Jana Riess: Who is leaving the LDS Church? Eight key survey findings.

[smac97]

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Okay.  But the point remains that there plenty of never-married, divorced and widowed Latter-day Saints who are willing to, and do, live their lives "without romantic love and remaining single."  But these folks aren't being constantly inundated with messaging that the Church and its members "hate" them.

There are.  But the existence of those people is irrelevant to the experience of homosexual members (who I also don't believe are being inundated with messages about how the church hates them).

I think there is some substantial relevance.  There are plenty of people in the Church who are called upon, by circumstance and otherwise, to do or endure difficult things, even over a lifetime.  I think it is problematic to assert that same-sex attracted Latter-day Saints are unique in this regard because it is a posture that belittles and dismisses the difficult circumstances that others face.

Obedience to the commandments of God impact us all in many different ways.  I can't go along with the notion that members with SSA are uniquely put upon, or even the most put upon, in terms of following Jesus Christ.

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

If you go back to my first post to you, I made clear what I meant. They are required to eschew romantic love and marriage (even if it is offered to them) if they want to be a member in good standing and have access to everything the gospel of Jesus Christ as taught by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has to offer to God's children.

Yes.  And plenty of heterosexual members are, in practical terms, likewise called upon to lead lives without romantic love and marriage.  And other Latter-day Saints live in grinding poverty.  Others face substantial medical or mental health issues.  And yet there is no narrative out there telling these folks that the Church hates them.

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

Quote

As an abstraction, sure.  But for many, it's an abstraction that will only manifest in the hereafter.  But then, that same abstraction exists for same-sex attracted members as well.

Not as an abstraction.  It exists as a possibility.  It exists as a goal.  It exists as an option. 

Yes, as an abstraction.  We all know Latter-day Saints who have this "possibility" or "goal" or "option" as an abstraction, who would love to be married if they could, but it hasn't happened, and it likely never will.  And during the time they are not married, they must be celibate.

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

None of that is true for homosexual members and that is not a point to gloss over.

I am not glossing over it.  I am just not finding it to be singular or unique or substantively distinguishable from the various types of struggles Latter-day Saints all over the world face.

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Everyone in the Church "must reject" sexual behaviors that violate the Law of Chastity.

You've tried to make this argument before, and I get what you are saying and why you are saying it. 

It's not really an argument.  It's more a statement of fact.  And it is not a point to gloss over.  

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

But it's starting to sound disingenuous because other people have responded to it in the past, outlining the problems with it.

"Disingenuous" as in "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere"?  Nope.  I am quite frank and candid and sincere in stating this point.  

That other people have responded to it in the past does not move the needle for me.  I remain unpersuaded, particularly since these responses often end up as ad hominem insults.

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

Yes, everyone in the church must reject sexual behaviors that violate the law of Chastity, but only homosexual members are asked to reject marriage to a romantic partner in order to keep the law of chastity.

That is simply not true.  There are all sorts of Latter-day Saints who may have romantic feelings for another person, but who are required to reject them to keep the Law of Chastity.

Moreover, all members are asked - nay, commanded - to not participate in same-sex marriage.  Every single one of us, not "only homosexual members."

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

Again, that is a distinction with a huge difference that can't be ignored.

With respect, I disagree.  It is a distinction, but one of degree, not kind.

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Everyone in the Church are prohibited from entering into forms of marriage that conflict with the doctrines of the Church, such as polygamy and same-sex marriage.

Yes, everyone Everyone in the Church are prohibited from entering into forms of marriage that conflict with the doctrines of the Church, such as polygamy and same-sex marriage.  But only homosexual members are asked to reject marriage to a romantic partner completely.

Not so.  Everyone is required to abstain from same-sex marriage "completely" (theoretically, anyway).

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

We lose absolutely nothing, and gain charity, by acknowledging that.

I acknowledge that abstaining from sexual relations, or from a form of marriage that conflicts with the Restored Gospel, is difficult.

11 hours ago, bluebell said:

Quote

Given what MormonStories reported about Charlie Bird, this latter prohibition is possibly being more loosely enforced than the former, which is really interesting.

It is interesting.  And hopeful.  

How is this "hopeful?"

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 10, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

There are plenty of never-married, divorced and widowed Latter-day Saints who are willing to live lives of celibacy.  But these folks aren't being constantly inundated with messaging that the Church and its members "hate" them.

Yet the is a big difference that you seem rarely able to acknowledge.

I see that abstaining from same-sex behavior and from same-sex marriage is a difficult burden, but there are many such burdens borne in this life.  

The Law of Chastity is, in the end, a wonderful commandment.  I am grateful to have it.  I am cognizant that its parameters, its delineations between acceptable and unacceptable sexual behaviors, are seen in many circles as quaint or outdated.  I find them to be valid and good because not only is the Law revelatory, it has stood the test of time.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

13 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I have heard this observation a lot in anecdotal terms, so it's interesting to see it quantified.  And 70% sure seems like a big number.  I wonder why this is so.

In my experience, and in my interactions with members who have left, when they apply the same critical thinking skills that led them out of Mormonism to other religions or sects, those fall apart as well.

I think there are presuppositions, biases, etc. that are labeled as "critical thinking skills."  I know many Latter-day Saints who are quite adept with actual and substantive "critical thinking skills" and remain happy and faithful Latter-day Saints.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

13 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

It's been years (10+?) since I've been to a testimony meeting. I was struck by the sheer number of "I know" statements -- it actually became quite distracting because once I noticed it I couldn't un-notice it. This was especially true when some children were saying "I know." I didn't feel like I was being critical of your faith when the voice in my head kept saying "no, you don't know, you just believe."

I don't take that as a criticism.  It's more a linguistic affectation than a factual assertion.

13 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I was being critical of the presentation. Has the style of testimonies changed at all in the past few years?

