

What kind of blessings will they receive?

The same which are available to everyone else.  

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the same as everyone else,

"If?"  What other option is there?

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

what kind of happiness will they experience since they don’t anticipate wanting the same things as everyone else?  

"Since they don't anticipate" being the operative phrasing here.  I think this presupposition needs to be examined.  Absent revelation, what we blinkered, finite beings "anticipate" will happen in the next life is not going to amount to much.  I think we ought not predicate Big Decisions based on our own suppositions, guesses and mortal preferences / desires / concerns.

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

What role will they be given to fill

The same role that is available to everyone else.

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

and can they anticipate being happy and fully fulfilled by it as the individuals that they are without being forced to change into something they believe they are fundamentally, eternally not?

Lots of presuppositions here.  I don't think the Lord will "force" anyone to "change into something they believe they are fundamentally, eternally not," as that would seem to be antithetical to the principles of agency. 

I also question the notion that sexual attraction is a state of being (such that a "gay person" can "change into something they ... are ... not").  See, e.g., here:

Quote

As part of the test of mortality, our bodies have desires, appetites, and passions which we must learn to discipline and control. When these desires are kept within the bounds the Lord has set, they enhance and enrich life. If they are undisciplined, they can destroy both our bodies and spirits. Consequently, the Lord has given us very specific instructions about modesty and chastity.

And here:

Quote

Feelings of same-sex attraction are not a sin. Elder M. Russell Ballard said: “Let us be clear: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes that ‘the experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including [those with same-sex attraction].’”

While same-sex attraction is not a sin, it can be a challenge. While one may not have chosen to have these feelings, he or she can commit to keep God’s commandments. The parent of a child who experiences same-sex attraction or identifies as gay should choose to love and embrace that child. As a community of Church members, Latter-day Saints should create a welcoming community.

Those who experience same-sex attraction or identify as gay can fully participate in the Church. As a Church policy says, “If members feel same-gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances.”

In short, a person does not need to choose between these two identities. One can, in fact, be gay and live faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ. 

And here:

Quote

Question: Do Mormons believe that same-sex attraction will persist in the next life?

Multiple LDS leaders have taught that same-sex attraction and homosexual desire will not persist beyond death

Examples of such teachings include those listed below.

A 2007 official Church publication on same-sex attraction reassured readers that:

While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life. However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life. As we follow Heavenly Father’s plan, our bodies, feelings, and desires will be perfected in the next life so that every one of God’s children may find joy in a family consisting of a husband, a wife, and children.

Same-gender attractions include deep emotional, social, and physical feelings. All of Heavenly Father’s children desire to love and be loved, including many adults who, for a variety of reasons, remain single. God assures His children, including those currently attracted to persons of the same gender, that their righteous desires will eventually be fully satisfied in God’s own way and according to His timing. ^[1]

The Church's official website quoted Elders Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman telling Church Public Affairs:

ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities. ^[2]

In a 2007 PBS special, Elder Holland said about same-sex attraction:

I do know that this will not be a post-mortal condition. It will not be a post-mortal difficulty. ^[3]

In 2009, the Church's official website published Elder Bruce C. Hafen's remarks. He taught:

If you are faithful, on resurrection morning—and maybe even before then—you will rise with normal attractions for the opposite sex. Some of you may wonder if that doctrine is too good to be true. But Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said it MUST be true, because “there is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband and wife, and posterity.” And “men (and women) are that they might have joy.” ^[4]

These "answers" have been available since at least 2007. 

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

17 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Since they don't anticipate" being the operative phrasing here.  I think this presupposition needs to be examined.  Absent revelation, what we blinkered, finite beings "anticipate" will happen in the next life is not going to amount to much.  I think we ought not predicate Big Decisions based on our own suppositions, guesses and mortal preferences / desires / concerns

When the Church proselytes the value of membership in part on anticipation, then it seems inappropriate to me to just dismiss such as not amounting too much in reality and consider that an answer for others even if it’s your answer. 
 

Does not the Church teach as an eternal reward for sacrifice an eternal family composed of father, mother, and children?

Is not the Church telling people to make a Big Decision based in part on this anticipation?  If not, then why is this part of the missionary lessons and part of the attention getting material (this label attention getting is not meant as a negative, it is a necessity imo).

”One of the greatest sources of joy and meaning in your life can be your relationships with other people. Giving and receiving love is part of the purpose of life. The promise of eternal life with God and your loved ones can provide hope that carries you through difficult times.”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/welcome/life-has-purpose?lang=eng

“.  I don't think the Lord will "force" anyone to "change into something they believe they are fundamentally, eternally not," as that would seem to be antithetical to the principles of agency.”

I agree.  But for those who believe that their fundamental nature is not heterosexual then that is usually interpreted as never achieving exaltation since that requires heterosexual marriage, not only living it, but desiring it. 

Edited January 4, 2024 by Calm