Loveloudfest and LDS approval?

[Anddenex]

My apologies for not reading through thread and thus repeating something someone else has already said. My personal take on this event, is similar to the Church's support for equal opportunity for living and job placement for these individuals. I don't see how this would be supporting anything else.

 

[Suzie]

3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

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.

I think most people from all angles, applaud this move. I must be honest though, I didn't expect the statement at all.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

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?

If you don't understand what I'm talking about then you aren't in a very good position to suggest answers now, are you?

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

I wasn't aware that it was personal interpretation to some degree. 

It is not. Don't let those who simply fail to understand misguide you. Coffee is coffee. Tea is tea -- whether it's green or black it's still the same plant, the same ingredients, the same etc. They are against the word of wisdom, and there is no more personal interpretation to it than there is personal interpretation to whether wife swapping constitutes adultery or not. Anyone arguing interpretation on these basics is fooling themselves.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Suzie said:

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.

This idea ignores the how. "ANY" effort doesn't merely count for approval simply because it's an effort. I'm not making an argument that the churches efforts aren't helping in saying this. I don't know. My thinking tends towards these statement type sound-bytes being more hurtful than helpful. But I may be wrong, collectively speaking. Regardless, the simple idea that if someone is choking, banging the back of their head with a hammer should be applauded because it's an effort to help just doesn't work.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

(and, I trust, *is*)

Just by way of discussion, why? Why do you trust that such efforts are being taken? I don't see them.

It does not strike me that the Lord's plan *must* include an easy way out of this mess. It strikes me that, rather, the idea here might be that people who will be tried, will be tried. Perhaps the church isn't being specifically guided in these responses because life is meant to be a confusing challenge where we flounder. Of course that is a challenging idea to me. But maybe that's part of the idea. I dunno.

[Just_A_Guy]

45 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Just by way of discussion, why? Why do you trust that such efforts are being taken? I don't see them.

It does not strike me that the Lord's plan *must* include an easy way out of this mess. It strikes me that, rather, the idea here might be that people who will be tried, will be tried. Perhaps the church isn't being specifically guided in these responses because life is meant to be a confusing challenge where we flounder. Of course that is a challenging idea to me. But maybe that's part of the idea. I dunno.

I don't think the Church is necessarily taking an easy way out.  If anything, it's taking a harder road by plotting a course that will not satisfy either extreme.  

Why do I trust such efforts are being taken?  Partly because I trust the GAs to keep the pendulum from swinging too far; and partly because--so far as I know--the Church continues to abide by its policies expecting adherence to the LoC as a prerequisite to ecclesiastical blessings, not baptizing children with gay-married parents, etc.

[The Folk Prophet]

30 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don't think the Church is necessarily taking an easy way out.  If anything, it's taking a harder road by plotting a course that will not satisfy either extreme.  

Why do I trust such efforts are being taken?  Partly because I trust the GAs to keep the pendulum from swinging too far; and partly because--so far as I know--the Church continues to abide by its policies expecting adherence to the LoC as a prerequisite to ecclesiastical blessings, not baptizing children with gay-married parents, etc.

I'm inferring the redoundification (that's word, right?) to be those souls being stolen away by the gay ideology. I'm gathering from your reply here that is not what you meant to imply?

Incidentally, I am not meaning to imply the church is taking an easy way out.

[SpiritDragon]

14 hours ago, CV75 said:

 I do not take it as support for immortal behavior ...

Is that running around with swords trying to chop off heads while stating there can be only one? 

[Anddenex]

11 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

Is that running around with swords trying to chop off heads while stating there can be only one? 

- So funny, I thought the same thing when I read "immortal" but knowing he meant "immoral." hehe

[CV75]

13 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If you don't understand what I'm talking about then you aren't in a very good position to suggest answers now, are you?

Absolutely, which is why I'm asking you to shed more light on what you are talking about. Then, as you know, I will be in an excellent position to apply my wherewithal to suggest answers!