Depends on the ward, I suppose.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

12 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

Lay leadership is the bulwark of the institutional church. It includes every leader in a local and regional leadership role. If one is ignoring this as part of the institutional church, they're missing a massive part of the actual institution and that's a problem. 

Everything (instruction, handbook all implemented at local level) gets translated down to the local level with the local leadership, which is who members have the most engagement with.  I see the social/cultural side being more highly influenced at this level.

However, I wonder how much impact local level understanding of doctrine has, how seriously do members include interpretations by bishops and counselors and stake presidents, etc in their own understanding versus what they hear at conference.  I wonder if doctrinal understanding of members is impacted more at the General Authority level even though we hear less from them personally over the year (though we get a lot second and third hand through interpretations of their talks, including quotes).

I think the vaccine/masks controversy showed just how much impact the social/cultural side has on the doctrinal as there was some pretty quick movement away from following higher leadership there.  OTOH, doctrinal changes can seem to take eons at time to actually impact at the local level in terms making changes, for example with racism based on previous scripture interpretations that haven’t been taught in conference for a very long time. Added: Doctrinal instruction may seem to be of prime importance in a religion, but I am not that sure if it actually plays out that way due to how we make choices for our day to day behaviours..

Edited March 10, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think it is problematic to assert that same-sex attracted Latter-day Saints are unique in this regard because it is a posture that belittles and dismisses the difficult circumstances that others face.

I think that is your own personal interpretation, not reality…though others may share it.

Different doesn’t equate to harder.  Harder is too dependent on individual situations and attributes to be able to say one person has harder sacrifices they are required to make than another.  Complicated doesn’t equate to harder either.

It is not like there is only so much suffering to go around so that if someone has massive hardships it means others have it easier.  Unfortunately everyone can be massively suffering at the same time…just most likely differently because people’s weaknesses and strengths create a unique situation for each individual.

You don’t need to reject the idea that same sex attraction is different and more complicated to deal with out of concern for diminishing the struggles others go through.

 Someone who is gay, but not that romantically or sexually inclined and not inclined to be concerned about their status in the next life as they are focused on the here and now might find living the Law of Chastity no big deal while another who is hardwired for more libido and whose environment led to nurturing that side of their life excessively might find living chaste is quite hard even when heterosexual and married.

My daughter has diabetes on top of all the disorders that I have.  Plus she has severe social anxiety while mine is probably mild.  Does that mean her life is harder?  Nope because some of my stuff is much more severe due to my age and two pregnancies.  So my life must harder.  Nope, because she lacks the experience of ever having a relatively normal life so it is harder for her to know what the benefits of pushing herself are, where she should push and where she should protect, so her efforts aren’t as effective as mine are.  So I find it much easier than her to work at overcoming stuff because I have concrete hope where she has vagueness.  Which life is harder?  The more severe disorders or the difficulty of self discipline when one doesn’t know the outcome?  I have no clue since I can’t get in her head.

We can’t know how difficult someone’s life actually is because we can only see the external struggle.  There is no real way to compare people’s internal suffering.

Why do we even need to rate difficulties of struggles?  It is either hard for someone or it is not.  Someone else suffering doesn’t make it any easier to endure one’s lot.

Edited March 10, 2024 by Calm

[smac97]

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

Quote

I wonder if "I know" declarations in the Church are also sometimes being used as a "throwaway intensifier," as intending to express more of a strong belief rather than a sure knowledge.  Unfortunately, there seem to be some in the Church who seem to take "I know" at face value, and in so doing feel that their having faith (alongside questions and doubts) is just not good enough.  I think we need to work on that.

I am happy to understand you do not like the "I know" that just about every LDS testimony includes and has as long as I can remember.

Mine is not a categorical dislike.  It's more of an aversion to its overuse or misuse as a "throwaway intensifier" (hence the qualification in my previous statement: "I wonder if 'I know' declarations in the Church are also sometimes being used as a 'throwaway intensifier...'").

By way of example, this year I will be celebrating my 28th anniversary of being married to a wonderful woman.  I feel quite at ease declaring that I know that I love her, and that she loves me.  That's not an affectation or a "throwaway intensifier."  It would feel odd for me to say "I believe that my wife loves me," or "I hope she loves me."  At this point in my life, I know it.

Are there Latter-day Saints who can comfortably - and accurately - say that they "know" that God lives?  That Jesus Christ is His son?  Yes, I think so.  I also think there are plenty of Latter-day Saints who make declarations of "knowing," when perhaps "believing" is a bit more apt.

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

But when you say some take the phrase at face value are you implying most don't? 

No.  I haven't really taken a poll, but I think most Latter-day Saints, if specifically asked about whether "I know" declarations in testimonies are declarations of sure knowledge or of strong belief, most would point to the latter.

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

Because at least when I was active I would say about 100% of active members understood the words to mean literally that they or the testimony bearer, actually did KNOW. 

Well, reasonable minds can disagree about such things.

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

And I believe that is perpetuated from the top down.

To some extent, you are probably correct.  But it's a mixed bag, as I think there are Latter-day Saints who, in declaring "I know," intend it to be construed as a statement of knowledge transcending strong belief, whereas others may be using it as more of a "throwaway intensifier.  Latter-day Saints aren't really unique in having a fuzzy boundary between things we "know" and things about which we feel very strongly and confidently.

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think of Elder McConkie's last testimony.

The one right before he died?  Isn't it possible that he had obtained "knowledge" at that point?  In this 1972 talk, he stated: 

Quote

I have a perfect knowledge that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God and that he was crucified for the sins of the world. I know that Joseph Smith is a prophet of God through whose instrumentality the fullness of the everlasting gospel has been restored again in our day. And I know that this Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the kingdom of God on earth, and that as now constituted, with President Harold B. Lee at its head, it has the approval and approbation of the Lord, is in the line of its duty, and is preparing a people for the second coming of the Son of Man.

