askandanswer

Thank you. Your response was incredibly insightful. You, my friend, just showed all of us what 'true' Christlike empathy and understanding is all about.
 

Not sure we are on opposite sides, NT. I agree with everything you wrote, with the caveat that I disagree that, in order to try to show people that we don't hate gays, we need to minimize the appearance that we reject homosexual conduct.
And to reemphasize, I agree that we should be loving toward those who are sexually attracted to small children and animals. Good luck getting the Woke Saints to agree.

I thought about this quite a bit yesterday.  Whenever Vort and I are on the different sides of something, it's quite a tragedy, because, well, one of us is not on the right side.  Some random thoughts I had:
- I go out of my way to know/interact with/maintain friendships with people from the other side of a lot of different fences.  God says Love thy enemy and love thy neighbor.  Sun Tzu says know thy enemy.  Gift shops in the desert sell bumper stickers that say "Before you judge somebody, walk a mile in their shoes" (and so does Elder Oaks).  Corporate leadership seminars say "seek first to understand, then to be understood".   From where I'm standing, all these points of data make a beautiful line.
- When it comes to the effectiveness of our attempts to share the gospel, people's existing opinions about us have an impact.  And I cannot understate how much animosity, mistrust, and incorrect beliefs people have about the church, its teachings, and its members.  I personally know two families who were so ticked off at our announcement to not baptize children in same-sex households, they all submitted their resignations within an hour of hearing the news.  An inactive daughter of a gay dad called him up in tears, thinking she had just been kicked out of a church she only had negative thoughts about.  I've probably heard from 20-30 gay folk who either assume, or spend hours arguing the notion, that you simply can't be LDS and have same sex attraction issues.  I rarely go a day without seeing some random social media comment about how mormons hate gays, force their children into harmful electronic shock treatments to make them straight, kick out and disown their children who come out of the closet, give endless millions of tithing money to lobby to remove LGBT rights, etc.   In many places, the going notion is that mormons and gays don't mix, and it's harmful to try.
- Generational shifting showed up one day while we weren't paying attention.  The old apologetic wars about our history and doctrine were all won, like 20 years ago.  The new apologetic wars are all about perception.  Every year that goes by, we find greater differences in thinking between those born before the turn of the century, and those born after.  People 30 and younger think about us, not in terms of Joe Smith and his gold bible, but in terms of what kind of people we are, how we treat our neighbors, whether we're woke enough or not.  (In context, advocates of wokeness think they value diversity and love and inclusion.)    
- LDS are all about love, diversity, and inclusion.  The gospel pavilion is wide and covers all.  The Lord "inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God".  Most of us detest the term, but we were woke before woke was cool.  But how can you expect a random person to accept that invitation, when it comes from someone who [insert all that false crap people believe about us and gays].
- Main point - That sister's appearance isn't about redefining the gospel.  It isn't a message for the 99, it's a message for all the ones out there.  It's about correcting the misconceptions and falsehoods about how we hate gays, and kick them out, and try to pray the gay away, and electroshock straightness into them.   This particular targeted message isn't emphasizing the need for repentance.  With this particular targeted message, we're emphasizing that no really, the church and it's members don't preach against you because of your leanings/tendencies/urges/thoughs/orientations.  It's not the full message - just a portion.  For a specific purpose.   You can be attracted to anything (yes, Vort, even dogs and children), and there is a place for you in the Lord's kingdom, if you are willing to do your part.  You can be valued and treated like anyone else.
You've been misinformed - it isn't like this:

 

This is a suggestion for a new feature to be added to Third Hour. The suggestion is that a space be created where people can upload their lesson notes, or maybe even talks, and people can then view and download that material. The notes could be sorted by topic and when a forum member has a talk or lesson to prepare, the material that has been uploaded could be a resource that they could use to assist them in their preparation. How much interest is there in this idea, does something similar already exist, and if this did become a new feature on Third Hour, how likely is it that you would use it?

To me, the speech sounds doctrinally correct, I didn't hear any errors in it. I don't think the gender or sexual orientation of the person giving the speech is relevant as it neither adds to or detracts from the message. 

