Loveloudfest and LDS approval?


Rob Osborn
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator
3 minutes ago, JoCa said:

I don't know who has authorization to release Church PR messages and I don't know if they are explicitly from the 12 or not. I think if the Church wants to move on something they put out a unified statement like the Proclamation on the Family, signed by all 12. I do know that the 12 can have drastically different views on many things.  If the Prophet wants to speak-he can speak it.  

If the 12 want to get their message across to the Church they read a statement over the pulpit. As has been done many, many time in my life.  A PR statement not read over the pulpit.  I feel in no way that critizing a PR statement is coming even close to apostasy.  Read a statement over the pulpit and I take issue with it and then we can discuss.

What I do know is that when MormonLeaks is a thing. All is not well in Zion.  MormonLeaks is a thing because either someone hacked into their systems (likely but remote as a lot more information would be released), or someone who had access to the material leaked it.  Maybe it is a low-level employee or maybe not.  But the fact that a supposedly faithful LDS temple attending member would leak that information . . .well again people have their head stuck in the mud.

When I'm in a Sunday School class and a member stands up and berates the Church for it's stance on homosexual marriage, all is not well in Zion.

The Church is an organization and a vehicle to lead people to Christ. It's not perfect, not everything done or said is God's will-it's lead by men of God who are imperfect human beings.  The biggest reason the Church exists is because of the authority and ordnances. If a member of the 70 can be sin so greatly as to be excommunicated, then yes good men of God can make plenty of mistakes.

If the LDS church at one point decided to allow homosexuals to marriage; I would severely disagree. I personally would believe it is not of God. I would still be a member of the Church. I would teach my children it is against God's law-but I would still be a member of the Church why, b/c I know it is the only organization authorized to act in God's name regardless of it's human problems. 

I understand what you are saying. 

Try to remember that just because the church is against gay marriage doesn't mean it's in favor of gay kids hurting themselves. You can be anti-gay marriage and still be deeply concerned about what homosexual kids go through. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the concerns with the church statement. I also support the church's statement. I think the concern stems from the acknowledgment that homosexuality is an extremely gross abomination, so when the church makes a statement with a positive element to it, and pro-homosexuality groups are on the receiving end of the statement, it just makes one go "hmmm", at the visceral level. But when you see what the church is actually saying in this case, and think about it more logically, it's not hard to agree with the statement. 

Edited by eddified
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, eddified said:

I understand the concerns with the church statement. I also support the church's statement. I think the concern stems from the acknowledgment that homosexuality is an extremely gross abomination, so when the church makes a statement with a positive element to it, and pro-homosexuality groups are on the receiving end of the statement, it just makes one go "hmmm", at the visceral level. But when you see what the church is actually saying in this case, and think about it more logically, it's not hard to agree with the statement. 

I agree.

There seems to be two sides to the church's LGBT agenda. 1) It is a sin and the church will not look at it with any degree of allowance. 2) try to foster a safe society in which all men and women can thrive peacefully no matter what their beliefs (as long as they do t infringe on safety and rights). 

The Book of Mormon is full of times when the Prophets and God chose (or rather tried) to live in harmony with those of different beliefs. Alma 1-5 is a big one. Particularly Alma 1:21 which says:

"Now there was a strict law among the people of the church, that there should not any man, belonging to the church, arise and persecute those that did not belong to the church, and that there should be no persecution among themselves."

Joseph Smith also once said that:

"I am bold to declare before Heaven that I am just as ready to die in defending the rights of a Presbyterian, a Baptist, or a good man of any other denomination; for the same principle which would trample upon the rights of the Latter-day Saints would trample upon the rights of the Roman Catholics, or of any other denomination who may be unpopular and too weak to defend themselves"

The church is doing this in defending, among other things, equal housing opportunities for LGBT.

So ya. Live righteously and live peacefully for those with different ideologies. Defend those being unjustly assaulted and love everyone :) but don't sin :)

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JoCa said:

This is a message that would be read over the pulpit in every sacrament?

I don't think this particular announcement has to be read like the First Presidency letters are, in sacrament meetings across the globe, nor should it be. But we do hear the same message of respectful dialogue in General Conference, the Church website and publications, etc., and I think the circumstance and object this announcement is consistent with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zil said:

Apparently you have a hard time seeing what's there instead of what you think is there.  The statement didn't actually express any support at all for that group.  But they did it (or didn't do it, as the case may be) in a way that won't offend supporters of said group.  I think they call that subtlety.

