3rd hour meeting on fostering love with members of the LGBTQ community


NeuroTypical
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest MormonGator
8 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

This is the type of talk I wouldn't want my children hearing in Church. In a setting outside the Church this would be fine, inside no so much. Here are the statements that completely misunderstand the gospel:

"I have a new understanding of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and I have a relationship with Heavenly Father that is stronger than ever." Living in sin doesn't increase our relationship with Heavenly Father, and this statement, "I told her I’m not going to marry a man, not marry in the temple and one day I will have children but my child will have 2 mommies." Despite the declaration from our Father in heaven, through his Son, to his servants, "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." This is the only time I have ever heard the word "entitled" with regards to the gospel, and they openly reject it.

I would have to agree with @wenglund with this statement, "The point being, if the Ward in Riverton wished to grow in the bonds of love with the ALPHABET community, they wouldn't set that as their objective. Rather, they would encourage obedience to the commandment of God--i.e. repentance, no sexual relations outside the marriage between a man and a woman, no defiling of the body, etc."

This appears to be condoning actions that are obviously against the Lord's will. As this gains more steam I would be curious to see if the Church leaders make a comment.

If the LDS church goes down the community of christ path and becomes more "liberal" on sexual matters what do you think will happen? Not a challenge/argument, just a question. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

This is the type of talk I wouldn't want my children hearing in Church. In a setting outside the Church this would be fine, inside no so much. Here are the statements that completely misunderstand the gospel:

"I have a new understanding of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and I have a relationship with Heavenly Father that is stronger than ever." Living in sin doesn't increase our relationship with Heavenly Father, and this statement, "I told her I’m not going to marry a man, not marry in the temple and one day I will have children but my child will have 2 mommies." Despite the declaration from our Father in heaven, through his Son, to his servants, "Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity." This is the only time I have ever heard the word "entitled" with regards to the gospel, and they openly reject it.

I would have to agree with @wenglund with this statement, "The point being, if the Ward in Riverton wished to grow in the bonds of love with the ALPHABET community, they wouldn't set that as their objective. Rather, they would encourage obedience to the commandment of God--i.e. repentance, no sexual relations outside the marriage between a man and a woman, no defiling of the body, etc."

This appears to be condoning actions that are obviously against the Lord's will. As this gains more steam I would be curious to see if the Church leaders make a comment.

Very good point.  I wouldn't want my children listening to that, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

If the LDS church goes down the community of christ path and becomes more "liberal" on sexual matters what do you think will happen? Not a challenge/argument, just a question. 

What, specifically, do you mean by more liberal?  I'm not familiar with the community of Christ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

How do you suggest those like wenglund resolve their cognitive dissonance? How do you resolve yours?

CogDis?  I'm not trying to hold two different beliefs in my head at the same time.  Not sure Wade is either.

I'm not sure if I think the 3rd hour is appropriate or not, whether it will result in a net blessing or a net negative.  But my belief is that the Lord's servants pretty much always try their best to do what's right, whether they end up actually getting there or not.

To put it another way - I've stood in a circle and given a blessing to a child, with a man who turned a blind eye to his own daughter's sexual abuse.  That was a hard decision, but ultimately it wasn't my job to judge his worthiness.  Deciding to neither support nor condemn the Riverton Bishop is an easy decision.   I mean, it would be even easier if it was a clear-cut decision of which one I should pick.  But it isn't clear cut, so I'm big on just declining to get behind either of the two rally flags here.  

I'm three years into a 20 year bet with an atheist buddy of mine.  He figures we'll have same-sex marriage in the temple within those 20 years, I figure we won't.  Loser dresses up in a pink tutu and sings "I'm a little teapot".  I'd get a massive kick out of winning, but I could probably survive losing.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
Just now, Grunt said:

What, specifically, do you mean by more liberal?  I'm not familiar with the community of Christ.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Christ . Here's the Wiki page. Like all Wiki pages, it gives a great synopsis of the subject. 

By "more liberal" I mean "What would the average LDS do if the church suddenly approved of or sanctioned homosexual relationships in some way? What if the LDS church approved of female ordination? I'm sure people will say "It 'll never happen" and it might not ever happen. But what if it does? What will happen to the church? A split? Mass resignations? End times? People ignoring it and going bowling? 

Notice that even though I'm for those things, I'm not arguing my reasons. Just asking what people will think happen to the church if those changes take place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Christ . Here's the Wiki page. Like all Wiki pages, it gives a great synopsis of the subject. 