This is a suggestion for a new feature to be added to Third Hour. The suggestion is that a space be created where people can upload their lesson notes, or maybe even talks, and people can then view and download that material. The notes could be sorted by topic and when a forum member has a talk or lesson to prepare, the material that has been uploaded could be a resource that they could use to assist them in their preparation. How much interest is there in this idea, does something similar already exist, and if this did become a new feature on Third Hour, how likely is it that you would use it?

This is a suggestion for a new feature to be added to Third Hour. The suggestion is that a space be created where people can upload their lesson notes, or maybe even talks, and people can then view and download that material. The notes could be sorted by topic and when a forum member has a talk or lesson to prepare, the material that has been uploaded could be a resource that they could use to assist them in their preparation. How much interest is there in this idea, does something similar already exist, and if this did become a new feature on Third Hour, how likely is it that you would use it?

It's sad that so many of the rising generation equate acceptance and tolerance for love. That when a parent tells their child they are doing something wrong, that they do not really love them.
I have a family member who smokes...a lot. If I truly love him, should I allow him to smoke in my home as much as he wants, whenever he wants, around anyone that may also be in the home. Of course not...and he does not expect me or anyone else to. The same scenario applies to homosexuals. But they just can't seem to get over the idea that we can not tolerate their behavior, and yet still love them at the same time. The adversary is cunning and disguises many of his worst works as love.

My niece was recently baptized...  For the filler time between the baptism and the rest of the service they handed out a postcard size paper and a pen.  And asked everyone to write a note to my niece.
I had never had that happen before but I though it was pretty cool.
After the service was over we were invited back to their house for lunch...

Also, in a church where our leaders speak often about putting away electronic devices on Sunday, especially during the sacrament, I am tickled pink to be the the special one in the pews concentrating on his laptop, listening to his phone through one earpiece.  My inner teenager rejoices that the rules don't apply to me!  (I know this isn't what "be as little children" means, but could it mean it maybe just a little?)

That's tomorrow's announcement, along with declaring Glock the official pistol of the church.

Parliament read the story of Amalickiah in the Book of Mormon and decided it wasn’t a good idea to just let any schmuck who married a queen, become the king.  

I think that improving our understanding of theology is one of the most neglected methods of improving our understanding of science. Surely the best way of improving our knowledge of anything is by studying the source of all knowledge? God already knows what we are still trying to find out. I believe that a systematic study of theology can lead to a better understanding of science, and that a systematic study of science can lead to a better understanding of theology and that this focussed study could produce some very early results. I think that at present, science and theology are studied as two seperate things, to the detriment of both. I'm not sure why people don't use their knowledge of one as a means of building their knowledge of the other. The tools required for building both sorts of knowledge  are the same. As President Nelson said, quoting Elder Maxwell, 
Oh, there is so much more that your Father in Heaven wants you to know. As Elder Neal A. Maxwell taught, “To those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, it is clear that the Father and the Son are giving away the secrets of the universe!”13

Inasmuch as prayer is believed to be, or result in, some sort of communication, or transfer of information between God and man, possibly mediated through the Spirit, and that this communication seems to happen at a speed uninfluenced by distance, the idea of quantum entanglement is the only possibility I have been able to come up with so far that might shed some light on how the Spirit communicates with us.
On a related matter, can the influence and operations of the Holy Ghost be understood as some sort of field? (I have only a very vague idea of how the term “field” is used in physics and what it means, even though I have read several definitions)

I've always thought that it was a little uncharitable of Nephi and Moroni to describe as nothing, those who lack charity. I question the accuracy of describing as nothing a person who may have many valuable spiritual gifts, but who might be lacking in charity. I much prefer the way the Lord himself worded the idea in Doctrine and Covenants 
19  And if you have not faith, hope, and charity, you can do nothing.
(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 18:19)
Not you are nothing, but you can do nothing.
How is it not uncharitable to describe as nothing one who lacks charity? We are all something, we are  God's greatest creation, whether or not we have charity.