I tend to feel that subtlety in these matters has been, and is, not helpful. Just my take, of course. I won't presume to lecture the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

So, it is bad to find something good in other people that you don't completely agree with?

That's may not be exactly what something like this is. If you celebrate, say, for example, youth and some of them happen to be gay then you're on target with what you're suggestion. If you celebrate gay youth it is a different matter. I'm not entirely sure what this event will actually be...but I suspect it will end up being a celebration of the "gay"-ness of these youth -- if by nothing else than that it is an event just for them. All sorts of red flags are flying in my head.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

The concert's aim is explicitly to prevent youth suicide.  That is 100% in line with church teaching.  

Not necessarily. The how matters. A great deal. What is at stake is the how. What is concerning, in my mind, is the how.

To be clear, not only is the how key in regards to a does-the-ends-justifies-the-means question, but it is also key as to actually achieving it's goal. If anyone wishes to prevent any particular negative behavior, celebration of another negative behavior is hardly going to be the solution. And, moreover, sin cannot and will not ever lead to anything but negative consequences.

The question and concern, I reiterate, is the means of the concert, not the goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Anyone who knows our faith and all the work we've done against gay marriage that we will never in a million years support gay marriage or indoctrinating children into a gay lifestyle.

This is an incredibly naive statement. Particularly in light of the myriad of "progressives" Mormons out there on Facebook saying exactly what you're suggesting they would never think to say.

I challenge you to get on Facebook and follow some of the comments in some of the posts about the Deseret News article and then come back and let me know if I am mistaken or not.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
54 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

If Ted Cruz and Barack Obama can come together to form a piece of legislation, then I'm sure the Church can say something nice about a gay organization.

Lol! Politics makes strange bedfellows sometimes and you never know.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Fether said:

So ya. Live righteously and live peacefully for those with different ideologies. Defend those being unjustly assaulted and love everyone :) but don't sin :)

I'm just not sure that I understand how the approach of getting together and singing kumbaya-you're-so-wonderful fits into defending someone. Put me in front of a gay person and another coming at them with a sword and I will take up my sword and defend said gay person with my life. As should we all. I don't understand this move though. I'll leave it to the church. I just don't understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm just not sure that I understand how the approach of getting together and singing kumbaya-you're-so-wonderful fits into defending someone. Put me in front of a gay person and another coming at them with a sword and I will take up my sword and defend said gay person with my life. As should we all. I don't understand this move though. I'll leave it to the church. I just don't understand.

I was referencing the church's response to it, not the festival itself. The church isn't supporting homosexuality, but rather supporting the building up of society. 

"We applaud the LoveLoud Festival for LGBT youth's aim to bring people together to address teen safety and to express respect and love for all of God’s children. We join our voice with all who come together to foster a community of inclusion in which no one is mistreated because of who they are or what they believe.

We share common beliefs, among them the pricelessness of our youth and the value of families. We earnestly hope this festival and other related efforts can build respectful communication, better understanding and civility as we all learn from each other."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Fether said:

I was referencing the church's response to it, not the festival itself. The church isn't supporting homosexuality, but rather supporting the building up of society. 

"We applaud the LoveLoud Festival for LGBT youth's aim to bring people together to address teen safety and to express respect and love for all of God’s children. We join our voice with all who come together to foster a community of inclusion in which no one is mistreated because of who they are or what they believe.

We share common beliefs, among them the pricelessness of our youth and the value of families. We earnestly hope this festival and other related efforts can build respectful communication, better understanding and civility as we all learn from each other."

I get that. I still don't understand how a positive response to a group getting together to sing kumbaya fits into the definition of defense. I just don't get the move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I get that. I still don't understand how a positive response to a group getting together to sing kumbaya fits into the definition of defense. I just don't get the move.

I see! The intro to the MormonNews room article states that the statement is in response to inquiries to the church about the event. It doesn't state what the inquiries were, but I imagine if there were no inquiries, they would have said anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic

I also have misgivings about the decision and mistrust of the whole LoveLoud community.  But . . . So, what?

It may well be that this tactical decision by the Church leadership doesn't directly accomplish what they hope it will accomplish.  That happens sometimes. (See, e.g., Zion's Camp, Utah's sugar beet industry, etc.)

But, I have faith that even the "failure" of an endeavor undertaken in unity is not nearly as dangerous to the Church as the disunity that would come of open dissection of and carping about our leadership's decision.