By "more liberal" I mean "What would the average LDS do if the church suddenly approved of or sanctioned homosexual relationships in some way? What if the LDS church approved of female ordination? I'm sure people will say "It 'll never happen" and it might not ever happen. But what if it does? What will happen to the church? A split? Mass resignations? End times? People ignoring it and going bowling? 

Notice that even though I'm for those things, I'm not arguing my reasons. Just asking what people will think happen to the church if those changes take place. 

I can't envision that ever happening so don't see the value of questioning the church over a scenario I view as unrealistic.  I also don't know why people would be "for" the church to support sin.

Edited by Grunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
Just now, Grunt said:

I can't envision that ever happening so don't see the value of questioning the church over a scenario I view as unrealistic.  I also don't know why people would be "for" the church to accept sin.

Oh, I'm sure it'll never happen either. Purely hypothetical. But one thing I've learned in my life is that the term "never" is sort of subjective. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

If the LDS church goes down the community of christ path and becomes more "liberal" on sexual matters what do you think will happen? Not a challenge/argument, just a question. 

It may be inevitable at this point.  Time will tell.  If it becomes more "liberal" my thoughts are that the numbers of individuals leaving the church will start increasing and becoming more like the other religions that have gotten more lax in that regards over the past few years. 

A Trend regarding churches in the US seems to indicate that the more hardline or far right they are in regards to chastity, the better retainment they have in regards to membership, while those who get more lax (though there are some exceptions, for example there is a church in California that originated by espousing Gay Marriage and that Homosexuals could also be good Christians) seem to be bleeding their membership off at a frantic pace.

7 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

CogDis?  I'm not trying to hold two different beliefs in my head at the same time.  Not sure Wade is either.

I'm not sure if I think the 3rd hour is appropriate or not, whether it will result in a net blessing or a net negative.  But my belief is that the Lord's servants pretty much always try their best to do what's right, whether they end up actually getting there or not.

To put it another way - I've stood in a circle and given a blessing to a child, with a man who turned a blind eye to his own daughter's sexual abuse.  That was a hard decision, but ultimately it wasn't my job to judge his worthiness.  Deciding to neither support nor condemn the Riverton Bishop is an easy decision.   I mean, it would be even easier if it was a clear-cut decision of which one I should pick.  But it isn't clear cut, so I'm big on just declining to get behind either of the two rally flags here.  

I'm three years into a 20 year bet with an atheist buddy of mine.  He figures we'll have same-sex marriage in the temple within those 20 years, I figure we won't.  Loser dresses up in a pink tutu and sings "I'm a little teapot".  I'd get a massive kick out of winning, but I could probably survive losing.

As a member I would say, this will never happen.

On the Outside, looking at it from a secular and worldly view, I'd say history may be on your friends side, though it may be in 30 or 40 years instead of 20.  The LDS church tends to trail popular ideas in Western Society (this is from a HISTORICAL aspect...not from my personal thoughts as a member) in various social arenas (for example, in racism, though popularity was starting to have the integration of minorities into churches by the 1950s, and this further was prompted along with the Civil Rights Movement, we see that the LDS church eventually went with the popular view of integration in doctrine, if not in spirit, in the late 1970s...almost 3 decades after other churches had already started this process.  They came around to doing the same...but they trailed behind many other mainstream churches in that regard.

The LDS church probably is about where the rest of mainstream churches were in the 90s at this point, which means, give it another decade or two...and your friend could be right...at least if we are using secular history as an analysis.

As a Member of the Church, my thoughts are that the Lord allows certain things to happen in his time, but this is one that will never happen.  We will not have a revelation in this regards that will allow this type of marriage in the temple.

Edit: Perhaps, if we took a middle ground here, as the world (and probably the Members in the Church, it is said the Book of Mormon can be an allegory for our time, and if the coming of the Lord is any indication...those that were saved at his coming were not righteous, they simply were not as wicked as everyone else) gets more wicked, perhaps there will be some thought at allowing this in the temples.  I would hope that the Second Coming would come prior to that if this ever becomes the case.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, JohnsonJones said:

It may be inevitable at this point.  Time will tell.  If it becomes more "liberal" my thoughts are that the numbers of individuals leaving the church will start increasing and becoming more like the other religions that have gotten more lax in that regards over the past few years. 

