The decline of declaring repentance

[The Folk Prophet]

FP, It is hard to have a discussion with you because you jump to conclusions and believe I am implying things I am not. I ask a question and you assume I think the prophets and apostles are fearful or that I don't understand Elder Packer.

 

And yet you are jumping to conclusions about what I mean and demanding that I am implying things that I am not. 

 

All I'm trying to point out is that your position seems tenuous. You believe that in general conference communication methods have changed but not the content. That appears to me to be a difficult line to hold. 

 

Why is this a difficult line to hold? If I say, "If we don't repent we will be damned!" and then later say, "Repentance will free us from the chains of death and hell" I am saying the same content but communicating differently. Is my position tenuous or is it your grasp of my position that is?

 

If you don't want me to assume that you're not implying the leaders are less fearless, then why did you begins your question with, "If teachings and expressions are just as fearless as in former times what then of..." Am I honestly meant to not make of that an implication that I'm wrong in saying they are just as fearless? Is not your flat statement, "your position seems to be tenuous" the same? A critique of my position and an implication that I am mistaken?

 

What is you objective then?

 

As I recall, I was simply responding to a thought by JaG and sharing my thoughts as a response, not taking a position. And, frankly, I don't think it's worthy debating with you about whether said "position" is right. If I'm mistaken, big deal. If they've changed their content, that is their prerogative.

 

Of course, using a single, isolated example of one man altering one little section of one little talk that ended up, substantially, saying the exact same thing, is hardly, in my mind evidence that the leaders, en masse, have changed their message.

 

Your questioning of my "tenuous" position would be stronger if you were to use examples of broader rhetoric, point out the number of instances they discussed certain topics 20 years ago vs now, or the like. Then, at least, your question would hold some weight. I'd still claim that the underlying message is the same, because it is and always has been. But at least I wouldn't be responding with quite the same "are you kidding me?" tone, because the alteration of Packer's speech was utterly meaningless.

[james12]

I would definitely not say the alteration of Elder Packer's speech was utterly meaningless, otherwise it would not have been changed. Further, if content of messages have changed I do think it is important to understand why. Wasn't that part of your original post? 

 

At any rate, I would love to discuss, but I'm not up for an argument. 

[Just_A_Guy]

IIRC, when you listen to the audio, President Packer does stumble a bit right around that line.  I find it entirely plausible that he inadvertently departed from his written text momentarily, and that the written version we now have matches what President Packer intended to say all along.

[The Folk Prophet]

I would definitely not say the alteration of Elder Packer's speech was utterly meaningless, otherwise it would not have been changed. 

 

It has some meaning, of course. Just not the meaning you seem to be putting upon it.

 

Further, if content of messages have changed I do think it is important to understand why. Wasn't that part of your original post? 

 

The church explained why. What more is there to discuss?

[Finrock]

If teachings and expressions are just as fearless as in former times what then of Elder Packer's statement a few years ago in General Conference when talking of homosexuality he said, "Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father." Then after some outcry from the LBGT community they modified the statement by changing one word and removing a sentence so it then read, "Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn temptations toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Remember, God is our Heavenly Father" (GC "Cleansing the Inner Vessel" Oct. 2010).

 

Hi james12! I hope you've been well. :)

 

You say in the quote above that the change was made after some outcry from the LBGT community. Do you mean to say that the change was caused or was made as a result of some outcry from the LBGT community or do you just mean to say, as a matter of fact, the change was made after some outcry from the LBGT community?

 

-Finrock

[askandanswer]

I'm starting to get curious about the comments attributed to Elder Packer, although I'm a little wary of another long discussion about homosexuality. What are people's thoughts? Are homosexual tendencies inborn? Are they pre-set? Can they be overcome? If they are inborn and preset does God have any responsibility for that? And if so, why would He do that? 

 

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father." 

[james12]

Hi james12! I hope you've been well. :)

 

You say in the quote above that the change was made after some outcry from the LBGT community. Do you mean to say that the change was caused or was made as a result of some outcry from the LBGT community or do you just mean to say, as a matter of fact, the change was made after some outcry from the LBGT community?

 

-Finrock

Just as a matter of fact. 

[Blackmarch]

For things like porn addiction, recovery programs, while done with primarily with members in mind are probably being expanded to help those who are not members as well... Which could excuse the lack for calling to repentance inside various presentations.