So . . . Let's stand still, and see what comes of this.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It may well be that this tactical decision by the Church leadership doesn't directly accomplish what they hope it will accomplish.  

I don't think it was a tactical decision... I think it was just a statement in response to inquiries that followed basic Christlike principles.

I doubt it took much thinking to do. But rather just the natural reaction of leaders that understand more about being Christlike than we do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Fether said:

I don't think it was a tactical decision... I think it was just a statement in response to inquiries that followed basic Christlike principles.

I doubt it took much thinking to do. But rather just the natural reaction of leaders that understand more about being Christlike than we do.

I do not think we should caricature Christ that way. What is a "basic" Christlike principle, after all? Running the money-changers from the temple with a whip or healing people? Condemning sin or forgiving weakness? Calling a group of people a den of vipers or teaching someone to feed His sheep?

Clearly they are all Christ-like. I don't think "be nice" is an accurate or fleshed out idea of what it actually means to be Christlike in any regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I also have misgivings about the decision and mistrust of the whole LoveLoud community.  But . . . So, what?

It may well be that this tactical decision by the Church leadership doesn't directly accomplish what they hope it will accomplish.  That happens sometimes.! (See, e.g., Zion's Camp, Utah's sugar beet industry, etc.)

But, I have faith that even the "failure" of an endeavor undertaken in unity is not nearly as dangerous to the Church as the disunity that would come of open dissection of and carping about our leadership's decision.

So . . . Let's stand still, and see what comes of this.

It goes to broader matters than "carping". We're talking about the end of times here, broadly speaking, and how we face it. The church's messages are inconsistent on this subject. One moment they send a message like this, the next they put out a policy disallowing children of homosexuals from being baptized -- a move that is claimed as core to the cause of the very suicides the LoudLove community is trying to prevent. That comes across as serious double-speak -- and I don't mean just to me, but as I have heard reported again and again by those I know who have become disaffected from the church over these very matters. In short, the messages do not make sense. They contradict one another and it is disconcerting and confusing. It is not a matter of carping. It is a matter of -- can anyone help me understand this?

I will grant that those who carp do, tactically, use the exact same method (question asking) to carp...but it is merely a tactic. I am using no tactic. I am sincere in my question. And will faithfully support the church in any direction it goes. But that is different than understanding what's going on in matters like this.

My concern is for my children, honestly. How do I raise them in this stupid messed-up good-is-bad and bad-is-good world where logic has taken a flying leap out of existence and anyone can claim their own truth and demand validation for it regardless of merit or reason? The answer, of course, should be the stability of eternal truth and the gospel. And it is, of course. But on the fringes and in the public sphere, some of the messages being proffered are not stable, clear, or in line with other messages given. It is confusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
22 minutes ago, Fether said:

I don't think it was a tactical decision... I think it was just a statement in response to inquiries that followed basic Christlike principles.

I doubt it took much thinking to do. But rather just the natural reaction of leaders that understand more about being Christlike than we do.

I totally agree! :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I do not think we should caricature Christ that way. What is a "basic" Christlike principle, after all? Running the money-changers from the temple with a whip or healing people? Condemning sin or forgiving weakness? Calling a group of people a den of vipers or teaching someone to feed His sheep?

Clearly they are all Christ-like. I don't think "be nice" is an accurate or fleshed out idea of what it actually means to be Christlike in any regard.

Well if it isn't Christlike... why would they do it?

Being Christlike doesn't need to be profound. The Christlike way of answering 2+2 is still the same as we do it when we aren't Christlike.

but I agree, christlike isnt always "nice". But I think in this way it is.

And being Christlike can often be basic. Like love one another, avoid sin, and having a certain degree of tolerance.

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This is an incredibly naive statement. Particularly in light of the myriad of "progressives" Mormons out there on Facebook saying exactly what you're suggesting they would never think to say.

I challenge you to get on Facebook and follow some of the comments in some of the posts about the Deseret News article and then come back and let me know if I am mistaken or not.

1. I am incredibly naive, so...

2. I tend to believe the people with such opinions ignore what I pointed to.  i.e. all the hard work the Church as spent on opposing such measures.  The evidence lies in their response to more orthodox Mormons who ask,"How can you go against what the prophets have said about gay marriage?"  Often the response is some variant of "They didn't really say that."  Or "That wasn't really God's will.  The Prophet wasn't inspired when he said that."