The story of the monkeys and the bananas
 
https://sixsigmadsi.com/10-hungry-monkeys-a-story-of-cultural-training/#:~:text=High up at the top,begins to climb the ladder.

A King in California in a land where the Book of Mormon says that no King will ever reign? America must be changing more than I realized. 

A King in California in a land where the Book of Mormon says that no King will ever reign? America must be changing more than I realized. 

A King in California in a land where the Book of Mormon says that no King will ever reign? America must be changing more than I realized. 

Here is the Desert News link instead with about the same information:
https://www.deseret.com/faith/2021/3/12/22326401/elder-dieter-uchtdorf-clarifies-family-campaign-donations-during-elections

This and rest of the post echo my thoughts as well.
How / to what extent any emotion is portrayed is very much influenced by culture.  Think Middle Eastern funerals and professional wailers, versus cultures where it's expected that the family "show a dignified face" at the funeral: both families are feeling the same degree of loss for their loved one, they're just displaying it in public differently.  You see the same thing with the ways people display affection for somebody they're interested in marrying.  Interverts and extraverts.
Likewise, with our love of the Lord.  Some cultures do this very loudly and dramatically (like some Pentecostals) and some are way more reserved than even us LDS (like Quakers).  I'd say all love the Lord, it's just a difference is display.  

I didn't watch or listen to the interview, but I have read fragments of the extensive media commentary and reaction. The thing that surprised me was the statement issued by the Palace in which the Queen "The whole family is saddened to learn the full extent of how challenging the last few years have been for Harry and Meghan." It took a tv interview in a foreign country for the Queen to learn about that? That suggests, at the least, some significant internal communication problems. 