However i find the first couple links in the OP scary, if they are accurate and true.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm starting to get curious about the comments attributed to Elder Packer, although I'm a little wary of another long discussion about homosexuality. What are people's thoughts? Are homosexual tendencies inborn? Are they pre-set? Can they be overcome? If they are inborn and preset does God have any responsibility for that? And if so, why would He do that? 

 

Some suppose that they were preset and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so. Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, he is our Father." 

 

askandanswer, read through the 2nd link (http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/a-slippery-slope-that-limits-the-atonement), which is a book review of In Quiet Desperation, which directly discusses your question. I'll post an example quote:

______________

 

Even Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, the self-identified secular-humanist atheist Jew, the Columbia University psychiatrist who led the charge to remove homosexuality from the psychiatric manual in 1973, was open to the findings of science. This pro-gay activist researcher conducted a study that was published in the prestigious Archives of Sexual Behavior. Spitzer’s study population was comprised of 200 people who reported that they had changed from homosexual to heterosexual. He found that 66% of the men and 44% of the women who had participated in therapy to change their homosexual orientation had arrived at what he called “good heterosexual functioning.” Additionally, 89% of the men and 95% of the women reported that they were bothered “slightly” or “not at all” by unwanted homosexual feelings.

 

In Spitzer’s own words, “Like most psychiatrists I thought homosexual behavior could be resisted, but sexual orientation could not be changed. I now believe that’s untrue–some people can and do change.” Spitzer concluded that the changes occurred not just in behavior, but in core features of sexual orientation as well.

...

 

Even the lesbian activist Camille Paglia notes that the idea that an individual is born gay is “ridiculous.” She concludes that “homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.”

 

More importantly the counsel from the Lord through his servants is clear on this matter. President Faust declared, “The false belief of inborn homosexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment and despair.” Elder Oaks noted that though there may be susceptibilities associated with a variety of challenges, that we are responsible for the “lifestyle we graft upon them.” Elder Packer says of homosexuality, “It is not unchangeable. It is not locked in. One does not just have to yield to it and live with it.”

[askandanswer]

Thank you TFP

[Timpman]

Love before repentance makes sense to me.

 

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

 

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.

(Matthew 22)

 

Jesus also said “love your enemies.” I don’t know of any scriptures rescinding those statements. However, I wouldn’t subscribe to “love instead of repentance.”  When the Lord instructs his servants to cry repentance to the people, I think it’s implied that love is a part of that. 

Edited August 4, 2015 by Timpman

[Finrock]

We can do so much better in calling people to repentence by using a tender word; by being understanding, empathetic, and showing kindness, mercy, love. There needs to be less enmity between me and thee and more humility.

 

EDIT: Let those who are judges in Israel or with authority do the direct calls to repentence.

 

-Finrock

Edited August 4, 2015 by Finrock

[The Folk Prophet]

EDIT: Let those who are judges in Israel or with authority do the direct calls to repentence.

 

Can you support this with any sort of authoritative source? Or is it just your opinion?

 

Note: I do not entirely disagree with the first part of your statement, so if by "direct" you simply mean "unkind" then I disagree with your edit in a different way, because even the judges in Israel with authority have the same mandate for love, understanding, compassion, etc., as well as the same mandate to declare repentance.

[priesthoodpower]

..that extra year after high school where our young men waited to turn 19 in order to go on a mission, they somehow, through sinning, became unworthy to qualify for a mission. Did the leaders yell out repentance and tell these young men to get their act together! nope! they recognized a problem and came up with a solution. 18 became the new age requirement.

 

Dont forget that satan rejoices when division is created among the people and declaring things in a forceful judgemental manner plays right into his hands. I take it that our Prophets and Apostles are inspired and educated enough to know that there is a time and place for everything.

Edited August 5, 2015 by priesthoodpower

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Clearly what is and is not Christlike has been twisted quite a bit. And that is, admittedly, a difficult thing to balance. But, there can be no question - Christ declared repentance - and sometimes even in harsh tones.

THIS!

 

I'm not sure this is correct. Nor do I believe the brethren would agree. But I do agree that this is the message that is being received.

