Richard Ostler listen learn and love. Is i5 understanding, or rebellion against church doctrine?

[ZealouslyStriving]

54 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

There’s no other organization I know of that would survive it.  The church will shrink but it will survive from what I see because of so many people like yourself who have zero interest in inclusion. 

If by inclusion you mean having the Church condone and perform homosexual marriages- you are correct.

If by inclusion you meaning forming loving friendships and encouraging in the covenant path our Heavenly Parents have laid out- you couldn't be more wrong.

In case you haven't researched it- it is the churches that have made "inclusion" their highest priory that are bleeding members- while those holding to traditional values are still fairing well

BTW, the Church's conversion numbers are climbing again, with significant gains in Africa and Latin America- or is it only the white numbers that count?

[MustardSeed]

33 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

is it only the white numbers that count

Never mind.  

Edited March 28, 2025 by MustardSeed

[bluebell]

I think what the OP and many of the posts mostly say to me is that there are some people who sincerely believe that they know with absolute certainty what God's will is and what God wants the church to do, when it comes to lgtbq+ members, and it's become very clear to me that that's not me.

Honestly, I'm a little envious of people who believe that they have the inside track on God's thoughts on the matter because that is a pretty secure place to be and I'd like some of that security.  It would feel amazing to believe that I have that kind of a relationship with God, that I know Him best on this topic and everyone who disagrees with me needs to repent.   But I don't have that kind of a relationship with God.  I have my own thoughts and feelings about the topic but I can't pretend that they come from God because I have no evidence that they do.  

I have no idea who is right and who needs to repent.  

[california boy]

47 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

If by inclusion you mean having the Church condone and perform homosexual marriages- you are correct.

If by inclusion you meaning forming loving friendships and encouraging in the covenant path our Heavenly Parents have laid out- you couldn't be more wrong.

In case you haven't researched it- it is the churches that have made "inclusion" their highest priory that are bleeding members- while those holding to traditional values are still fairing well

BTW, the Church's conversion numbers are climbing again, with significant gains in Africa and Latin America- or is it only the white numbers that count?

Would you say that the Church made "inclusion" a high priority when leaders refused to let black members have the priesthood and temple blessings?

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

In case you haven't researched it- it is the churches that have made "inclusion" their highest priory that are bleeding members- while those holding to traditional values are still fairing well

I see this touted a lot but the defenders of it mix up a pastiche of indicators. You will have some talking about it and quoting stuff from the 60s where the trend was first reported and others using modern data.

The problem is that in some cases the conservative/liberal divide is pretty arbitrary or even deliberately manipulated to create the result.

Even where it is correct it is triumphalism along the lines of: “the liberal churches are dying faster than we are so we are winning”.

[Senator]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think what the OP and many of the posts mostly say to me is that there are some people who sincerely believe that they know with absolute certainty what God's will is and what God wants the church to do, when it comes to lgtbq+ members, and it's become very clear to me that that's not me.

Honestly, I'm a little envious of people who believe that they have the inside track on God's thoughts on the matter because that is a pretty secure place to be and I'd like some of that security.  It would feel amazing to believe that I have that kind of a relationship with God, that I know Him best on this topic and everyone who disagrees with me needs to repent.   But I don't have that kind of a relationship with God.  I have my own thoughts and feelings about the topic but I can't pretend that they come from God because I have no evidence that they do.  

I have no idea who is right and who needs to repent.  

That's a raw and transparent (and healthy) place of mind.  You describe my current place as well. 
This topic as well as the other "women and priesthood" issue is highlighting an interesting time for the church.  Remember B. Young's statement that (paraphrasing), his greatest fear was that the saints would exercise such blind trust in the words of the prophets, that they would not find out for themselves, by the spirit, whether they were being led by the will of God or not.  I think we have a generation that is actually not acting as Young feared, and are not blindly excepting anything the prophets and apostles say.  They are turning to there own relationships with the spirit in finding truth.  Problem is, the results are varied.  

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Never mind.  

It’s exhausting, isn’t it? 

[MustardSeed]

9 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

It’s exhausting, isn’t it? 

I understand why the church doesn’t work for so many folks. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

41 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

It’s exhausting, isn’t it? 

It's a legitimate question.

The Church is growing by leaps and bounds in Africa and Latin America, yet the claim is that the Church will dwindle to insignificance unless it relents to current (American) cultural pressures and solemnizes homosexual marriage.

The only conclusion I can come up about that claim is the only portion of that Church that really counts is the North American/Western European Church- because those are the only places with a certain % of the population clamoring for a reversal of traditional moral standards. Africa esp. has no use for that agenda.