"I have a perfect knowledge."  I can't say that.  But I don't think I can assert that nobody else can say it either.

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

I think of a talk by Elder Ballard on what a testimony should consist of. 

Not sure what you are referencing here.

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

I have never heard anyone talk about a testimony saying I know as anything other than that.  In fact knowing has been emphasized and a testimony as a result of personal revelation was even better than actual eye witness testimony.  Is that really changing? 

I think so.  Consider, for example, this April 2013 General Conference talk by Elder Holland:

Quote

Last observation: When doubt or difficulty come, do not be afraid to ask for help. If we want it as humbly and honestly as this father did, we can get it. The scriptures phrase such earnest desire as being of “real intent,” pursued “with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God.” I testify that in response to that kind of importuning, God will send help from both sides of the veil to strengthen our belief.

I said I was speaking to the young. I still am. A 14-year-old boy recently said to me a little hesitantly, “Brother Holland, I can’t say yet that I know the Church is true, but I believe it is.” I hugged that boy until his eyes bulged out. I told him with all the fervor of my soul that belief is a precious word, an even more precious act, and he need never apologize for “only believing.” I told him that Christ Himself said, “Be not afraid, only believe,” a phrase which, by the way, carried young Gordon B. Hinckley into the mission field. I told this boy that belief was always the first step toward conviction and that the definitive articles of our collective faith forcefully reiterate the phrase “We believe.” And I told him how very proud I was of him for the honesty of his quest.

"I hugged that boy until his eyes bulged out. I told him with all the fervor of my soul that belief is a precious word, an even more precious act, and he need never apologize for 'only believing.'"

Alma 32 is frequently discussed in the Church, and I am glad of that.  It does an excellent job of reminding us that faith "{is} not a perfect knowledge," and that we "cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge" (Alma 32:26).

Elder Holland continues:

Quote

Now, with the advantage that nearly 60 years give me since I was a newly believing 14-year-old, I declare some things I now know. I know that God is at all times and in all ways and in all circumstances our loving, forgiving Father in Heaven. I know Jesus was His only perfect child, whose life was given lovingly by the will of both the Father and the Son for the redemption of all the rest of us who are not perfect. I know He rose from that death to live again, and because He did, you and I will also. I know that Joseph Smith, who acknowledged that he wasn’t perfect, was nevertheless the chosen instrument in God’s hand to restore the everlasting gospel to the earth. I also know that in doing so—particularly through translating the Book of Mormon—he has taught me more of God’s love, of Christ’s divinity, and of priesthood power than any other prophet of whom I have ever read, known, or heard in a lifetime of seeking. I know that President Thomas S. Monson, who moves devotedly and buoyantly toward the 50th anniversary of his ordination as an Apostle, is the rightful successor to that prophetic mantle today. We have seen that mantle upon him again in this conference. I know that 14 other men whom you sustain as prophets, seers, and revelators sustain him with their hands, their hearts, and their own apostolic keys.

These things I declare to you with the conviction Peter called the “more sure word of prophecy.” What was once a tiny seed of belief for me has grown into the tree of life, so if your faith is a little tested in this or any season, I invite you to lean on mine. I know this work is God’s very truth, and I know that only at our peril would we allow doubt or devils to sway us from its path. Hope on. Journey on. Honestly acknowledge your questions and your concerns, but first and forever fan the flame of your faith, because all things are possible to them that believe. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

I think Elder Holland was situated here to use "I know" advisedly and with particularized intent.  

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

Do you have anything from official sources that attempts to move I know being literal to meaning really strong faith and belief. 

Well, there are plenty of references to "perfect knowledge" in the scriptures and in General Conference talks.  If there is perfect knowledge, then there must also be imperfect knowledge.  Can a person say "I know" in that context, and have it be substantially accurate and true?

As for "official sources," see this 1991 talk by Elder Maxwell:

Quote

Experience by experience, faith can yield to knowledge “in that thing,” meaning the particularized verifications of gospel truths. (Alma 32:34.) It was so with the brother of Jared: “He had faith no longer, for he knew.” (Ether 3:19.) Brigham Young assured that “every principle God has revealed carries its own convictions of its truth to the human mind.” (In Journal of Discourses, 9:149.) Jesus clearly declared that “if any man will do his will, he shall know.” (John 7:17.) However, Jesus described the steady process as being one of “line upon line, precept upon precept.” (D&C 98:12.)

But we’re all at different points in this process, aren’t we, of desiring, experimenting, verifying, and knowing. Hence “to some it is given … to know. … To others it is given to believe on their words.” (D&C 46:13–14.)

While faith is not a perfect knowledge, it brings a deep trust in God, whose knowledge is perfect! Otherwise, one’s small data base of personal experience permits so few useful generalizations! But by searching the holy scriptures, we access a vast, divine data bank, a reservoir of remembrance. In this way, the scriptures can, as the Book of Mormon says, enlarge the memory. (See Alma 37:8.)

And these 1994 remarks, also by Elder Maxwell:

Quote

Faith and hope are constantly interactive, and may not always be precisely distinguished or sequenced. Though not perfect knowledge either, hope’s enlivened expectations are “with surety” true (Ether 12:4; see also Rom. 8:24; Heb. 11:1; Alma 32:21). In the geometry of restored theology, hope has a greater circumference than faith. If faith increases, the perimeter of hope stretches correspondingly.

Just as doubt, despair, and desensitization go together, so do faith, hope, and charity. The latter, however, must be carefully and constantly nurtured, whereas despair, like dandelions, needs so little encouragement to sprout and spread. Despair comes so naturally to the natural man!