[CV75]

31 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

- So funny, I thought the same thing when I read "immortal" but knowing he meant "immoral." hehe

hmmm.. what if I did mean immortal...? lol

[The Folk Prophet]

44 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Absolutely, which is why I'm asking you to shed more light on what you are talking about. Then, as you know, I will be in an excellent position to apply my wherewithal to suggest answers!

I do not mean that you don't or can't understand the words I say. I mean that you may not have the experience frame-of-reference to relate.

Like the salt analogy. (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/01/the-candle-of-the-lord?lang=eng) One can't very easily shed light on what salt tastes like to someone who's never tasted it.

[CV75]

25 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I do not mean that you don't or can't understand the words I say. I mean that you may not have the experience frame-of-reference to relate.

Like the salt analogy. (https://www.lds.org/ensign/1983/01/the-candle-of-the-lord?lang=eng) One can't very easily shed light on what salt tastes like to someone who's never tasted it.

What is the experience you are referring to? At least someone can refer to saltiness as one of the gustatory perceptions along with sweetness, sourness, bitterness, umaniness, etc.

[The Folk Prophet]

45 minutes ago, CV75 said:

What is the experience you are referring to? 

A sense of feeling betrayed and abandoned by someone or something after having made efforts to do what has been taught to you your whole life by said someone or something, betrayed and abandoned for doing what was taught you. Of being made the bad guy by someone or something after valiantly defending said someone or something, and that the defense itself, is what has made you the bad guy - even though the directive to defend as you did came from said someone or something in the first place.

Edited August 18, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

23 hours 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. 

I don't want to get into a debate about this, but I do want to know if I understood you correctly.

Being homosexual is not a sin, acting on it is.  So are you saying that we shouldn't tell a homosexual child that God loves them as they are? I'm trying to imagine what else you would say.  

"Johnny, sorry God doesn't love you completely, because you're flawed. Just try to be obedient and perhaps maybe there will still be some hope for you." 

Surely that isn't what you meant, but if not what DID you mean?

Edited August 18, 2017 by LiterateParakeet

[Vort]

At first glance, this appears to be a naïve response by the Church to a gathering that claims to be for a good purpose but in fact is designed to further the homosexual agenda. But in my experience, the Church is not naïve (even if many members are, present company most definitely included). So I'm not sure what to make of this.

Until and unless we find out more, I accept the Church's words at face value. Our mortal probation is a part of our eternal existence and is very precious. People killing themselves is a bad thing. So a movement that works against such self-destructive actions would be welcome, unless the movement itself is a "cure" worse than the disease it purports to treat. I gather the Church's leadership does not judge this to be the case. I support their judgment.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

A sense of feeling betrayed and abandoned by someone or something after having made efforts to do what has been taught to you your whole life by said someone or something, betrayed and abandoned for doing what was taught you. Of being made the bad guy by someone or something after valiantly defending said someone or something, and that the defense itself, is what has made you the bad guy - even though the directive to defend as you did came from said someone or something in the first place.

Now I can relate to that, although not on this specific issue.

I’m sure you haven’t interpreted the Brethren as teaching us not to express respect and love for all God’s children, even the LGBTQ children, or to mistreat them, or to not build respectful communication, understanding and civility with them.

The Church has recognized that not all families have an ideal structure, but still supports all of them as capable of encouraging the family members to keep God’s covenants. For those that do not, she supports them foster such secular values of temporal safety and protection of the rising generation (and education, self-reliance, etc.). This is why she helps everyone and anyone in humanitarian and relief efforts, for example.

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

At first glance, this appears to be a naïve response by the Church to a gathering that claims to be for a good purpose but in fact is designed to further the homosexual agenda. But in my experience, the Church is not naïve (even if many members are, present company most definitely included). So I'm not sure what to make of this.

Until and unless we find out more, I accept the Church's words at face value. Our mortal probation is a part of our eternal existence and is very precious. People killing themselves is a bad thing. So a movement that works against such self-destructive actions would be welcome, unless the movement itself is a "cure" worse than the disease it purports to treat. I gather the Church's leadership does not judge this to be the case. I support their judgment.

I think that is a key point. The "movement" -- and to borrow a phrase from the 60's, we're witnessing a homosexual revolution of sorts -- is not the event. If a bunch of pot-smoking, free-love hippies at Woodstock dedicated a set to raising awareness to educate Native Americans, I'm the sure the Church (the locale and media environment being equal) would support it.