My thoughts too, basically. If it does happen, it'll lead to a massive resignation event. Just like what happened to the RLDS, Episcopal church, Methodist church, and all other churches that allowed gay marriage. 

 

2 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Absolutely.  I can think of many things I thought would never happen but did.

Yup. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

But you have to admit that handing over the microphone (to paraphrase your own words) to those who are inimical to the Church and who openly preach contrary to clear Church doctrine as well as the very recent teachings of the Church's highest mortal leaders looks pretty questionable.

It pretty much never happens, but it does happen.  Ravi Zacharias at the tabernacle, for example.  The difference between him, and a Christian apologist who is out to help Mormons leave the cult and come to the "right Jesus", is that Ravi never actually came out and said it plainly - he just went several hours politely and respectfully alluding to it, in our edifice, with our microphone.

Also, although non-doctrinal in nature, it's interesting to remember that the church's Welfare system, family home evening, and our seminary system were all started at the Stake level and then eventually grew into churchwide programs.  Listen-to-and-learn-to-love-the-doctrinally-apostate meetings?  No change to doctrine necessary.


 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

If the LDS church goes down the community of christ path and becomes more "liberal" on sexual matters what do you think will happen? Not a challenge/argument, just a question. 

"Not a challenge/argument" - what? MG is always argumentative and challenging! :P (Just playing brotha!)

The question is valid, even if hypothetical, because it has the potential to be very real. I think @JohnsonJones makes a valid point, that we would see people leaving the Church. It would be similar to the Church making a statement that "adultery" is no longer a sin/transgression, or that with the consent of your partner you could have multiple partners. If the Church came out with this statement, we would see people leaving the Church. Chastity is a fundamental and vital principle of becoming like God. If this no longer matters, then many statement would have to be redacted as made by Church leaders (canonized scripture also).

If the Church became more liberal where would it draw the line? Homosexual fornicating relationships are now OK, but adultery and heterosexual fornicating relationships are not OK. It would ultimate become a slippery slope that would remove all sacredness with regards to procreation and that union between husband and wife.

This will never happen though. I believe, personally, this is why the Church will grow more rapidly when the world begins to accept principles and the Church becomes the only foundation unlike the Great and Spacious Building. People will begin to return to roots that they know are profitable, and that have a foundation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

 

This will never happen though. I believe, personally, this is why the Church will grow more rapidly when the world begins to accept principles and the Church becomes the only foundation unlike the Great and Spacious Building. People will begin to return to roots that they know are profitable, and that have a foundation.

This is what I believe.  As a recent convert, I was attracted to the adherence to doctrine and unashamed declaration of God's truth and loving acceptance of sinners to listen to the word, even if they couldn't participate, with no apologies for following Christ.  

I don't know why, but seeing members openly declare they wish the church would condone sin bothers me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
1 minute ago, Grunt said:

I don't know why, but seeing members openly declare they wish the church would condone sin bothers me.

Just wait till I crack open a beer and say that I approve of women being ordained to the priesthood too! :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think people should have too much of a problem if the Prophet announces next Thursday that gay marriages can be solemnized in the Temple, and then on Friday he says that they can't and then on Saturday he says that they can. We should continue to sustain him and act as if he is speaking for God. If he is not speaking for God then it's God's problem and He will deal with it. If he is speaking for God, we better get with the program rather than leave or resign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

So Wade, I've been a huge closet fan of yours for a long time - more than a decade I think.  You've been somewhat of a hero of mine in apologetic circles, I've learned a lot watching you argue on other boards.

And here you are, criticizing a Bishop for not running things the way you think they should be run.   I'd like to invite you to review all the things you've said to church critics over the years, especially the members, when they take it upon themselves to gripe and criticize about how the bishop did or said something they just can't abide.  Because you have good and relevant things to say to such people. 

Oh - apparently a member of the Stake Presidency gave the opening prayer at this thing.

I can see how you might see it that way, but that wasn't my intent. My goal wasn't to criticize people who don't post on this board, but to respond to people who do.

I will remove the offending reference if that helps.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 05/02/2018 at 4:17 PM, Vort said:

I was under 14 once, and I can tell you from personal experience that prepubescent children most certainly do think about sex, and from very young ages 

How can  you remember such a long, long, long time ago? :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, changed said:

....And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. 