And these 1972 remarks by Elder Joseph Anderson:

Quote

People sometimes say that one cannot know that the gospel is true. As indicated by Alma, if, when you hear the word of God, you do not cast it out by unbelief or resist the Spirit of the Lord, the swellings within your breast, its enlargement of your soul and its enlightening of your understanding are of such a nature that they cause you to know that it is the truth.

However, this is only a beginning. You must nourish the seed; in other words, you must nourish the testimony that you have that it is true, by living the teachings of the gospel.
...
I testify to you that if you do these things—truly try this experiment regarding the word of God as contained in the gospel of Jesus Christ and live in accordance with the commandments therein set forth, nourishing the truths of the gospel—you shall have the privilege of feasting upon this fruit; your faith will be fully rewarded and will develop into a sure knowledge of the truth of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
...
If you truly have faith in God sufficient to impel you to keep his commandments, you will draw nearer to him and he will come nearer to you, and your faith will become knowledge, and the limit of your horizon will extend into the eternal world.

And these 2016 remarks by Elder W. Mark Bassett:

Quote

We were never expected “to have a perfect knowledge of things” during this mortal existence. Instead, we are expected to “hope for things which are not seen, which are true.”

Even with Nephi’s great faith, he acknowledged his limited understanding when he responded to the angel who asked him, “Knowest thou the condescension of God?” Nephi replied, “I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.”

Similarly, Alma expressed to his son Helaman, “Now these mysteries are not yet fully made known unto me; therefore I shall forbear.”

I express my witness that our Father in Heaven loves His children, and yet, like Nephi and Alma, I do not know the meaning of all things. Nor do I need to know all things; I too shall forbear and wait patiently upon the Lord, knowing “I have all things as a testimony that these things are true; and ye also have all things as a testimony unto you that they are true. …

And these 1973 remarks by Elder Hartman Rector, Jr.

Quote

What is the difference between just ordinary prayer and a “prayer of faith”?

As we consider that question, the difference is immediately apparent. The difference is faith, and what is faith? Of course, there are many definitions of faith, but one definition is “a strong belief plus action.” It is not perfect knowledge (as Alma explains in Alma 32), but real faith lets a man act as if he knows it is true when he really doesn’t.

"{R}eal faith lets a man act as if he knows it is true when he really doesn’t."

And these 2010 remarks by Bishop Richard C. Edgley:

Quote

And when we choose faith and then nurture that faith to a perfect knowledge of the things of the Lord, then we use the words “I testify” or “I know.” I have personally planted the seed in my own heart, and throughout my life I have attempted to nurture that seed to a perfect knowledge. And today, as I stand behind this pulpit, I testify that Jesus is the Christ, the Redeemer of the world. I further testify that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God and the living instrument the Lord used to bring back to the earth the complete and true gospel of Jesus Christ. I testify that President Thomas S. Monson is the Lord’s prophet today. Likewise, the choice of faith is yours, it is mine. Let us choose faith. In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

"{W}hen we choose faith and then nurture that faith to a perfect knowledge of the things of the Lord, then we use the words 'I testify' or 'I know.'"

16 hours ago, Teancum said:

Do others LDS believers here agree with @smac97on this?

I am also curious what other Latter-day Saints here think on this topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 10, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

15 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

It is not hard to see that there is a difference between what we currently ask of our queer members and our single, widowed, and divorced members.

I can't go along with this, not categorically anyway.  And yes, I see some differences, but they are of degree, not kind.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

22 hours ago, pogi said:

Do you want to qualify that statement? 

No.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 3/8/2024 at 10:21 PM, Analytics said:

Quote

There are plenty of never-married, divorced and widowed Latter-day Saints who are willing to live lives of celibacy.  But these folks aren't being constantly inundated with messaging that the Church and its members "hate" them.

Out of curiosity, do you ever listen to what other people say in this forum? 

Yes.  All the time.

Out of curiosity, to you think that "listening to" and "agreeing with" (or "acquiescing to") are synonyms?

On 3/8/2024 at 10:21 PM, Analytics said:

The truth is actually quite simple.

Ah.  Pronouncements from on high.  Bring 'em on, son!

On 3/8/2024 at 10:21 PM, Analytics said:

Mormonism works for some people, but it doesn’t work for others. If you are gay, it probably doesn’t work for you.

I think this is more aptly described as "facile" than "simple."

First and foremost, "sexual identity" as a concept/construct is, historically speaking, about five minutes old.  Hamba has noted, and documented, this many times.  A summary:

Quote

I get that some folks {} disagree with Hamba's statements (and cited materials), but they are not really engaging or responding to them.  Instead, our communications / debates proceed based on a fundamental presupposition that Hamba is refuting.  He is stating (and, through citation and reasoning, demonstrating) that 

• the idea of "people hav{ing} sexual orientations -- that somehow they are born with an innate, fixed sexual attraction to a certain gender" is "completely new" and a "complete novelty,"
• that "{t}he notion that people have innate, fixed, gendered 'sexual orientations' and therefore can be classified (and bound) by such constructions is less than 150 years old and is completely unique in human history, a fact even gay historians acknowledge,"
• that this concept is "a recent social construct, dating to the second half of the 19th century,"
• that previous to this "neither heterosexuality nor homosexuality (or any other kind of -sexuality) existed, either as words or identities,"
• that this construct "spread slowly at first but started to become ascendant in the West in the second half of the 20th century, when it was adopted for its political utility,"
• that this advocates of this construct have "masked" its origins "by creating narratives of having 'always already' existed,"
• that these fabricated narratives amount to "historical revisionism," and that overall the current trends regarding sexual "identities" are "clearly" a "cultural phenomenon."

I don't think you have ever addressed this issue.

