Loveloudfest and LDS approval?

[CV75]

21 minutes ago, JoCa said:

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?

That is the only way the Lord motivates people to make His covenants and keep His commandments. It is is important to make it clear that "just the way you are" does not include an identity dependent in any degree on sexual orientation. Elder Bednar taught this awhile ago in a Face2Face with youth. he said, " "There are no homosexual members of the Church. We are not defined by sexual attraction. We are not defined by sexual behavior."

[CV75]

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 try: The message supporting teen safety / respect and love for all of God’s children / fostering a community of inclusion in which no one is mistreated because of who they are or what they believe / pricelessness of our youth / the value of families / building respectful communication, better understanding and civility / learn from each other has nothing to do with the policy about children of gay parents waiting until they are of age to be baptized.

We can treat hose parents and their children with respect and love while honoring the Lord's requirements for making and keeping His covenants. What we can learn from them is, at the very least, that the Lord loves them but not sin.

I think doctrinally-speaking, children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance (spiritually as well as physically) until they are of age. The Church assists parents in accomplishing that, which includes support for teen safety and establishing ecclesiastical / institutional requirements for baptism.

[JoCa]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What we can learn from them is, at the very least, that the Lord loves them but not sin.

Totally agree; but that's not what the actual founders of the LoveLoud festival promote or even their principle reason for having this festival.

They believe homosexual behavior is not sin and that to tell a child that homosexual behavior is sinful is "hateful".

So unless we have missionaries at this festival declaring that yes God loves them but not the sin, I fail to see how we can learn from them and them from us.

It's so weird people in today's world are all about compromise, yet some things in life you simply can't compromise on.  You just learn to accept others think differently, say best of luck to you; I'll leave you alone you leave me alone.

Instead of trying to convince each other- we just agree to live and let live. The message of LoveLoud's founders is incongruous with the LDS church.

[Fether]

57 minutes ago, JoCa said:

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.

 

 

No that is not christlike at all. The church in this statement isn't doing that. They are simply not calling them all to repentance simply because they don't have to. LGBT children exist, whether that is sinful or not, they are there. The church is supporting the idea of helping any emotionally struggle LGBT child out there.

The church doesn't need to hop in and say "you are all sinners, repent". What they are doing is supporting this community event that is trying to strengthen the event meant to raise emotional trauma that comes to children by their peers at that age. We aren't going to win this was against evil if we are putting down events meant to help the emotional well being of others, even if they are "filthy sinners" worthy of the greatest rebuke.

Love can be harsh, it can also be passive when it needs to and I think that is what is happening. The church isn't restraining fire because of love, the church isn't even mad about this event and isn't going to use their "anti-gay" stance as a reason to put down the event.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Fether said:

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.

Being "Christlike" is making the effort to bring people to the Father through Christ. In that regard, I certainly understand and agree that was the intent.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Being able to synthesize superficially contradictory positions is a skill our kids are going to desperately need.

Maybe. Or perhaps they'll be too busy dealing with the actual coming literal Armageddon? Things are escalating across the world.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

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.

Kill the lawyers!!

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I will try: The message supporting teen safety / respect and love for all of God’s children / fostering a community of inclusion in which no one is mistreated because of who they are or what they believe / pricelessness of our youth / the value of families / building respectful communication, better understanding and civility / learn from each other has nothing to do with the policy about children of gay parents waiting until they are of age to be baptized.

We can treat hose parents and their children with respect and love while honoring the Lord's requirements for making and keeping His covenants. What we can learn from them is, at the very least, that the Lord loves them but not sin.

I think doctrinally-speaking, children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance (spiritually as well as physically) until they are of age. The Church assists parents in accomplishing that, which includes support for teen safety and establishing ecclesiastical / institutional requirements for baptism.

I understand the policy. It's the other side...the "softened" message that I consider harmful and, in some cases, mistaken.

Edit: (Note: I am, clearly, on the opposite side of this from those disaffected I have referenced who have a problem with understanding the policy).

Edited August 17, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, JoCa said:

Totally agree; but that's not what the actual founders of the LoveLoud festival promote or even their principle reason for having this festival.

They believe homosexual behavior is not sin and that to tell a child that homosexual behavior is sinful is "hateful".

So unless we have missionaries at this festival declaring that yes God loves them but not the sin, I fail to see how we can learn from them and them from us.

It's so weird people in today's world are all about compromise, yet some things in life you simply can't compromise on.  You just learn to accept others think differently, say best of luck to you; I'll leave you alone you leave me alone.

Instead of trying to convince each other- we just agree to live and let live. The message of LoveLoud's founders is incongruous with the LDS church.

I think you make a good point here -- the Church is supporting the event for the purposes she described, not any negative or incongruous messages that might be put forth by some sponsoring individuals and organizations. I think she readily counters any of the latter when such occurs.

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I understand the policy. It's the other side...the "softened" message that I consider harmful and, in some cases, mistaken.

Edit: (Note: I am, clearly, on the opposite side of this from those disaffected I have referenced who have a problem with understanding the policy).

What do you think the message in this statement is -- at face value -- and how it is different (softer) from prior messages? Do you have some examples?