I don't think the message is so much "love before repentance" as much as "Love them into repentance". Think of it as calling to repentance "by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned; By kindness, and pure knowledge, which shall greatly enlarge the soul without hypocrisy, and without guile—." 

 

There are 15 million ways that members misinterpret and misconstrue what the elders of the church teach us. There are Mormons out there right now preaching the theology of prosperity, in spite of the fact that Elder Oaks very EXPLICITLY denounced such as a false doctrine. All the brethren can really do is continue to reiterate the truth, and those who have ears to hear....

 

If the Savior changed the way we declare repentance, then how does this relate to the way we declare repentance having changed over the past few decades so dramatically?

I'm not sure the Savior changed the way we declare repentance, but maybe we are better understanding the Savior's way?

 

Not to mention each person has their own personality, including those who are called to teach. On my mission, I taught in a very different way from all of my companions, and that worked for some people and didn't work for others. Our current generation of leaders teach in this way - it doesn't make it wrong or better or worse, only different. And let's be frank - it is working for a large number of people who struggle with sexual addictions or LGBT inclinations.

 

I think the argument is fairly clearly set therein that for some, at least, the declaration of repentance and what it actually means is, indeed, not loud enough. Not when the conclusion being ultimately drawn is that the choice is to either live in misery, live in sin, or kill oneself.

 

For repentance, after all, means change. And, yes, the declaration that you can change in this matter is not loud enough. I think that is the obvious takeaway.

I think the choice of "live in misery, live in sin, or kill oneself" is the product of the "hard line" call to repentance. I have personally experienced and witnessed in others the way that attitude can sap a person's desire and destroy their faith when they are faced with repeated failure at "change". When faced with rather staggering statistics about teen suicide among LGBT mormons, sticking to the "hard line" seems to be rather obtuse.

 

The new message is exactly the opposite - that you can live in happiness and the Atonement can and will work for you no matter how successful you are in your efforts to keep the commandments. What matters is that you keep making the effort. That's the message I keep hearing, and having some personal experience with these issues I think that's the message that the target audience is getting.

(It's worth noting that it's the same message we give our missionaries - "success is in the effort, not the number of baptisms". It seems that doctrine has wider applications than just missionary work.)

[The Folk Prophet]

I don't think the message is so much "love before repentance" as much as "Love them into repentance". 

 

I'm inferring from this that you believe that speaking harshly, clearly, bluntly, or sharply cannot possibly count as loving. But that is not true. There are times when such is exactly the proper and accurate way to express honest love.

 

Anyone who thinks President Kimball wasn't loving is clueless about him. He was so, very, loving. Even if he made mistakes in expressing that love sometimes (which is really more about interpretation and trend than it is reality), it's a pretty tough sell to imply that he said and taught the things he did because he wasn't loving.

 

I'm not sure the Savior changed the way we declare repentance, but maybe we are better understanding the Savior's way?

 

I tend to view this sort of idea that we know better than our ancestors how to be Christlike amounts to nothing but arrogance. I grant you conditioned it with "maybe", so I'm not calling you arrogant -- just the idea.

 

 And let's be frank - it is working for a large number of people who struggle with sexual addictions or LGBT inclinations.

 

Is it? I'm not so sure. I tend to feel that the loss of "tough love" has done significantly more harm than good. In fact, I have watched this whole "love them into being good"* thing take hold over the past 30 years or so, and right alongside it I've seen the world slide further and further into corruption.

 

* The word "love" here being used facetiously, as what I really mean is pandering, pampering, and spoiling.

 

I think the choice of "live in misery, live in sin, or kill oneself" is the product of the "hard line" call to repentance. 

 

I disagree. It is indicative, rather, of a total and complete misunderstanding of what repentance actually means, how one actually does it, and what the power of the atonement can do.

 

When faced with rather staggering statistics about teen suicide among LGBT mormons

 

Can you back this up with real, honest, statistical data? Is it really higher than it was per other popular "sins" of the past? Is it really higher in faithful LDS? Can it be distinguished from other accompanying mental disorders? Drug use? Rejection from other sources?

 

This is an easy accusation to throw out, but without carefully controlled, valid statistics backing it, it is irresponsible.

 

 

What matters is that you keep making the effort.

 

Applying this across the board to all sins, it does not ring true. What matters is that we repent. What matters is that we obey. What matters is that we change.