Second, foisting this concept/construct on the Church is an ongoing attempt to pound a round peg into a square hole.  It just does not fit.  From the same link as above:

Quote

Contemporaneously, Hamba is also proposing that the Church 

• "has at no point in its history embraced this new discourse of sexual identities," and
• that this has put it (the Church) "at odds with a number of trends/forces in Western society," but
• that the Church's position is "far more in harmony with the paradigm that has existed for nearly all of human history and which remains the dominant paradigm around the world in areas least subject to Western colonisation of the imagination ... {and} with the work of all serious historical scholarship on this topic," and
• that "when our Church leaders encourage us not to identify people as homosexual, they show themselves to be astutely historically aware." 

In sum, I think we on this board need to seriously re-examine this construct of "identity," as it is clearly getting in the way of a lot of folks.

Third, the ongoing "If you are gay, it {the Church} probably doesn’t work for you" narrative is perpetually missing the point:

Quote

Quote

Is the church just not big enough for sinners?  Or is it that the church is just not big enough for gay sinners.

The Church has boundless room for sinners, including me and 'gay sinners'. But the entire interplay of church and sinner in Christianity is about inviting the sinner to return and repent. At the point that a person decides to celebrate and cement her/his sinful nature by making it a legal category, that person has moved past sin (common to every single Saint) into apostasy -- in this case (and with this church in particular), having openly rejected everything the community of Saints holds dear and understands to be the very gift of Christ that God desires to bestow upon His children.

See also these remarks by Ty Mansfield:

Quote

I believe there is something happening within the lay Latter-day Saint community that we need to be aware and conscious of. In his Truman Madsen Lecture on Joseph Smith’s “recovery” of the “eternal man,” Robert Millet, former dean of religious education at BYU, talked about the changes in the Christian concept of God that took place with early councils such as Nicaea and Constantinople, quoting evangelical scholars who remarked on the many insights that emerged from this “inevitable encounter” between the gospel and the larger culture and influence of Hellenistic philosophy, which also helped Christians evangelize Greek culture. Quoting these scholars, Millet continued, “Along with the good came a certain theological virus that infected the Christian doctrine of God, making it ill and creating the sorts of problems mentioned above. The virus so permeates Christian theology (today) that some have come to take the illness for granted, attributing it to divine mystery, while others remain unaware of the infection altogether.”

I believe something comparable is happening in the church today with regard to ideologies surrounding love, marriage, sexuality and gender. Cultural movements such as secular humanism, expressive individualism, Victorian romanticism, American sentimentalism and gender deconstructionism — and perhaps even a few more -isms — have given rise to sexual liberation and subsequent gay/queer liberation movements. These broader cultural -isms — and many of the tribal -ites they help shape — have influenced even members of the church in ways we most often simply don’t comprehend. But they are potent and we consume a steady diet of them through our popular culture and entertainment.

For many Latter-day Saints, these cultural and sociopolitical philosophies and worldviews, just as Greek and pagan cultures of old, have in ways infected the worldviews of many Latter-day Saints and become a kind of “theological virus” or spiritual cancer. As a colleague of mine recently remarked, it’s almost as if Jesus had said, “Greater love hath no man or woman than this, that any and all consenting adults should experience passionate romance, intimate pair-bonding and sexual fulfillment all the days of their life — and, be wary of children, for they may inhibit life satisfaction.”

Hamba responded to the above with some comments that merit repetition:

Quote

This is a very apt comparison.

The demand is essentially that the Church treat late 19th-century social constructs as universal truths and then alter its doctrines to align with them.

It's not going to happen, and if it did happen, it would be an act of apostasy equivalent to what happened in the early centuries following the deaths of the apostles.

Like all social movements, this one will also crescendo and then decline at some point, and looking back people will wonder how it ever became ascendant in the first place.

In the meantime, the Church is doing its damnedest to accommodate those who've been caught up in this ideological wave whilst protecting revealed truth from the onslaught -- something the early Christian leaders failed to do. I expect things to get worse before they get better.

Hamba said the above in 2021.  And I think he was right.  I think we are at or near the "crescendo" he referenced.

Fourth, in 2021 Hamba responded to a comment from California Boy, which comment was similar to the one you provide above.  I'll just quote it:

Quote

Quote

Do you think an approach of our way or the highway approach should continue?  Either get married to someone of the opposite sex, or never have a relationship with another person.  If you can't accept that, then there really isn't a place for you in the Church.

I'm not certain, but I think you're asking if the Church should stop teaching basic Christian sexual mores, and my answer to that question (if I'm correct) is no. But as a member of the Church who has never married anyone of any sex, I have grown genuinely sick and weary of how you and others always frame this question: If there is 'no place' in the Church for people who aren't married to the opposite sex, then there is no place for me and millions of other members like me, and that's pure BS. Seriously, I'm sick of it to the point of frustration or anger or something I'd prefer not to experience. I know you think this line helps you score points or something, but it's simultaneously absurd and deeply offensive. Please stop pretending you get to speak for me.

As it is, I don't really expect you to stop the presumption of speaking for the Latter-day Saints.  I guess the best we can do is just speak for ourselves and hope that readers will give more credence to our presentation of our faith than to yours.  I am reminded of Krister Stendahl's "Three Rules of Religious Understanding," summarized here:

Quote

Stendahl is credited with creating Stendahl's three rules of religious understanding, which he presented in a 1985 press conference in Stockholm, Sweden, in response to vocal opposition to the building of a temple there by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.^[9] His rules are as follows:

1. When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies.
2. Don't compare your best to their worst.
3. Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

"When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion and not its enemies."

Yep.

On 3/8/2024 at 10:21 PM, Analytics said:

In the words of one poster, "I am pretty miserable in the gospel. Threatening me with misery for leaving just doesn’t really work that well as a threat."

I did not know that Nehor was gay.  We learn new things every day.