Recent comments in other threads as well as a new thread started by @Carborendum have led me to ponder on how God responds to people's hard-heartedness and inability (or refusal) to hear his teachings. It reminded me of an Ask Gramps question and answer from last year, which I've cut-and-pasted below. What do you think?
**********************************************************************************************
Question
Gramps,
With the United States going through cultural change such as women’s rights, abortion, and LBTGQ issues, are we Mormons resistant to change in the public’s eye? It just always seems like we’re one step behind in these issues.
Daniel
Answer
Daniel,
Before I answer your question, let me preface my remarks what should be a needless disclaimer:
I speak for myself.
This is true, even when I speak forcefully. Ask Gramps is not an official representative of the Restored Church, its doctrines, or its policies, no matter how much some readers may look to it as such. That doesn’t mean that what I write is wrong; obviously, I believe I’m right, or I wouldn’t say what I do. But whatever I say, please measure it by the yardstick of the scriptures and the teachings of the prophets and apostles. I will not hold back (much) in giving my views on this question. It is your duty to consider my words in light of prophetic teachings, and seek the Spirit to guide you in the paths of truth.
With age and experience comes some measure of wisdom, along with years of perspective by which we consider matters that come before us. As a grandpa with his fair share of experience, let me share my perspective with you.
Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin famously said (or didn’t, depending on whose history you believe),
I see this phenomenon throughout politics, and I often wonder about how often it must affect us on a more personal level. How many parents have watched their own children leave the gospel path that they, the parents, have spent their lives trying to teach and live by? How many such parents have compromised on the principles of their household—regarding Church attendance, perhaps, or drug usage, or maybe even sexual activity—in the hope of not losing their wayward children forever? Too often, such well-intentioned compromises are disastrous. But in some few cases, some wise compromises may be helpful, even necessary, to lead and reclaim the erring sheep.
This is dangerously thin ice upon which we tread. If ever a parent needs the guidance of the Spirit in making such decisions, this would be such a case.
Is it possible that this same phenomenon, this same stark choice, might affect even the very kingdom of God? Many of us would like to believe that God’s kingdom never compromises on any principle, ever. But consider a bishop leading his ward. What if the congregation members refuse to follow his lead? What does the bishop do? Stick to his guns and let the consequences follow, or try to find some way of getting out in front of his flock and helping them? If the individuals in the ward simply will not follow the bishop’s exhortations to minister to one another, should the bishop leave them to their despair? Or does he instead change his approach, modify his expectations, and try to lead them by the hand?
What does the Lord do for us?
In most cases, the Lord has given us commandments and expects us either to follow them or to accept the consequences of disobedience. In some cases, it seems to me that the Lord takes mercy on us in our fallen foolishness. God literally cannot bless us in disobedience, but in some cases, he may modify certain expectations to allow us to eventually succeed despite our weakness.
This may even come about due to circumstances beyond our own disobedience. The commandment for plural marriage was removed about 60 years after it was first given, not because it had served its purpose, nor even (as I have so fondly supposed) because the people were incapable of living it correctly. According to the testimony of the prophet, the commandment for plural marriage was rescinded plainly and simply because the Church was going to be wiped out and effectively abolished from the earth if plural marriage continued. For some reason, God didn’t save his people from their persecutions, but instead withdrew his commandment for which they had sacrificed so much and instructed his prophet to tell the people to stop doing the very practice that they believed made them unique and holy to God. I cannot help but have a little sympathy for those who found this too much, to be required to abandon the practice they believed would exalt them after their lifetime of sacrifice living it. These spiritual ancestors forgot that “to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams.”
Just one generation ago, apostles and other Church leaders begged women to “come home”, to use their labors to build the home and fortify it against the evils of the world, and not to waste their efforts in the vain pursuits of money-making or career-building. But I haven’t heard any such thing in probably three decades. Is this because we no longer want women to stay home building the home? Did we decide that women maybe really are of more benefit out making money and building their career? Did God change his mind? Or shall we assume that the leadership of the time was just old-fashioned and out of touch, and that today’s apostles have finally synced up with the times?
Or is it more likely that the Church fought for the ideals that would best help the Saints and their families until the tide of decadent societal change became overwhelming and unwinnable in the near term (short of isolating ourselves from Babylon and giving up on the worldwide Church idea), and decided to turn its efforts to helping and supporting a generation that was growing up in a society created by those who had largely rejected that prophetic counsel?
That last possibility is what I believe. The principles have not changed. The doctrine underlying our practice cannot change. But the teachings are presented to each generation in a way that will be meaningful and helpful to those of that generation. We still prize above almost all things those women and men who put the well-being of their families above any other worldly concern. But for many people today, the situation looks different from what was faced by their parents and grandparents.
Don’t look for the Church ever—EVER—to approve of or sanction things such as elective abortion or homosexual “marriage”. Simply put, that will never happen. But now that homosexual “marriage” has been imposed by judicial fiat as the law of the land, expect the Church simply to not worry about it, but rather to teach its members that legal sanction for perverse relationships does not imply divine sanction. Elective abortion has been legal across the US since 1973, a nightmarish horror for which we most certainly will answer to God—but the Church has not decided that elective abortion is okay after all, just because it is widely and even casually used. It is not okay. It is the killing of a human being, an act like unto murder. That underlying doctrine will not change.
To answer your question directly: No, the Church is not “one step behind in these issues”. It looks to me like the Church is pulling at the cart rope with all its might to keep the horse from sliding further downhill, with the horse pulling so hard the other direction that the Church has to step further down to regain its footing and keep on pulling uphill. And as for “the public eye”, of course the Church is foolish in the public eye. It always has been and always will be. The mockers will mock, because that’s what they do. That is of no moment, and should be of no concern to any Saint.
Gramps

Not exactly.  But in that same direction, yes.
Well that makes it all better, now, doesn't it?
Phineas, first let me apologize if that sounded too harsh to you.  But it seems that you are very young in age as well as in the gospel.  You may have been raised as a member of the Church. But what exactly were you taught by your parents?  Did they teach you that this was acceptable?
Consider for a moment that this poll is essentially asking us to judge our prophet on how good a job he's doing.  That's not our place.  The Lord has called him.  And the Lord will judge him.

The next time this question comes my why, if my memory is working, I will be tempted to commence my reply by saying something like, "so what you're asking is why do things that I think are bad happen to people that I think are good?"