Suzie

@Just_A_Guy My heart aches for this woman and I wonder what happened to her...to end up like this .... plus the serious challenges of caring for a severely disabled son. In my case, it is hard to explain how it feels. Part of me didn't understand it because I was too young to process it all but continued for many years until I was already an adult. But when a lie is repeated enough times... In my case, nobody would have guessed this is what we endured. My sister and I were top students, never gave any trouble whatsoever, we went private schools, etc and yet I feel as though we did all of this because we didn't want to feel guilty or be blamed. There were unrealistic expectations placed upon our shoulders and it felt as though we needed to be the BEST to be accepted. About the RS meeting at BYU... I think it is an issue of perspective? I think some members think the RS Presidency was "highlighting" her like if she was some sort of role model. I saw it from the perspective of "There are LGBTQ members of the Church in good standing, be nice and welcoming". But like you said using Elder Oaks words “more teaching to do on that matter” . Thanks for your input, I always enjoy reading your posts (even when we disagree). You're one of my favorite posters but don't let that get into your head now. 🙄

1. Certainly not. But of course, the devil is in the details of what “sensitivity, kindness, compassion, and an abundance of Christlike love” actually means in practice; especially given the LGBTQ lobby’s history of interpreting that phrase as meaning “you must never, ever tell us ‘no’”. We are talking about a Church request here. For me, it means to ensure we don't have a condescending attitude towards others, but show compassion and understanding about the challenges our brothers and sisters go through in life. WE are the Church and it is our responsibility (and should be natural to us) to "mourn with those who mourn and comfort those that stand in need of comfort". We don't get to pick and choose who we think are worth of love and support (just because they sin different than us) . Sometimes we choose to love grudgingly because we believe others have an agenda. Even though many times this is indeed the case, we are commanded to show love and kindness to all and let the Lord handle the rest. Now, don't take me wrong I don't think (generally speaking) it is an easy thing to do but at the same time, I also know we don't get to play God and change the commandment just because we don't think a group of people deserve it. I can’t speak as to what specifically has happened in the incident @NeedleinA refers to; but (taking the account at face value) it does seem odd: we don’t have, as far as I know, active and impenitent prostitutes or tax cheats or drug users being invited up to Salt Lake to advise the Church on how it can modify its rhetoric/practice to help these sorts of people feel more comfortable in church. I understand and I agree. I would like to know more about this case to know the full context. 2. I would say that any deep-seated desire to depart from community standards creates stress and therefore “is a very serious condition that can lead to isolation, depression and suicide.” Am I obliged to give @Vort the nonsensical title of “breaker of chains and mother of dragons” just his mental illness renders him vulnerable to suicide? You are not obliged to do anything you don't want to. The Church crafted those statements very carefully: " If a member decides to change his or her preferred name or pronouns of address, the name preference may be noted in the preferred name field on the membership record. The person may be addressed by the preferred name in the ward." 3. And in what other set of circumstances do mental health professionals even accept the proposition that Person A’s suicide is really the fault of person B? If I committed suicide tomorrow and left a note saying, “That @Suzie’s posts to ThirdHour rocked my world, and I don’t know what’s true anymore, and food has no taste and life has no meaning so I may as well end it all”—you wouldn’t (or shouldn’t) take that seriously; you’d dismiss it as the rantings of an unhinged madman. And you’d be right. I didn't know whether or not I wanted to reply to this part of your post because I didn't want to share something so personal but I would like to share it because maybe it can help someone. I know exactly what is like to be the recipient of such letter, not from a member but from a very close family member who committed suicide in 2002. The letter was also addressed to my sister. As I type this, I must confess I am a bit emotional because it took me long years to overcome the deep feeling of guilt. And you know what's the saddest part? My sister and I didn't do anything. My relative was someone with a mental illness so he blamed everyone and everything for his unhappiness... but when we were children, we didn't know he had a mental illness. WE truly thought WE were the ones to blame for everything that went wrong with his life. I know what is like to be a scared little girl and hear about constant threats of suicide told to ME. @Just_A_Guy from the outside, anyone can dismiss that letter and without much analysis, say that my relative was a sick person. But when you are in the situation and you happen to be the recipient (it is a completely different story). I'm grateful for therapy, for the Gospel and for a tender, loving and caring husband who helped me through it all. Even though it might sound as though I feel this way about this issue due to my experience, it is not. I just want everyone who comes to the Church to feel loved and cared for! Many people don't know what is like to be loved and many others never had "parents kind and dear". Many people go through unseen and difficult personal battles and all they need is a friendly, loving hand. WE should be the persons extending that loving hand. Personally, I consider many of our youth within the LGBTQ community at risk but regardless of this, we should treat everyone we meet with sensitivity, compassion and love and let the Lord (and his leaders) handle the rest. Even if we do ascribe third-party liability for the suicide of people in general, and LGBTQ folk in particular—what about the accountability of the “allies” who have legitimized suicide as an option for sexually-frustrated LGBTQ folk by continually nattering on about suicide while insisting that institutions like the Church that insist on traditional notions of chastity are somehow stunting these people’s chances for happiness and reducing them to a sort of second-class half-life as long as they can’t experience the glories of sexual fulfillment? Isn’t there literature suggesting that the more suicide is normalized and discussed, the more likely it becomes? Maybe it is surprising to some but I don't consider myself an LGBTQ ally. Suicide is never an "option". Oh, undoubtedly the Church is getting pressure; and one of the joys (!) of being in a church with living prophets is that we really can’t quite ever say “never”; whether we’re talking about hypothetical developments like modifications to the law of chastity, or gay sealings, or the restoration of polygamy, or announcing that there actually is no Heavenly mother, or decreeing that only Asians with Klinefelter Syndrome can be called to the Q12, or teaching that Adam and Eve were actually purple Oompa Loompas who lived in Antarctica. The issue, of course, comes when advocates say “go ahead and perpetrate this excommunicable offense now, and just trust that the prophets will catch up with you eventually.” I have been observing this topic closely over the years, and I must say I have been struggling with it a bit... because changing the stand on an issue such as this could mean many things for the Church and I'm not sure if I am prepared to have that discussion yet...

