Leaderboard

But I don't know if I trust therapists. I'd love to unload on a neutral unbiased party that has useful insight, but I also don't want any someone from a different system of morality or beholden to such by the profession.

Meant to respond to this thread sooner. This is one I have mixed opinions on even when I was in the bishopric during this time. I, personally, thought doing temple recommends -- while the temple was closed -- unnecessary. If the temple is open, then yes, I find it very necessary. If the temples were all of a sudden shut down (all of them), and you couldn't attend would a temple recommend be needed? No, because there is no temple to attend, and I am still worthy. If the temples were open, and I couldn't attend the temple I would still go in for a temple recommend because the temple is open. It is available, and should my circumstance change for a day (even an hour) I would go to the temple with that active recommend. With that said, I kept my active regardless because I knew at some point the temples would be open. But admit, for the first six months when the temples were closed I didn't see the value in it. The Lord isn't going to ask for my temple recommend, but whether or not I am worthy. Yes and no. Some are some aren't. I know I was still performing temple recommend interviews while in the bishopric. I would be more concerned if this remains when the temples are back to fully being open again. Right now, I can see people being apathetic, especially if they are living worthy lives still.

I'm not saying always, but many times... we simply just need someone (set of ears) outside of our circle of friends/family/associates that we can vomit our feelings/thoughts upon. No worries of it coming back to bite us. I struggle with X, I think about Y, I'm great at A but fail at B, I hate M and don't give a rat's behind about L, so on and so forth. Over the years, I'm less and less under the illusion that the person needed to accomplish this needs to be a 'therapist'. Especially with the caliber of therapist I see more and more. There is a great weight that can be lifted by simply verbalizing things out loud. This in part, is a small reason, why I think Bishops are such a valuable tool to many members... they just need to share X with someone in confidence.

Is it just me or is the word “tolerance” not used as much these days? The word “inclusion” seems to be thrown around more often. Inclusion seems to mean that we change our beliefs in order to accommodate others. When it comes to LGBT issues, it seems the church is no longer being asked to be tolerant. It would appear we are being asked to change in order be more inclusive. Well, if we check the official Church web site about this topic this is what you will see: Inclusion doesn't mean you have to agree, it means we truly put in practice 2 Nephi 26:33 " For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he ainviteth them ball to ccome unto him and partake of his goodness; and he ddenieth none that come unto him, black and white, ebond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the fheathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile. " From the same web site: How can I include or reach out to those who experience same-sex attraction in my ward or stake? “Do we teach the Proclamation on the Family? Do we teach Heavenly Father’s plan? Do we teach the first chapter in the second handbook? Yes, we do. We have a plan of salvation. And having children come into our lives is part of Heavenly Father’s plan. But let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion, and outreach to those. And let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender. I feel very strongly about this, as you can tell. I think it’s a very important principle.” —Elder Quentin L. Cook https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/leaders?lang=eng

Tolerance is for the weak. As long as the political left formed a minority, they were all for tolerance. Now that (they believe) they have a majority of the population behind them, tolerance is no longer seen as a virtue. Inclusion is the watchword, and those who fail to conform merit whatever social or even legal consequences that can be applied to them to leverage them into compliance.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/06/17/supreme-court-same-sex-couples-foster-care-catholic-church-494999?fbclid=IwAR27O4a90zwe_5KiYyU0JiKft3Pel-Y_KCUuCE8E5_aTykBD3DKCIJCdvuo It seems to be a win for religious freedom.

President Ezra Taft Benson from a talk from 1971 entitled, Satan's Thrust - Youth

It makes for a tricky situation to be sure. Partly because we identify certain eternal truths with certain societal norms that it's tough to pull them apart. A couple years ago we had a young woman transition (no pun intended) from primary to young women's but who always wanted to be doing what the young men were doing during mutual. I think largely because she was surrounded by boys at home and that was the kind of activity she grew up with. But the young women leaders would come and gather her up to participate with the young women. I think in time she came to appreciate the young women's activities but I remember thinking at the time that it must be hard to want to do what the boys are doing but told she can't because she was a girl. The gospel of Jesus Christ does not say girls have to prefer sewing over dodgeball. There have always been more feminine boys and more masculine girls and there is nothing wrong with that. Part of it is I think nurture and part I think is nature (temporally speaking) and I think there ought to be accomodations for that. But it can never be allowed to overshadow the eternal truth of who we are. Gender is not fluid, but eternal, and for those wishing to participate there must be the recognition that while they deserve to be treated with love and kindness like everyone else the tenets of our faith will not be compromised. I think this is where the new youth programs are truly inspired. Instead of youth being told what they ought to pursue (whether with scouts or young women awards) youth now choose their own goals that allow them to pursue their own interests but still within the framework of the gospel. There will still be difficult situations to address but I think the Lord has provided His church a much better structure to deal with them.