Anyway, the Church won't fail anyways, we have that assurance in scripture and prophetic declaration. 

[Peacefully]

24 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

It's a legitimate question.

The Church is growing by leaps and bounds in Africa and Latin America, yet the claim is that the Church will dwindle to insignificance unless it relents to current (American) cultural pressures and solemnizes homosexual marriage.

The only conclusion I can come up about that claim is the only portion of that Church that really counts is the North American/Western European Church- because those are the only places with a certain % of the population clamoring for a reversal of traditional moral standards. Africa esp. has no use for that agenda.

Anyway, the Church won't fail anyways, we have that assurance in scripture and prophetic declaration. 

Not sure women or gays are treated well in some of those countries, but if it works for straight males then I guess we are good, as usual. 

[Peacefully]

A quick AI answer to a google search: 

Yes, many African countries criminalize homosexuality. As of December 2024, 31 out of 54 UN-recognized African nations have laws that outlaw same-sex activity, with some, like Uganda, enacting even harsher laws that threaten the death penalty for certain LGBTQ+ individuals. 

 

Here's a breakdown: 

• Criminalization:

  A significant number of African countries criminalize consensual same-sex activity, often with penalties ranging from imprisonment to the death penalty. 

   
• Legal Status:

  Many countries, such as Amnesty International cites Uganda, have criminalized not just the act but even the mere act of identifying as LGBTQ+. 

   
• Increased crackdown

  Many countries have worsened existing laws to target and punish LGBTQ+ persons. 

   
• Examples

  In countries like Nigeria, Uganda, and Somalia, homosexuality is punishable by death. 

   
• Challenges to Rights:

  Despite the work of organizations like Amnesty International and others, many LGBTQ+ individuals in Africa continue to face discrimination and persecution. 

[ZealouslyStriving]

53 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

Not sure women or gays are treated well in some of those countries, but if it works for straight males then I guess we are good, as usual. 

Obviously some balance and improvement needs to happen, but my point still stands.

Yeah, yeah... Down the the patriarchy and stuff. 🥱

[rpn]

My feelings about this are informed by research that was published** 20 or so years ago in the BYU magazine, that suggested that the more children any mother had the more likely additional children would have same sex attraction.  IOW, it is a mortal body issue.  We all know that mormons, catholics and ??? are the ones most likely to have large numbers of children at least in the US and surely God would have known about that too.   So that suggests that He knew that the issue of same gender attraction was more likely to surface in LDS/Catholic or other Him --- focused peoples and thus perhaps affect faithful, trying to live righteously families.    I just can't see Him knowing all of that and then thinking it okay to mistreat in any way those who get born later than their siblings?  

I think that church members and leadership are to teach that God ordained marriage is between men and women, but that doesn't mean a society or those who love Him should mistreat or diminish or otherwise condemn those who seek as much of a family life as they can make under mortal laws.   God, does clearly assign His spirit children to bodies with those struggles and we know He doesn't punish any of us for things that we don't actually choose for ourselves.

But I won't be surprised if He doesn't hold members and leaders accountable for how we personally treat those who we think are less than (maybe even for entertaining thoughts that we have the right or responsibility to consider that someone else is less than because they don't behave like seekers of truth and those with gospel knowledge are supposed to treat God's children.  Many of us are so much better at judging others than we are at seeing others through God's eyes.)

Personally, I'd want to be on the side that assumes that those who experience same sex attraction are as likely to become what they need to become on this earth to return to Them with honor, as those who do not bear that mortal burden.

 

 

 

**  The researcher has died (his last name having been "Smith" (with an equally common first name) makes it virtually impossible to find anything else he did/learned on the subject) and the article has vanished from the current archives of the magazine in which it was published.

[ZealouslyStriving]

19 minutes ago, rpn said:

My feelings about this are informed by research that was published** 20 or so years ago in the BYU magazine, that suggested that the more children any mother had the more likely additional children would have same sex attraction.  IOW, it is a mortal body issue.  We all know that mormons, catholics and ??? are the ones most likely to have large numbers of children at least in the US and surely God would have known about that too.   So that suggests that He knew that the issue of same gender attraction was more likely to surface in LDS/Catholic or other Him --- focused peoples and thus perhaps affect faithful, trying to live righteously families.    I just can't see Him knowing all of that and then thinking it okay to mistreat in any way those who get born later than their siblings?  