...and lo, Peter did know that it was time to lay off the greasy foods right before bedtime, that his dreams might be dramatically less screwed up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, changed said:

I think it would be wonderful to usher in a new era of acceptance and inclusion, love and understanding for all - and expect a few things will be changing prior to the millennium. 

Why do you insist that acceptance of homosexuality is good? To be consistent, are you willing to concede that we should accept bestiality, polyamory, and lowering the legal age of sexual consent to six? Shall we accept mutual voluntary limb amputation between consenting adults as a beautiful example of human expression?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, changed said:

 

....And saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let down to the earth: Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air. And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean. And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common...

↑ ..And it came to pass that when Jesus had said these words he perceived that there were some among them who marveled, and wondered what he would concerning the law of Moses; for they understood not the saying that old things had passed away, and that all things had become new...

I think it would be wonderful to usher in a new era of acceptance and inclusion, love and understanding for all - and expect a few things will be changing prior to the millennium.  

 

 

 In Peter's vision, he was told to preach to all people-- and he did.  Those people accepted the Gospel and were cleansed/changed by the Lord.    

I would love for all people to do that too- that all people would accept the Gospel and were cleansed/changed by the Lord.  

But accepting a person what has been cleansed by the Lord is VERY different than accepting unrepentant sin that the Lord has declared filthy.  Yes, we are going to do everything possible to encourage people to come unto Christ, repent, and be cleansed by Him.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Vort said:

Why do you insist that acceptance of homosexuality is good? To be consistent, are you willing to concede that we should accept bestiality, polyamory, and lowering the legal age of sexual consent to six? Shall we accept mutual voluntary limb amputation between consenting adults as a beautiful example of human expression?

Good questions.

To me, this is the kind warped sense of love and acceptance and inclusion and understanding (oh, and don't forget equality) that unwittingly destroys and kills people.  It is the Law of Unintended Negative Consequences (LUNC) at its worst.

I have two blogs devoted to the topic. One that gives a number of general examples (see HERE). And, the other to explain why they occur (see HERE)

Perhaps the best examples of the LUNC is the leftist movement to normalize homosexuality, particularly by way of legitimizing gay sex through bastardizing the definition of marriage. Among the many negative consequences of leftest "love" for homosexuals, is the disturbing spike in gay social ills  some fatal. (see also Destructive Compassion) Clearly, homosexuals were safer when the Left wasn't championing their cause. They were safer in the closet.

And, that is only the tip of the iceberg. Additionally there are the gay movement LUNCs of harm to children, degraded traditional marriage,  marriage in crisis, costly government expansion, loss of freedom, and blurring of critical male/female distinctions,  if not also opened floodgates. And, to top it off, it doesn't achieve "marriage equality."

What I find most disturbing about the warped sense of "love," etc., is that the Left doesn't seem to care about all the negative and even fatal consequences. It is as though results don't matter, only virtue signally does.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I don't think you people want me at church.  I...

...smoke." 
...drink."
...can't possibly believe Joseph was a prophet."
...think your beliefs are screwed up."
...am an ex-con."
...am full of base and disgusting desires I have never acted on."
...am full of base and disgusting desires that I am currently acting on."
...am currently wanted in another state for various felonies."
...have mental illnesses that make it hard for me to be around."
...have mental illnesses that make it dangerous to be around me."
...am a child from a polygamous group."
...am a member in good standing of a polygamous group."
...would spend all my time trying to convince you you're wrong about [doctrine x]."
...am a practicing and married homosexual with no desire to change."

I'm not sure God or anyone else wants just one answer to all those statements.

"That's ok, come to church, warts and all.  We'd love to see you in the seat.  Maybe you'd let us and God work on that stuff, but in the meanwhile, please come."
"Oh, well, I'm willing to talk about what we believe with you, but not sure you coming to church would be a good use of your time."
"[insert your answer here]"

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Why do you insist that acceptance of homosexuality is good? To be consistent, are you willing to concede that we should accept bestiality, polyamory, and lowering the legal age of sexual consent to six? Shall we accept mutual voluntary limb amputation between consenting adults as a beautiful example of human expression?

I don't know, Vort. This begins to feel to me like a fallacious use of a slipper slope argument. I'm not convinced that accepting homosexuality as good will certainly lead to acceptance of all of those other things. I can readily see how accepting gay marriage readily leads to accepting polygamous marriages, but I'm not sure the other concepts necessarily follow. As such, this feels more like fearmongering to me.

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