People who won’t admit that they are sick but insist on going to the hospital anyways (and ordering us patients around while demanding we recognize them as the true experts in healing), are always going to feel uncomfortable in this Church; and if that tension leads to accusations of ecclesiastical apartheid—I guess we’ll just have to live with that. I understand @Just_A_Guy and I always appreciate your take on things but my point here is: Do we stop showing sensitivity, kindness, compassion, and an abundance of Christlike love because they are sinning different than us? Do we stop showing sensitivity, kindness, compassion, and an abundance of Christlike love to the cheater, the dishonest, the addict, etc? Because that's all the Church is asking: Showing some compassion and Christlike love. About a member deciding to change his or her preferred name or pronoun of address (and the Church basically saying it's okay), I think we need to see it from a mental health perspective. Gender dysphoria is a very serious condition that can lead to isolation, depression and suicide. Pronouns are a form of self-identification that can help certain individuals battling this condition in every day life. Having said all of this, I do understand how members in general feel about this issue and there are many discussions about this topic online: Is the Church being pressured to soften their stand on LGBT related issues? Are they slowly changing their stand? Where is all of this heading?

Guess I'm a little butt hurt from above mentioned SSA sister dumping her husband, helping to destroy my female cousin's marriage and then run off with her instead. I hate to picture the Church in it's eager beaver desire to love all, being led around by the nose by such a person. Do you feel the same way about heterosexual persons doing the same thing? Many years ago, a former Bishop of my ward cheated on his wife (non-member) of 25 + years (2 kids) and left her for a sister in the Church. I don't know what exactly took place with regards to Church discipline (and it is definitely none of my business) but since then, both of them had leadership callings, etc and I'm truly happy for them because they are good people. The Church is indeed a hospital for all of us sinners. And I am grateful that our Church leadership is asking us to treat each and every person who comes to our Church with the love and compassion they deserve, as children of God. There is no place for any kind of apartheid in the Church of Christ.