I am sad to see that he is "miserable," but I don't seem him attributing that to his sexual identity/orientation.

On 3/8/2024 at 10:21 PM, Analytics said:

Or as another said, "I have to say that because I am gay, just about everything I hear about this magical Celestial Kingdom makes me have zero desire to want to be there.  All the carrots they offer to get there such as multiple wives, eternal increase and being straight are just a no starter for me.  I don't need to be miserable here on earth just so I will be miserable throughout eternity."

The Church teaches that "multiple wives" are an incentive to seek the Celestial Kingdom.  Right.

I love to end the day with a warm cup of silly caricatures from an antagonistic source.

On 3/8/2024 at 10:21 PM, Analytics said:

Gays in the Church aren’t inundated with messaging that the Church hates them.

Yes, I think they are.  See, e.g., these 2012 remarks from Richard L. Bushman:

Quote

The second problem is that as soon as you enter into the political campaign, you suddenly become news apart from anything that you intend. So when the Mormons got involved in Prop 8, they were, in effect, running a hundred million dollar ad campaign with the slogan, “Mormons hate gays.” Now, the church can say “we don’t hate gays.” They can do whatever they want, but that is still the message that gets across. And it’s an erroneous message. The message should be that Mormons love traditional families, and that’s what we should be supporting. But, in getting involved, we inadvertently took a position that really isn’t what we’re about.

This fun YouTube video: Do Mormons Still Hate The Gays?

And this one: Brother Jake Explains: Mormons Don't Hate Gay People

And this one: Brother Jake Explains: Mormons REALLY Don't Hate Gay People, I Swear

John Dehlin: The Mormon Church should stop the hate

Nuancehoe: Why the church hates gay people so much

TikTok: Does the LDS Church hate gay people?

This one speaks favorably of the Church ("Why Would A Gay Man Become a Mormon?"), and in the description states: "Dennis Schleicher found the love and acceptance he was looking for in the very last place he thought he would- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."  I think Bro. Schleicher had to overcome the "Mormons Hate Gays" narrative (as evidenced by him characterizing the Church as "the very last place he thought he would {find love and acceptance}").

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited March 10, 2024 by smac97

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I think that is your own personal interpretation, not reality…though others may share it.

Different doesn’t equate to harder.  

"Different" also doesn't equate to "irrelevant."  Pretty much every analogy or comparison involves discussing traits shared by two otherwise dissimilar things.  When I draw attention to the struggles that never-married / widowed / divorced Latter-day Saints face (or who live in poverty, or who deal with physical or mental challenges), I am not saying that these difficulties/struggles are precisely synonymous.  So it's weird when people respond to such comparisons with "Yeah, well, that's different." 

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Harder is too dependent on individual situations and attributes to be able to say one person has harder sacrifices they are required to make than another.  Complicated doesn’t equate to harder either.

I am not particularly interested in parsing out whose onerous life challenges are comparatively more or less difficult than others' challenges.  My point is that there are many such challenges, so abstaining from sexual behaviors that are prohibited by the Law of Chastity is not uniquely burdensome.  And the reason I keep pointing this out is because, for some, the narrative seems to use this burden as a pivot point for justifying disparaging the Church, leaving it, etc. 

"The Church expects me to obey the Law of Chastity.  Obeying the Law of Chastity is hard, ergo the Law of Chastity and/or the Church is/are unreasonable, or bad, or ought to be abandoned."

1 hour ago, Calm said:

My daughter has diabetes on top of all the disorders that I have.  Plus she has severe social anxiety while mine is probably mild.  Does that mean her life is harder?  Nope because some of my stuff is much more severe due to my age and two pregnancies.  So my life must harder.  Nope, because she lacks the experience of ever having a relatively normal life so it is harder for her to know what the benefits of pushing herself are, where she should push and where she should protect, so her efforts aren’t as effective as mine are.  So I find it much easier than her to work at overcoming stuff because I have concrete hope where she has vagueness.  Which life is harder?  The more severe disorders or the difficulty of self discipline when one doesn’t know the outcome?  I have no clue since I can’t get in her head.

We can’t know how difficult someone’s life actually is because we can only see the external struggle.  There is no real way to compare people’s internal suffering.  Why do we even need to rate difficulties of struggles?  It is either hard for someone or it is not.  Someone else suffering doesn’t make it any easier to endure one’s lot.

I quite agree.  

My point is that there seems to be one form of "internal suffering" that gets particularized attention, which attention is often part of a broader narrative which points to that suffering and argues that because of it, the individual is justified in turning away from obedience to the commandments of God.

Thanks,

-Smac

[BlueDreams]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I can't go along with this, not categorically anyway.  And yes, I see some differences, but they are of degree, not kind.

Thanks,

-Smac

This sounds like an argument of semantics. To me that just obfuscates really understanding lived experiences. Whether degree or kind doesn't change that the experiences of queer folks can be very difficult to comfortably toggle in a church setting. A lot of that is tied up in the implications of what the LOC means for them that it never meant for me. Even with a solid stint as a single woman. 

If you can't see that, you're not really engaging with the stories or queer latter-day saints. It doesn't take much to see it.  

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited March 10, 2024 by BlueDreams

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

members with SSA

 

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

heterosexual members

It’s weird how you can say straight members, but not gay members. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

belittles and dismisses the difficult circumstances that others face

Sometimes life imposes difficult circumstances on us. For gay members, a group of homophobic men impose difficult circumstances on them. See the difference?

[Teancum]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

I see that abstaining from same-sex behavior and from same-sex marriage is a difficult burden,

And I see a but coming........

 

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

but there are many such burdens borne in this life.  

And there it is. Yea.  You still don't get it.

 

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Law of Chastity is, in the end, a wonderful commandment.  I am grateful to have it.