I think that church members and leadership are to teach that God ordained marriage is between men and women, but that doesn't mean a society or those who love Him should mistreat or diminish or otherwise condemn those who seek as much of a family life as they can make under mortal laws.   God, does clearly assign His spirit children to bodies with those struggles and we know He doesn't punish any of us for things that we don't actually choose for ourselves.

But I won't be surprised if He doesn't hold members and leaders accountable for how we personally treat those who we think are less than (maybe even for entertaining thoughts that we have the right or responsibility to consider that someone else is less than because they don't behave like seekers of truth and those with gospel knowledge are supposed to treat God's children.  Many of us are so much better at judging others than we are at seeing others through God's eyes.)

Personally, I'd want to be on the side that assumes that those who experience same sex attraction are as likely to become what they need to become on this earth to return to Them with honor, as those who do not bear that mortal burden.

 

 

 

**  The researcher has died (his last name having been "Smith" (with an equally common first name) makes it virtually impossible to find anything else he did/learned on the subject) and the article has vanished from the current archives of the magazine in which it was published.

Who here has made the claim that it is acceptable to mistreat people with homosexual feelings or even choosing a homosexual lifestyle?

There is a difference between mistreatment and holding to high moral standards. You can show mercy and adhere to truth at the same time- they are not mutually exclusive.

Edited March 28, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Who here has made the claim that it is acceptable to mistreat people with homosexual feelings or even choosing a homosexual lifestyle?

There is a difference between mistreatment and holding to high moral standards. You can show mercy and adhere to truth at the same time- they are not mutually exclusive.

In your opinion, how does someone show mercy to the lgbtq+ communities and members of the church?

[ZealouslyStriving]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

In your opinion, how does someone show mercy to the lgbtq+ communities and members of the church?

By being loving and kind to all of them, just as the 2nd Greatest Commandment prescribes.

In your opinion, can you only show mercy by unqualified acceptance and support of their lifestyle choices?

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

By being loving and kind to all of them, just as the 2nd Greatest Commandment prescribes.

 

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, mercy equals "being loving and kind", right?  (asking to make sure I'm reading your right).

Quote

In your opinion, can you only show mercy by unqualified acceptance and support of their lifestyle choices?

No.

But when I think about Christ's mercy, 'being loving and kind' doesn't accurately describe it.  Maybe there is an aspect of that in there, but it's so much more than that.  In fact, mercy that was only loving and kind would not be of much use to any of us.  It seems safe to say that we all deserve love and kindness from each other, but mercy, by definition, is something that we don't deserve, right?  In my understanding mercy has got to be something much much more than love and kindness.   It's got to be something that we don't deserve and also something that blesses the person in ways that are also not deserved.

So, given what mercy actually is, how do we show mercy to those in the lgbtq+ community that goes beyond treating them in ways that they deserve to be treated?

[ZealouslyStriving]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, mercy equals "being loving and kind", right?  (asking to make sure I'm reading your right).

No.

But when I think about Christ's mercy, 'being loving and kind' doesn't accurately describe it.  Maybe there is an aspect of that in there, but it's so much more than that.  In fact, mercy that was only loving and kind would not be of much use to any of us.  It seems safe to say that we all deserve love and kindness from each other, but mercy, by definition, is something that we don't deserve, right?  In my understanding mercy has got to be something much much more than love and kindness.   It's got to be something that we don't deserve and also something that blesses the person in ways that are also not deserved.

So, given what mercy actually is, how do we show mercy to those in the lgbtq+ community that goes beyond treating them in ways that they deserve to be treated?

At this point you are just going to have to enlighten me. 🙂 Maybe we are talking past each other about what "loving and kind" entails?

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

At this point you are just going to have to enlighten me. 🙂 

I wouldn't have a clue on how to do that.  Mostly I'm just looking for the action words in your statement that we can show lgtbq+ people mercy.  How do we give lgtbq+ people good things that they don't deserve?

I have no idea, but you must or you wouldn't have said we can do it.

[ZealouslyStriving]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I wouldn't have a clue on how to do that.  Mostly I'm just looking for the action words in your statement that we can show lgtbq+ people mercy.  How do we give lgtbq+ people good things that they don't deserve?

I have no idea, but you must or you wouldn't have said we can do it.

I didn't realize it was a rhetorical question- I thought you had something in mind.

With the definition given, I guess we could show mercy by not clapping back (becoming angry and contentious) when they accuse us of being hateful bigots when we don't enthusiastically support and advocate for their lifestyles? 

Edit: My bad for lumping love and kindness together with mercy. I'll try to be more clear in the future.

2nd Edit: I'd fix the original comment, but then this exchange wouldn't make sense.