There aren't many things I find difficult to just plain consider, but this is one of them. NeuroTypical, do you mind expanding why would you find it difficult? You mentioned earlier " If brother Fred decides he is now a she, and wishes to be called Laverne, then our marching orders are to accept her with as much sensitivity, kindness, compassion, and an abundance of Christlike love..." Marching orders? It sounds as though you would find this to be a "difficult task" to accomplish?

@Backroads based on the title of your post, you stated already that you don't want to go. So is it because you resent your aunt, or because you really want to go to this vacation and you keep telling to yourself it is okay because she wasn't "nice"? (sorry if I sound like I'm psychoanalyzing)

The likelihood of this woman being stoned was approximately zero. Precisely, and this is why you can tell from the start that it was a set up. They weren't planning to stone the woman because they knew they didn't have legal grounds to do so. (Where is the man? Where are the witnesses? Who "found" her?). Jesus was very much aware of it and this is why he "stooped down and wrote on the ground". There are variant manuscripts that insert the phrase “the sins of each one of them” at the end of verse 6 When someone was accused of committing a serious offense/sin, didn't the priest have to write their names and the charges against them? (often times, the temple floor was used for this purpose because it couldn't be permanent) so just maybe Jesus wrote both their sins and their names? In Jeremiah 17:13 (which was read also during the first seven days of the Feast of the Tabernacles) it says: " O Lord, the hope of Israel, all that aforsake thee shall be ashamed, and they that depart from me shall be written in the earth, because they have forsaken the Lord, the fountain of living waters." It is interesting because just before this story, in John 7 Jesus refers to himself in a similar fashion (verses 14-15 of Jeremiah are also very interesting).

This story in John was added many centuries later and it is one of my favorite passages in the Bible. I believe one of the main reasons she stayed was because Jesus was the only one who showed her compassion and who talked with her as a human being. He looked at her and talked to her with kindness. We don't know her name, she is treated like an object to be displayed and judged by those who believe are morally superior. She is probably terrified...hanging in there waiting to see what these men will decide to do with her. We don't know the circumstances that led her to be in that kind of situation (where was the man?) and yet we all know her just for the sinful act she committed. But her sinful act is not who she was but what she did. Can you imagine what must feel like to be referred to as "The porn user" "The cheater" "The thief", etc?. And this is what touches me about Christ because even though he is aware of the sins we commit, he looks at our hearts and see what we can become: Go and sin no more.

JAG, beautiful pieces. Amy Turk transcribed the toccata and fugue (the whole thing) for the harp, and put the video on YouTube. You wouldn’t think a harpist could pull off a piece like that . . . but she does. Pure talent, hard to believe she can pull this off playing a harp!!

I have been told that this is because it was a popular piece of music for early 20th-century horror movies. Vort, I think it was used in the 1920's adaptation of "The Phantom of the Opera" and a few other films. I don't know why, but I get a huge kick out of remixed classical pieces with heavy techno or bass tracks added. Generally speaking, I don't like remixed classical pieces but the ones you shared are quite good!

I thought in starting this thread to share our favorite classical symphonies or pieces. How many of you are moved to tears when listening to Bach?! Please share yours!

When Christ says “my yoke is easy” I’m interpreting this to mean Him saying that living the gospel is easy, or keeping the commandments I have given you is easy. It must be true because Jesus said it, but at the moment, I don’t understand how it is true. I see a major disconnect between what Christ said – “my yoke is easy” and the lived experience of many, many people and I’m not sure how to reconcile this lived experience with what Christ said. Jesus isn't saying that keeping the commandments or living the Gospel is easy. On the contrary, because he IS cognizant of the fact that we're weak individuals and living the Gospel isn't always a walk in the park...he shows us exceedingly love and compassion by offering to take away our burdens! SIN WEIGHS US DOWN. We also know that the Law of Moses prohibited yoking an ox and donkey together because they weren't the same kind. And here we have Jesus's invitation!...even though we could never compare ourselves to him... He sees our hearts and invites us to take HIS yoke upon us to show us how he truly sees us: Family! And if THAT is not a perfect example of how we ought too see everyone we meet I don't know what else will.