Good for you.  But the "commandments" of the church don't prevent you from having a romantic and intimate relationship simply because you were born heterosexual.  Relationships that humans seek and desire it have a more fulfilling life.

 

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

  I am cognizant that its parameters, its delineations between acceptable and unacceptable sexual behaviors, are seen in many circles as quaint or outdated. 

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I find them to be valid and good because not only is the Law revelatory, it has stood the test of time.

 

Yet how would you feel if the tables were turned?  Everyone is free to chose but I am sympathetic that most homosexual Latter-day Saints will fine a life of loneliness.  Even benign expressions of romance or intimacy are frowned upon by the church and its members who view things like you do. Don't forget your position on the BYU honor code fiasco.  Nobody should be surprised that LBGT members often exit.

[SeekingUnderstanding]

On 3/8/2024 at 3:27 PM, smac97 said:

Okay.  But the point remains that there plenty of never-married, divorced and widowed Latter-day Saints who are willing to, and do, live their lives "without romantic love and remaining single."  But these folks aren't being constantly inundated with messaging that the Church and its members "hate" them.

You are so close. Let’s say you have two children. One you encourage and support while they seek companionship and love. You throw dances and social events for them to meet a partner. The other you forbid them from doing any such thing calling it an abomination. Neither actually find love in life. I think it’s completely fair to say you treated one with love, and the other with hate. 

Edited March 10, 2024 by SeekingUnderstanding

[Calm]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

My point is that there seems to be one form of "internal suffering" that gets particularized attention, which attention is often part of a broader narrative which points to that suffering and argues that because of it, the individual is justified in turning away from obedience to the commandments of God.

Just because some people misuse an explanation doesn’t mean we should throw the explanation out if it is realistic.

Apply your reasoning to students with dyslexia in schools.   If there were people that complained learning was too hard for students with dyslexia and therefore the kids should drop out completely and go the apprentice/trade school route, would insisting all students have similar struggles with language and math since everyone has to pass the same exams, etc to graduate be a sensible response to help these students believe they can actually learn language and math well enough to make their struggles worth it or would it more likely increase their sense of helplessness?  

And would promises to these students that if they stuck with school they could get to be writers, journalists, professors of language, math, etc themselves be all that motivating when what they desired to be were musicians and artists, entrepreneurs?****

Or would it be wiser for the school to look closely at how dyslexia affects how these students learn and adapt their methods of teaching to meet these students’ needs if what they really care about is helping kids learn skills they see as essential to a full life?

Rather than downplaying the difficulties some students may have in different areas to justify the existence of the school and why parents should be encouraging all their kids to attend, wouldn’t it make better sense to show parents and students there are multiple approaches available at the school and why particular ones will fit their needs?  Of course to develop and apply these approaches to help students with different needs, one has to recognize the different needs first.

——

The problem I see is your reasoning backfires imo if you are attempting to explain why those with same sex attraction shouldn’t leave the Church.  By insisting it is essentially the same requirement for all who struggle with the Law of Chastity, by refusing to recognize the inherent difference between having a Law that gives hope for one group of a desired future without giving hope to another group because they simply do not desire the same future when it is hope that moves people to make sacrifices, you shut down the ability to explore other ways to find hope and meaning in the Church because in your reasoning there is no need for that.

If we are going to help people live the Laws of God, we need to meet them where they live, not where we live.  Comforting and supporting someone based on how we experience hardship isn’t going to be that helpful if they don’t need the same kind of support. 

 Giving someone water when they are starving because we are thirsty isn’t wisdom.  It’s wasted effort and resources.

Recognizing what someone needs realistically is a necessary step to helping them.

Reacting to those who are discouraging someone from trying instead of interacting with the one who is trying, even if struggling because of the discouragement is nonproductive.

****Dyslexia doesn’t mean something is damaged in the brain, being wired differently doesn’t mean being wired wrongly.  

Quote

In their book, The Dyslexic Advantage, Brock and Fernette Eide outline the talents of dyslexics that may be due to a difference in brain structure. The Eides say there are currently about twenty-five papers exploring the connection between dyslexia and specific talents and abilities. While most studies are made with small samples and are published in obscure journals, the Eides say:

“What mattered … was the recurrent evidence found around the world of people who struggled with dyslexia excelling in areas like engineering, the arts, design, and entrepreneurship.”[i]

https://dyslexiaoctopus.com/best-jobs-for-a-dyslexic/

Obviously some students with dyslexia desire to work in areas that need good language, etc skills, to be writers, professors, etc even if the majority of them do not because people tend to want to work in what they are good at.  The desire may even be enough for the former type of students to adapt to the basic teaching style without the teacher adapting to them.  Maybe they are capable of figuring out how the basic teaching system can work for them on their own.  But one isn’t going to help all with dyslexia develop writing skills by pointing to these students as the sole examples to follow, assuming all students should have that desire and ability just because some with dyslexia do.  Being realistic and compassionate with teaching expectations and goals throughout the school years is going to result in more students ending up decent writers than approaching all students in a one size fits all approach, no matter their talents and limitations.

My youngest brother was a rotten reader in a family where the rest of us excelled in English classes without much effort.  We were constantly reading for one thing unlike my youngest brother.  My parents could have ignored the differences and just insist he wanted them to have lower expectations of him so he could have it easier than the rest of us or they could do what they did, sign him up for Little League to develop his admittedly limited natural talent because as soon as he was allowed to leave the house on his own he was getting his friends together every moment he could to play baseball and basketball and they bought him his own subscription to Sports Illustrated to give him a reason to want to read.  It worked.  His academic grades went up and his language skills developed well enough he became a top executive in a successful international company before starting his own successful international consulting practice.  His work deals with supply logistics so he has to read and write tons….and he’s done the best of all of us, including my sister with the Ph.D in English.