[Suzie]

8 hours ago, JoCa said:

I don't know who has authorization to release Church PR messages

 Even though Brother Otterson retired last year (I believe), the information still pertinent for those interested:

Quote

Brother Otterson said the Church’s Public Affairs Committee is chaired by a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and includes the senior President of the Seventy, the Presiding Bishop, the Church’s legal counsel, a female officer who is in the presidency of one of the Church auxiliaries, and an additional member of the Seventy who serves as executive director of the department.

“I work on a daily basis with the member of the Twelve and the executive director,” affirmed Brother Otterson, who said he talks every day with the member of the Twelve, often several times.

“With the executive director, I make presentations to the full Quorum of the Twelve monthly and receive direction from them,” he said. “Sometimes a member of the staff with a particular specialty makes a presentation and receives counsel.

Brother Otterson said no member of the Public Affairs staff would remain employed long if he or she issued a statement on behalf of the Church that had not been approved.

“Of course, we frequently suggest a response to a breaking issue, but the Brethren are not shy in editing or rejecting those statements or writing their own versions.”

He explained that the member of the Twelve who chairs the Public Affairs Committee will confer with other members of the Twelve or with the First Presidency on major issues. “Our task is to find language that most accurately reflects what’s on the Brethren’s minds. There is no place for private agendas on the part of the staff.”

He gave an example of what happens when that point isn’t understood. When the Church held a news conference this year to call on the Utah Legislature to pass an important piece of legislation pertaining to treating religious rights and gay rights fairly, three members of the Twelve were present.

“Some people actually challenged the validity of the message because there were ‘only’ three members of the Twelve, and not all of them plus the First Presidency,” he said. He then quipped: “Presumably these three Apostles were ‘rogue’ also.’ This so reminds me of the Savior’s critique of ‘blind guides’ who ‘strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel’ (Matthew 23:24).”

“Much of what is posted there deals with routine news stories, but even these cannot be posted without approval from Church Correlation, which has the responsibility to ensure that all Church communications are doctrinally sound and consistent,” Brother Otterson said.

This system “should give members of the Church a high level of comfort that what they read on Newsroom has been well vetted,” the managing director said.

“The Church’s response has been a model of restraint, reasonableness, and Christlike behavior,” Brother Otterson remarked. “While not yielding an inch on our Father’s plan for His children and the purpose of life here on earth, including how sexuality is to be expressed, the Church has recognized the legitimacy of LGBT claims to fair housing, employment, and other services.”

Some people think such a gesture of compassion is tantamount to condoning sin, while others “seem to want to reshape the Church into whatever the latest politically correct social convention says it should be,” Brother Otterson observed.

“Wisely, the Brethren will chart a course that adheres to the doctrine of the Church while emulating Christ’s inclusiveness and love for all people.”

https://www.lds.org/church/news/no-private-agendas-in-churchs-public-affairs-department-director-says?lang=eng

I think the statements are self-explanatory. And since the statement of this festival was labeled as "Official statement" on top of the article, we can say it has been approved by the Church and its leaders.

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by Suzie

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Thanks @Suzie  I am validated.  Approved by the Leaders.

Edited August 17, 2017 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Suzie said:

 Even though Brother Otterson retired last year (I believe), the information still pertinent for those interested:

It doesn't matter.  Some people just want to find justification to believe what they want and try to find reasons to ignore what is right in front of them.

[Grunt]

Previously on this site someone shared an "Ask Gramps" opinion that decaffeinated coffee is not at odds with the Word of Wisdom.  When I discussed this with the missionaries, they responded that we must avoid the appearance of sin as well.  Would this not be similar, or is their teaching something not generally agreed with?

[eddified]

20 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Previously on this site someone shared an "Ask Gramps" opinion that decaffeinated coffee is not at odds with the Word of Wisdom.  When I discussed this with the missionaries, they responded that we must avoid the appearance of sin as well.  Would this not be similar, or is their teaching something not generally agreed with?

I don't see many similarities. The missionaries stated truly, but didn't say what in my mind is a much bigger issue: decaffeinated coffee is still coffee. Nowhere did the Lord or its leaders say that coffee was to be avoided because of its caffeine. No, coffee is to be avoided because it is coffee. The official teaching is that coffee is to be avoided, caffeinated or not. Decaffeinated coffee is definitely against the Word of Wisdom, there is no grey area about this.

Edit: found the "ask gramps" article and he basically says what I just said. https://askgramps.org/decaffeinated-coffee/

Edited August 17, 2017 by eddified

[Sunday21]

16 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Previously on this site someone shared an "Ask Gramps" opinion that decaffeinated coffee is not at odds with the Word of Wisdom.  When I discussed this with the missionaries, they responded that we must avoid the appearance of sin as well.  Would this not be similar, or is their teaching something not generally agreed with?

I have lds friends who drink green tea. In my opinion the Word of Wisdom is open to interpretation. When you go for a recommend for the temple, the question asked is : Do you obey the Word of Wisdom? 

Alcohol, cigarettes, coffee or tea are the basics. I personally avoid arguments about the Word o f Wisdom.