In my line of work, I talk with quite a few girls like the one you described. Many teenagers don't know or understand but a lot of other teens use school as a place of "refuge", they hope someone would talk to them, make them feel important and loved since their situations at home are complicated or downright abusive. Unfortunately, many find "love" in all the wrong places. This is not to make you feel bad at all @Carborendum, your heart is in the right place . I say this to bring more awareness to this issue.

For me, it doesn't matter her race... she is a racist - period and she seems proud of it too and empowered!

I would like to know if any prescribed medications are contributing or connected to the problem.  Not just while a person is on certain medications but if they go off certain medications when performing acts of assault. Every case is unique but I have been talking about antipyschotics for a long time now because in the long run (depending on the patient's medical history) they can do more harm than good. Risperidone for example, is considered a "safe" drug because it is seen as an atypical antipsychotic to treat bipolar disorder, schizophrenia and aggression in autism between other conditions but it can have serious side effects in certain individuals (particularly children) and make them even more aggressive.

1. I hope our heterosexual members of the Church are enjoying happy, fulfilling lives by seeking to be disciples of Christ and earnestly striving to follow all His commandments, not excluding (and of course, not limited to) the Law of Chastity.  2. No one denies the fact that ALL of us struggle with weaknesses but JAG, individuals in a few of these groups made a choice. (no judging, but making a distinction). How come gay members of the Church are in the same group when they didn't choose who to feel attracted to but instead always felt that way? How is this group seeking validation? 3. Perhaps because they were brainwashed to believe there was something wrong with them and they were given electroconvulsive therapy, conversion therapy or implanting electrodes into the pleasure center of their brain? Or because they were too scared to say "I am gay" and they lived "in the closet" until they died? Why should they have an inclination to "change"? To change what exactly?

JAG, before I make any assumptions... what do you mean exactly by "you hope what I say is true"? I can only speak from my experience. A lot of these members grew up in the Church and they cannot conceive a life without the Gospel. As you know, many are returned missionaries and many are serving missions currently. They accept who they are, they don’t see it as an identify flaw and this is one of the reasons why we hear from missionaries in the field and people like Liv describing themselves as gay. Of course, the journey is unique to each individual particularly when they are young teenagers. Teenagers struggle in understanding why this is happening, it is a very lonely road filled with anxiety and fears because they do not want to lose their parent’s love. JAG, we can argue/debate the psychology behind celibacy and whether or not it is possible or impossible to find fulfillment in a lifelong commitment to it but this isn’t the purpose of my post. My purpose is to show that we find criticism EVEN in the scenario of a gay member living the Gospel and being in good standing with the Lord (holding a Temple recommend). Some members will always seem them as pariahs. We can do better. Note: My apologies, I cannot use the quotation feature for some reason and I have no idea why the font is like this.

Not every gay person (adults) in the Church is “struggling” with same sex attraction. They are aware of their feelings and they ACCEPT IT and continue LIVING. It is not a constant battle for many and they don’t want to be seen as addicts “recovering” or “struggling”. In my line of work, I see young men and young women struggling to feel they’re not broken, and seeking (desperately in some instances) the tender love of a mother and father. They long for support from parents and family. Sometimes they do have understanding parents who are cognizant of the difference between loving their child and supporting a lifestyle they don’t believe in. Many parents believe that showing any kind of care or concern for their child is automatically a way to support homosexuality. They use these weapons to manipulate their vulnerable son/daughter. When it doesn’t work out, a few of these parents clearly state that their child is now dead. I see adults as well and many in our Church. The experience is a bit different, they are more grounded and they know where they’re standing. Most of them do want to remain in the Church and they are very much aware that they might not be able to find an eternal companion - but just like Liv, they work every day to be better disciples of Christ. They have callings, they help those in need, they go to the Temple, and they are supported by their leaders. They are in good standing with the Lord and yet… time after time a few people within the Church shows them it is NOT good enough and never will be even if the Almighty God says they can enter His house.