Edited March 10, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

3 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

You are so close. Let’s say you have two children. One you encourage and support while they seek companionship and love. You throw dances and social events for them to meet a partner. The other you forbid them from doing any such thing calling it an abomination. Neither actually find love in life. I think it’s completely fair to say you treated one with love, and the other with hate. 

That doesn’t work because Smac is throwing the same dances and social events for everyone.  He wants both kids to find partners….of the opposite sex.

The difference is he is paying attention to the likes and desires of one of his children by doing so while ignoring or at least not addressing the likes and desires of the other one.

It’s like me expecting my daughter in law to appreciate gifts of legos just because everyone else loves the family tradition of getting legos for birthday and Christmas (they practically threw a fit when I suggested maybe it was time to stop two years ago).  She loves cooking, so for awhile I bought Lego themed cooking supplies instead. (Obviously trivial example of how one can be obsessed with a one size fits all approach to the point of ignoring a loved one’s reactions in favour of one’s own self satisfaction).

As far as I can tell, it appears he thinks it’s the one kid’s problem that they don’t like the options he gives both of them, not his.  If he sees things, differently, I would love to hear him explain how that is.

Edited March 10, 2024 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

10 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think there is some substantial relevance.  There are plenty of people in the Church who are called upon, by circumstance and otherwise, to do or endure difficult things, even over a lifetime.  I think it is problematic to assert that same-sex attracted Latter-day Saints are unique in this regard because it is a posture that belittles and dismisses the difficult circumstances that others face.

Fundamentally this is IMO flawed reasoning because it assumes homosexuality is a disability of sorts, or a problem that creates pain in and of itself.  The only pain of homosexuality comes from others who judge or discriminate or torture etc. 
if not for the discrimination, there would be no “problem” per se.  
 

[carbon dioxide]

On 3/8/2024 at 10:37 AM, Thinking said:

If true, this one doesn't surprise me. Liberals tend to lean toward socialism where the government takes care of the people.

Yes and I think liberals are more likely to criticize the church for having a lot of money and tithing BUT they are more likely to advocate higher taxes and giving the government more money to waste on wars and other pet projects they like.   They desire Zion to struggle but Babylon to prosper.

[Teancum]

On 3/9/2024 at 11:31 AM, california boy said:

I guess I don't really see any value in joining any religious organization.  Can anyone tell me what value is there in joining any religious organization? 

If it is just to find a social group to worship with, I don't really need that kind of social group.  

If it is just a place where helping others takes place, I can become involved in so many other social groups that are involved in worthwhile causes.  

If it is just a place to worship God, I don't really need a church to do that.  Studying and discussing religious ideas can happen anywhere and at any time.  There is no need to formalize those kinds of relationships.

Simply put, give me just one good reason why joining any religious group would be beneficial to my life.

 

If that is what works for you then stay in that path. I am there as well but I lean agnostic now and I think you still believe in a theistic God and also believe that Jesus is the Son of God.  I am open to that but highly skeptical.  But I am open to a Unitarian Universalist group. I just have not checked one out yet.

[Emily]

51 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Fundamentally this is IMO flawed reasoning because it assumes homosexuality is a disability of sorts, or a problem that creates pain in and of itself.  The only pain of homosexuality comes from others who judge or discriminate or torture etc. 
if not for the discrimination, there would be no “problem” per se.  
 

From the perspective of a non-member, this is a viewpoint that I can understand, even if I don't agree with it. (Another topic entirely.)

From the perspective of a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints who accepts at least the most basic doctrines of the church, this is an untenable position. An individual in a homosexual relationship will not achieve exaltation. They can't be sealed to their partner for time and all eternity, and they can't have eternal increase. 

In addition, they are violating a moral law, which comes with it's own loss of blessings. 

It's the same problem as a person of heterosexual orientation who chooses to build an intimate relationship without the benefit of marriage. The relationship will not continue after their life and they are violating moral laws. 

The state may currently recognize homosexual marriage, but God does not. No more than He recognizes a heterosexual couple who "love each other" but don't get married. Homosexual partners may potentially achieve contentment in this life, but to paraphrase scripture, "they have their reward." and will not experience eternal joy within that relationship.

So it's a problem regardless of the attitudes of society.

However, there's no point in going out of your way to make a child feel marginalized within a family. If maintaining the family bond is important to you, if you still love the child, then some activities your family enjoyed may need to be modified or given up entirely when a child has determined that a pot of pottage is more important than a birthright. 

 

 

 

 

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

3 minutes ago, Emily said:

that a pot of pottage

What a hateful way to describe the feeling of companionship, love and intimacy that someone shares with their spouse. 

[Teancum]

On 3/9/2024 at 11:44 AM, pogi said:

I don’t have a problem with that if it suits you, but I was responding to Teancum who hinted that he might still be exploring eastern religions.  

While I agree that no institution should replace personal relationship with God, most people find greater value in a community with shared common values.  Studies are pretty clear that those who participate in religion have higher well being than who don’t or who identify as “spiritual” only.  
The UUA tries to be a place for everyone (Christian and atheist alike) free of dogma and creed, I think it gains some things in that but loses other things in that.  It seems to appeal to the more liberal who find value in humanistic principles (maybe that’s their dogma?) who feel an affinity to Ralph Waldo Emerson and Thoreau and are spiritually independent minded. They are also highly politically active with social causes.  I personally wish they’d leave politics out of it, but many align with those values. 
 

I like you Pogi.  I know we often disagree but you are very thoughtful and caring in your remarks. 

[Calm]

27 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

They desire Zion to struggle but Babylon to prosper.

I highly doubt that is their actual reasoning for assuming government may be more effective in using money with social programs than churches and charities and therefore taxes are a good investment in society. 

Edited March 10, 2024 by Calm