If one tends to stick their heads in the sand can you really say they're "aware" enough to say they know all the work we've done?

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

38 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

We're talking about the end of times here, broadly speaking, and how we face it. 

Amen.  The last days brother, the last days. I personally am feeling the need to be more and more diligent in scripture reading, family prayer, personal prayer.  I am starting to actively pray for the Lord to come. I'm doing the best I can to not be led astray and to have my children not be led astray.  The basis of that comes from the scriptures and prayer-a personal connection with God.  

When the end comes . . .no one knows, but I'm sure it's gonna get a lot worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That's may not be exactly what something like this is. If you celebrate, say, for example, youth and some of them happen to be gay then you're on target with what you're suggestion. If you celebrate gay youth it is a different matter. I'm not entirely sure what this event will actually be...but I suspect it will end up being a celebration of the "gay"-ness of these youth -- if by nothing else than that it is an event just for them. All sorts of red flags are flying in my head.

I agree. I cant possibly see how listening to Tyler Glen of Neon Trees bash Mormons is going to be anything but a celebration of rebellion, immorality and youth gayness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Fether said:

Like love one another, avoid sin, and having a certain degree of tolerance. certain degree of tolerance.

D&C 1:31: For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance.

D&C 1:32: Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven.

-------------------------------

It's not just about avoiding sin, it's about teaching what is sin and then turning to God.

People have a messed up view of love these days.  Love now means that no matter who you are or what you do it doesn't matter, we should still "love them".  Yes of course, but love isn't just a fluffy feeling of giving someone a hug when you see them and saying "I love you". Love doesn't mean saying "you are a bad person". 

True love, true Christlike love, is setting the other person above oneself-it's about doing everything in one's power to help the other individual reach their maximum potential as heirs to the Kingdom of God-to inherit all that He has.

Now tell me is giving a homosexual child a hug and telling them "God loves you just the way you are, he accepts you as your are"  Is that true Christ-like love?

Love can be very harsh, it can be very cutting and sometimes it is necessary. Sometimes love requires allowing individuals to struggle and fail so they can grow themselves. But ultimately it is seeing them as Christ sees them (i.e. potential heirs to God's Kingdom) and then dong as much as we can to help them achieve that.

Maybe this message from the Church will help turn the hearts of the leaders of this festival to God.  Who knows what God's plan is.  But this I do know anyone who follows the message of the leader's of this festival that proclaim telling children that engaging in homosexual behavior is hateful is leading people down a short path to hell.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It goes to broader matters than "carping". We're talking about the end of times here, broadly speaking, and how we face it. The church's messages are inconsistent on this subject. One moment they send a message like this, the next they put out a policy disallowing children of homosexuals from being baptized -- a move that is claimed as core to the cause of the very suicides the LoudLove community is trying to prevent. That comes across as serious double-speak -- and I don't mean just to me, but as I have heard reported again and again by those I know who have become disaffected from the church over these very matters. In short, the messages do not make sense. They contradict one another and it is disconcerting and confusing. It is not a matter of carping. It is a matter of -- can anyone help me understand this?

I will grant that those who carp do, tactically, use the exact same method (question asking) to carp...but it is merely a tactic. I am using no tactic. I am sincere in my question. And will faithfully support the church in any direction it goes. But that is different than understanding what's going on in matters like this.

My concern is for my children, honestly. How do I raise them in this stupid messed-up good-is-bad and bad-is-good world where logic has taken a flying leap out of existence and anyone can claim their own truth and demand validation for it regardless of merit or reason? The answer, of course, should be the stability of eternal truth and the gospel. And it is, of course. But on the fringes and in the public sphere, some of the messages being proffered are not stable, clear, or in line with other messages given. It is confusing.

I think the Church may be challenging us to move past the extremist canards and take a more nuanced approach.  Yes, we love kids and want them to understand their own value.  No, we aren't going to validate every sexual choice they make.  This creates an opportunity to teach kids that we aren't going to let our expectations of them be manipulated by their playing the "you don't wuuv me!!!" card.

Being able to synthesize superficially contradictory positions is a skill our kids are going to desperately need. And I don't mean that in a pejorative,  blind-obedience, suspension-of-critical-thinking sort of way; I'm talking about the sort of thoughtful reconciliation and harmonization that lawyers and judges and scholars and theologians and philosophers and even scientists do all the time.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share