[Grunt]

Just now, eddified said:

I don't see many similarities. The missionaries stated truly, but didn't say what in my mind is a much bigger issue: decaffeinated coffee is still coffee. Nowhere did the Lord or its leaders say that coffee was to be avoided because of its caffeine. No, coffee is to be avoided because it is coffee. The official teaching is that coffee is to be avoided, caffeinated or not. Decaffeinated coffee is definitely against the Word of Wisdom, there is no grey area about this.

I'm just repeating what Ask Gramps said, which appears to hold some weight around here.  His explanation made sense to me, but I'm not one to speak of such things.  Regardless, I was using that as an example.

[eddified]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

I'm just repeating what Ask Gramps said, which appears to hold some weight around here.  His explanation made sense to me, but I'm not one to speak of such things.  Regardless, I was using that as an example.

Ask Gramps said, and I quote, "The Word of Wisdom also never states that coffee is okay as long as it is 99% caffeine free. It says coffee."

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Sunday21 said:

I have lds friends who drink green tea. In my opinion the Word of Wisdom is open to interpretation. When you go for a recommend for the temple, the question asked is : Do you obey the Word of Wisdom? 

Alcohol, cigarettes, coffee or tea are the basics. I personally avoid arguments about the Word o f Wisdom.

She left out the part that she smokes a lot of pot. 

[Grunt]

Just now, Sunday21 said:

I have lds friends who drink green tea. In my opinion the Word of Wisdom is open to interpretation. When you go for a recommend for the temple, the question asked is : Do you obey the Word of Wisdom? 

Alcohol, cigarettes, coffee or tea are the basics. I personally avoid arguments about the Word o f Wisdom.

Sage advice.  I wasn't aware that it was personal interpretation to some degree.  Thank you for that!  I thought it was odd, after the Ask Gramps explanation, to hear that one of the missionary parents drank green tea regularly.  Now it makes more sense.

[eddified]

Just now, Grunt said:

Sage advice.  I wasn't aware that it was personal interpretation to some degree.  Thank you for that!  I thought it was odd, after the Ask Gramps explanation, to hear that one of the missionary parents drank green tea regularly.  Now it makes more sense.

I don't drink green tea. My mission president told us not to. However, I also realize it's not something to argue over. There are more important things to worry about... now back to Loudlovefest conversation?

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, eddified said:

I don't drink green tea. My mission president told us not to. However, I also realize it's not something to argue over. There are more important things to worry about... now back to Loudlovefest conversation?

Sure.  My intent with that comparison WASN'T decaf, it was the appearance of sin (or violating a covenant).  Does this not fall under that?   Sorry I picked an example that sidetracked the conversation.

[eddified]

(Here is where I go off topic right after suggesting that we return back to topic, ah, fickle me.)

@Grunt, my understanding is that "the basics" is not open to personal interpretation and must be followed strictly. This means no alcohol, coffee, tea, smoking (of any kind), or illegal drugs. Beyond this, yes, it's open to personal interpretation. 

From https://www.lds.org/topics/word-of-wisdom?lang=eng , the following items are proscribed.

Quote

Alcoholic drinks (see D&C 89:5-7).

Tobacco (see D&C 89:8).

Tea and coffee (see D&C 89:9; latter-day prophets have taught that the term “hot drinks,” as written in this verse, refers to tea and coffee).

When people purposefully take anything harmful into their bodies, they are not living in harmony with the Word of Wisdom. Illegal drugs can especially destroy those who use them. The abuse of prescription drugs is also destructive spiritually and physically.

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by eddified

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, eddified said:

(Here is where I go off topic right after suggesting that we return back to topic, ah, fickle me.)

@Grunt, my understanding is that "the basics" is not open to personal interpretation and must be followed strictly. This means no alcohol, coffee, tea, smoking (of any kind), or illegal drugs. Beyond this, yes, it's open to personal interpretation. 

From https://www.lds.org/topics/word-of-wisdom?lang=eng , the following items are proscribed.

 

Rather than take this further off topic, I'm sending you a PM with the article to which I referred.

[Suzie]

I read all the comments on this thread and I have to say the following:

The Church seems to be in the position of "damned if they do, damned if they don't." What the Church is trying to do is show inclusion for ALL individuals. We need to understand that the Church has been receiving a lot of hate due to the misconception that we hate homosexuals.

What the institution is trying to do is very simple: Show compassion and care for our gay brothers and sisters and applaud ANY effort that can help prevent suicide  We can bury our heads in the mud and pretend these young people are not suffering but they are and whatever the LDS Church can do to help them I am in full support.

We seem to be more concerned about how "others" will see us than the actual lives of those who need help. We have our priorities screwed.

The Church official statement shows that you can disagree fully with a certain lifestyle and yet, still love the individuals and care for their welfare.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

That's fair; but in the long run, the highest form of compassion we can show to our gay brothers and sisters is to encourage them (by Christlike means) to not forfeit their birthright by flouting the law of chastity.  

Care needs to be (and, I trust, *is*) taken to ensure that the Church's efforts to alleviate suffering don't redound to the advantage of those who, under Satanic influence, are trying to undermine that effort.