[Just_A_Guy]

2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I don't want to get into a debate about this, but I do want to know if I understood you correctly.

Being homosexual is not a sin, acting on it is.  So are you saying that we shouldn't tell a homosexual child that God loves them as they are? I'm trying to imagine what else you would say.  

"Johnny, sorry God doesn't love you completely, because you're flawed. Just try to be obedient and perhaps maybe there will still be some hope for you." 

Surely that isn't what you meant, but if not what DID you mean?

I can't speak for @JoCa, but my own take is--there's no harm in telling anyone that's God loves them the way they are.  But there is potentially a great deal of harm in telling anyone that God accepts them the way they are.  Because He doesn't accept any of us as we are.  He can't, until we repent and are fully sanctified.

"Acceptance", in the divine sense of the word, obviates "repentance".

Edited August 18, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

@Just_A_Guy I can go along with that.

[The Folk Prophet]

38 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I can't speak for @JoCa, but my own take is--there's no harm in telling anyone that's God loves them the way they are.  But there is potentially a great deal of harm in telling anyone that God accepts them the way they are.  Because He doesn't accept any of us as we are.  He can't, until we repent and are fully sanctified.

"Acceptance", in the divine sense of the word, obviates "repentance".

Why don't we just leave it at "God loves you."

The "as you are" seems unnecessary, and while true, could be interpreted inaccurately, particularly in the current culture.

Edit: To clarify, depending on how one interprets it, "as you are" can refer to state rather than being. God does not love the state we are in when we are in a state that is contrary to happiness. He loves our being even when we are in those states.

Edited August 18, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Why don't we just leave it at "God loves you."

The "as you are" seems unnecessary, and while true, could be interpreted inaccurately, particularly in the current culture.

I'd be fine with that too.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I can't speak for @JoCa, but my own take is--there's no harm in telling anyone that's God loves them the way they are.  But there is potentially a great deal of harm in telling anyone that God accepts them the way they are.  Because He doesn't accept any of us as we are.  He can't, until we repent and are fully sanctified.

"Acceptance", in the divine sense of the word, obviates "repentance".

This is why I think we cannot make this teaching in the Church PR statement (which is no different than in any of the GC talks, lesson manuals, etc.) merely academic. In real life, the communication is 80%+ nonverbal: eye contact, vocal tone, example, body language, etc. -- our walk and conversation or our "countenance," which is determined by the companionship of the Holy Ghost. So, I think the idea the Brethren are trying to get across, is to get close to people with a charitable attitude and showing an interest in their welfare, as Jesus exemplified in His mortal ministry. This will definitely help people understand what we mean, but it can only happen if we actually mingle.

Edited August 18, 2017 by CV75

[Vort]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Why don't we just leave it at "God loves you."

The "as you are" seems unnecessary, and while true, could be interpreted inaccurately, particularly in the current culture.

Edit: To clarify, depending on how one interprets it, "as you are" can refer to state rather than being. God does not love the state we are in when we are in a state that is contrary to happiness. He loves our being even when we are in those states.

"God loves you as you are" carries the implication (to my ears, at least) that God is okay with you being exactly as you are, with no changes. This is clearly false for any of us; specifically, it is false for practicing homosexuals. So while the words are true per se, they convey a false meaning. This is the root of the problem some of us have.

I envision the following as a not-unlikely progression:

Pro-homosexuality group: We want to have a rally to deter gay teens from suicide!
LDS Church: We approve of that stated goal.
[Rally takes place, and unsurprisingly is a statement of pride in homosexual activity and an encouragement for suicidal "gay" teens to embrace "their" homosexuality]
LDS Church: Embracing a sinful practice isn't what we were supporting.
Pro-homosexuality group: How evil you are! Gay teens embracing who they Really Are is the only way to stop their suicides! And who they Really Are is...GAY!!! HOORAY!!

But as others have pointed out, it's not our decision. I support our leaders, even as I fully expect a betrayal similar to the above to take place.