“The commandment of the Lord that the saints should make themselves ‘friends with the mammon of unrighteousness,’ seems to be a hard saying when not properly understood. It is not intended that in making friends of the ‘mammon of unrighteousness’ that the brethren were to partake with them in their sins; to receive them to their bosoms, intermarry with them and . . . come down to their level. They were to so live that peace with their enemies might be assured. They were to treat them kindly, be friendly with them as far as correct and virtuous principles would permit, but never to swear with them or drink and carouse with them. If they could allay prejudice and show a willingness to trade with and show a kindly spirit, it might help to turn them away from their bitterness. Judgment was to be left with the Lord.” (Smith, Church History and Modern Revelation, 1:323.)

What sin are your referring to? Maybe I missed that part of the speech? All I saw was someone who introduced herself as a YW President, a daughter, a sister, a returned missionary, a person who loves to go to the Temple and a queer. "And above all of this, a daughter of heavenly parents who strives every day to be a disciple of Christ".

Thanks for all this extra-information and no, I didn't have the impression that his first mission was easy and the second one was hard. I was just trying to understand why he is having such a hard time in the second area...to the point that would cause him to lose confidence that he can actually finish his mission. There is way more to this and I hope he can resolve it. Sending my love and prayers.

I don't know of any missionary who decided to return home because his mission was reassigned. If he returns home early, I'm very confident this isn't the reason. There are underlined issues here in my opinion. Do you mind sharing a little more about this? Is it that he thinks something is wrong with him because they didn't send him back to his original mission? But he served close to a full year in the "temporary assignment", correct? How long did he serve in his original mission?

Hi Comp, I'm sorry you're going through difficult times. I hope you're feeling better. Are you keeping in touch with your son regularly? The reason I ask is because I find it strange that you don't know the name of his Mission President? You said: "Anyway, he wants to come home now. I don't want him living in my house, and I'm not absolving him of his own part in it". Maybe I missed some of your posts. Absolving him of what exactly? You mentioned that he didn't return to his original mission and that you don't know why. I got the impression that you found this to be "unfair" since the rest of the group returned to their original missions but your son didn't. I can understand the disappointment. Having said that, as an outsider I'm seeing this differently. I have the impression that Church leaders took this decision to protect your son, particularly because he went through counseling and is taking medication. We don't know the extent of his depression or the things he shared with his therapist. You mentioned that he said very little about it which means he is not ready to talk and perhaps when he is ready, he will. If your son comes home, welcome him with open and loving arms. He will need all the love and support he can get. Depression is a highly complex and heterogeneous syndrome. It cannot be ignored so my advise to you right now is to focus on your son's mental/emotional health rather than WHERE he will be serving which is frankly, inconsequential. Because if he is not well enough to serve, will it matter the "where" at the end?

In my line of work, I talk to many stepmoms with similar situations and I always ask the same question: What would be the purpose of talking to the Bishop about it? It is a very valid and important question you need to ask yourself. If the issue is the fact that she is behind child support payments, then as it was suggested here, there are legal channels to address this. But when you bring up the Bishop, then something tells me that this isn't really about the fact that she isn't paying child support but the fact that she has a Temple recommend and you perceive that fact as "unfair" or "wrong" or like you stated "the only thing that may register to her that what she is doing is wrong." Granted, everyone is entitled to their opinion but not everyone should be entitled to act upon that opinion. First, because this person is not your ex. But your husband's ex wife, the mother of his child. Therefore, it is up to your husband to decide what he would like to do (if he chooses to do anything about it) and I'm quite sure that as a responsible parent, he would choose to take the legal route so he can have the funds to continue supporting his child. But this is something between him and his ex-wife. Of course, with your support as a stepmom. I understand it might be very upsetting seeing someone "getting away" with something we consider "wrong" but there are other legal channels to address it ( IF the issue is really child support payments) but if the purpose of calling the Bishop is to expose her, to shame her, to "correct" her this is not the way to go about it and frankly (and I say this without any disrespect or animosity) none of your business.

By "the family" you mean her family, right? I believe that once you're married, your spouse and children are your family. The rest are relatives. If she means your family too then....R-U-N. lol At the end of the day, it is a decision between you and your husband. No one else. Don't feel pressured, generally relatives want you to do things to satisfy whatever needs they have with little consideration about how YOU feel. Do what is best for your and your family.