Edited March 28, 2025 by ZealouslyStriving

[bluebell]

19 minutes ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I didn't realize it was a rhetorical question- I thought you had something in mind.

With the definition given, I guess we could show mercy by not clapping back (becoming angry and contentious) when they accuse us of being hateful bigots when we don't enthusiastically support and advocate for their lifestyles? 

Edit: My bad for lumping love and kindness together with mercy. I'll try to be more clear in the future.

2nd Edit: I'd fix the original comment, but then this exchange wouldn't make sense.

It definitely wasn’t a rhetorical question. I was hoping for an answer. But it wasn’t a trick question either. I didn’t ask because I wanted to answer it myself. I wanted to hear your thoughts on the statement that you made.

[The Nehor]

10 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Obviously some balance and improvement needs to happen, but my point still stands.

 In the same sense that any unjustified killing needs “balance and improvement” to fix it. Governor Boggs needed some “balance and improvement” then?

10 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

Yeah, yeah... Down the the patriarchy and stuff. 🥱

 So the killing of my brothers and sisters is mocked as comparable to a caricature and is worthy of a yawn?

10 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

By being loving and kind to all of them, just as the 2nd Greatest Commandment prescribes.

Yawning at many of us being subject to the death penalty is not a great start. Maybe just don’t bother with the loving and kind thing if this is how you show charity.

10 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

In your opinion, can you only show mercy by unqualified acceptance and support of their lifestyle choices?

Yes to the former. That is what liberty requires. If rights are not guaranteed they are only privileges. Privileges that can be taken and mean that everyone’s rights are granted only as a sufferance. One would think Church history would be a good reminder of this and lead to empathy for the marginalized and persecuted.

Support we care much less about. The community knows that most of Christianity is the enemy. It is some of the pious Christians who lobbied and advocated for the “death to the gays” laws in much of Africa.

I have spent enough time with young queer people of all stripes dealing with realizing they are monsters and the tears and fear that that realization brings to think Christianity is loving and kind to queer people. To many God is their preeminent bully egging on all the other bullies.

[ZealouslyStriving]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 In the same sense that any unjustified killing needs “balance and improvement” to fix it. Governor Boggs needed some “balance and improvement” then?

 So the killing of my brothers and sisters is mocked as comparable to a caricature and is worthy of a yawn?

Yawning at many of us being subject to the death penalty is not a great start. Maybe just don’t bother with the loving and kind thing if this is how you show charity.

Yes to the former. That is what liberty requires. If rights are not guaranteed they are only privileges. Privileges that can be taken and mean that everyone’s rights are granted only as a sufferance. One would think Church history would be a good reminder of this and lead to empathy for the marginalized and persecuted.

Support we care much less about. The community knows that most of Christianity is the enemy. It is some of the pious Christians who lobbied and advocated for the “death to the gays” laws in much of Africa.

I have spent enough time with young queer people of all stripes dealing with realizing they are monsters and the tears and fear that that realization brings to think Christianity is loving and kind to queer people. To many God is their preeminent bully egging on all the other bullies.

I'm not going to justify your twisting of my words with any further response. Those with an actual sincere interest in a real discussion understand what I was actually saying and the point I was making.

But by all means continue to appeal to emotion.

[california boy]

1 hour ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

I'm not going to justify your twisting of my words with any further response. Those with an actual sincere interest in a real discussion understand what I was actually saying and the point I was making.

But by all means continue to appeal to emotion.

But it is a very emotional issue.  When a parent has a child that they love and want to have a happy and productive life be denied the very human and. core need to spend this life with someone they love and what to share that life with denied the priesthood and the blessings of temple marriage, how can that not be an emotional issue.  When you take out emotions from this equation, then what do you have left?  Some pious belief that they are not like the rest of us, so they don't have the same needs as you do?  A companion, a partner, a family?  You don't find the need to consider the emotional impact of that?

[ZealouslyStriving]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

But it is a very emotional issue.  When a parent has a child that they love and want to have a happy and productive life be denied the very human and. core need to spend this life with someone they love and what to share that life with denied the priesthood and the blessings of temple marriage, how can that not be an emotional issue.  When you take out emotions from this equation, then what do you have left?  Some pious belief that they are not like the rest of us, so they don't have the same needs as you do?  A companion, a partner, a family?  You don't find the need to consider the emotional impact of that?

Everyone has to set aside some weakness/struggle/temptation/desire in order to qualify for all the blessings of the Eternal Gospel.

The LGBTQ++++++ community is not unique in this.