and the one @Suzie portrayed. @Anddenex I just wanted to clarify that the information related to inclusion isn't Suzie's personal opinion but it came straight from the official Church web site. The following (and more) is found there: 1. The Church does not take any position on the cause of same-sex attraction. 2. Feelings of same sex-attractions are not sinful and some people may not choose to have these feelings (Elder Ballard). 3. Acting on these feelings is sinful. 4. " The parent of a child who experiences same-sex attraction or identifies as gay should choose to love and embrace that child. As a community of Church members, we should choose to create a welcoming community." (Elder Ballard, from the same web site) " And we want people to feel that they have a home here. That we have much, much more in common than anything that’s different about us." (Elder D. Todd Christofferson) “I think that the lesson that I learned from that is that as a church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate. No family who has anybody who has a same-gender issue should exclude them from the family circle. They need to be part of the family circle.” —(Elder Quentin L. Cook ) Are there restrictions on Church participation for members who identify as gay or experience same-sex attraction? “Someone who is adhering to the norm of chastity, someone who is following the covenants, and the standards, teachings of the gospel of Christ, though they may be dealing with same-sex attraction, really there is no reason they cannot be fully participative, that they can’t be a full-fledged member of the Church, and hold callings, and speak, and enter the temple, and serve there, and all the other opportunities and blessings that can come from Church membership will be available to them. “There are examples of this among Church members. There are multiple examples. And though no one would say it is always easy, all of us are endeavoring to maintain those norms and keep our covenants. And we’re all in the same boat, in the same company in that regard. So, I say there are many, relatively speaking, who are finding that success in their lives, and that happiness.” —Elder D. Todd Christofferson https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/topics/gay/leaders?lang=eng

When I hear the word tolerance I am reminded of this talk from Elder Packer, "These Things I know," and the following quote from it, "Tolerance is a virtue, but like all virtues, when exaggerated, it transforms itself into a vice. We need to be careful of the “tolerance trap” so that we are not swallowed up in it. The permissiveness afforded by the weakening of the laws of the land to tolerate legalized acts of immorality does not reduce the serious spiritual consequence that is the result of the violation of God’s law of chastity." Yes, I agree that we are no longer hearing about tolerance, but inclusion -- unless you're religious and you adhere to the doctrinal truths (as God sees it). There appears to be two types of "inclusion" in our world. The one @Vort portrayed, and the one @Suzie portrayed. God, and His Son Jesus Christ, are the most inclusive beings in this world, and yet as the most inclusive beings in this world there is an Outer Darkness, Telestial Kingdom, Terrestrial Kingdom, and Celestial Kingdom (which kingdom has three separate levels itself). There are laws which can't be broken, or as Elder Packer suggested, "serious spiritual consequences," and being inclusive doesn't change the laws given by God. So, to be frank/honest, I'm not sure the boundary of inclusion. I have read that Zion will be a place for the righteous and the wicked will flee from it. Is that the same inclusiveness spoken by Elder Cook? Note the scripture shared and highlight the point given, "come unto me." When people come unto Christ -- they repent, which means they repent of anything that is contrary to the will of God. We are so inclusive now that women (as ONLY women bear children) are now deemed as "birthing people." In order to be inclusive, should I now refer to my wife as simply a birthing person, so that women who want to be men (as it is a choice) can feel included? So now, my children should call -- mom and dad -- birthers. Talk about a confused world we live in. EDIT: This is what bothers me about the canceling of priesthood general conference. Was this accomplished in order to try to be more inclusive to a ever 'whining' crowd, or was this something truly done because God inspired it. Remember, not everything a prophet and apostle will do is because it is the right thing. Sometimes God takes away something because of sin, or because of some other matter. God doesn't want to lose the wheat among the tares, so to speak, and thus a decision is made.

I have been thinking about this thread. I agree that we should be open and kind towards all that come to church to worship G-d. @Suziehas provided some very good links about being kind to the LGBTQ+ community. But I must admit that beyond being kind - I have no idea what to do with LGBTQ+ individuals within the church community???? Especially involving youth????? If a biological male (or female) wishes to be identified as the other gender - If they are youth, how should the other youth respond. Do we encourage attendance according to their biological or preferred gender for priesthood or young women? How are we to be inclusive for summer camps or sleep overs? If they are an adult - do they attend Relief Society or Priesthood? Do they go to where they feel most comfortable? Regardless of anyone else's comfort level? I am not sure I understand what it means to be inclusive with someone that identifies as LGBTQ+ The Traveler

It's the keyhole fallacy. That's where you latch onto one argument or statement in isolation. You might not have heard of it because I just coined it.

There is a problem with youth involved with LGBTQ+ -- There are few parents that encourage their children to befriend other children with gender confusion on the same level as other relationships. For example, sleep overs and unsupervised activities are off the table. I recall raising my kids and confronting situations with friends with standards contrary to principles and values we were trying to teach our children. The list was quite long - from word of wisdom to shoplifting to pornography and cutting classes at school. In short, I tend to withdraw from those intent on criticizing or altering my personal standards. But I (and my wife) also have friends that are gay that do not try to convince us of anything other than friendship. The Traveler

The most inclusive place humankind has ever conceived of, is Hell. (Then again, I suppose it’s pretty tolerant, too . . .)

There has been talk that the recent spate of 9-0 decisions is at least partly a response to court-packing plans; SCOTUS’s way of saying “no, we actually aren’t all that politically divided”. This decision seems to be in harmony with that theory; it apparently (per Politico’s coverage) dodges the substantive issue and doesn’t really accomplish a whole lot.

More plagiarism here than in The New Republic. 😉