 

To be fair, I believe there is some truth in what you say. I've said before, myself, that what really matters is that we try. But I don't buy for a second that really trying leads to no change at all, particularly with the power of the atonement of Christ in the mix.

 

Perhaps it comes down to what we mean by "try" or "making the effort". Defined a certain way, I agree. Defined another, I don't.

 

(It's worth noting that it's the same message we give our missionaries - "success is in the effort, not the number of baptisms". It seems that doctrine has wider applications than just missionary work.)

 

But that's decidedly different than saying "success is in trying to get up on time, not whether you actually get up on time". Moreover, not baptizing is not a sin or wrong in any regard. The commandment is to declare the word. To declare repentance.

Edited August 7, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Capitalist_Oinker]

This thread reminds me of an experience I had while serving as a home teacher to an elderly widow.

 

Norma was a stalwart member of the Church for most of her life. Her deceased husband had served as a bishop and a councilor in a stake presidency, she had served in just about every calling a woman can serve in, and together they had raised a fine family with all of the sons serving honorable missions.

 

I had been her home teacher for probably seven or eight years, during which time she faithfully attended all of her meetings and was worthy of a temple recommend.

However, she began having some serious health issues, and for about nine months she bounced back and forth between her home and the hospital unable to attend church during that time.

Eventually the major issues were resolved and she was able to live at home again without any help. But even after her health improved she didn't return to church, although she continued to pay a full tithe and maintain her recommend.

Each Sunday the bishop authorized the Aaronic priesthood to bring her the Sacrament, and she would spend her time reading the scriptures and watching old conference addresses on BUYtv. As far as she was concerned she was still a faithful Latter-day Saint.

 

She had no family living in town, so as her home teacher I visited with her once a week or so, while my son and I did yard work and anything else she needed done. Several times a month I would invite her back to church, and each time she would say, "Oh I'd like to attend if it wasn't for my stomach, or my bowels, or my "this" or my "that".

I talked to her children many times when they would visit, and they would say to me, "Oh I wish we could figure out a way to get mom back to church!" "We know she has some health problems but we think she could attend."

Yada, yada, yada.

Then when the subject of church would come up while Norma was in the room they would pat her on the back and say, "we understand, mom"; "don’t worry about it, mom"; "you're doing the best you can, mom".

 

Then one day during one of my weekly visits, after inviting her to church and hearing the same litany of excuses, I said, "Norma, do you know what you are?"

She gave me a quizzical look and said, "No, what am I?"

I said, "You're inactive."

 

I could just as well have said "you’re a child molester" and I doubt the look on her face would have been any different.

She rose up in her chair, her face flushed with anger, and she declared "If I didn’t love you I'd toss you out of my house this instant!!"

 

I replied, "Norma, think about it a minute. You drive down to the store a couple of times a week to get your groceries; you drive down to the post office almost every day to get your mail; and you drive to the senior citizen center twice a week for a meal and to visit with everyone for several hours. Now you explain why you can't drive over to the church and at least sit through a Sacrament meeting?"

I said, "Norma, you’re inactive."

She looked at me in stunned silence for a few seconds and then replied, "I suppose you’re right. I’ll be to church this Sunday."

 

And she was.

And she rarely missed another meeting until about a year later when she fell, ended up in the hospital, and passed away a month or so after that.

 

I remember talking to one of her sons after she began attending church again, and he asked me how on earth I got her to go back.

I told him that I told her she was inactive.

He laughed and said, "I’m surprised she didn’t toss you out of the house!"

 

The point of this story is this: With some people, rather than a sympathetic pat on the back, what they really need is a benevolent kick in the butt.

 

"VERILY, thus saith the Lord unto you whom I love, and whom I love I also chasten that their sins may be forgiven..."

 

I'm not suggesting that the above story is illustrative of the following principle, but I firmly believe that when it comes to SERIOUS sins, it's entirely possible to "love" someone right into hell.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

I'm inferring from this that you believe that speaking harshly, clearly, bluntly, or sharply cannot possibly count as loving. But that is not true. There are times when such is exactly the proper and accurate way to express honest love.

 

Anyone who thinks President Kimball wasn't loving is clueless about him. He was so, very, loving. Even if he made mistakes in expressing that love sometimes (which is really more about interpretation and trend than it is reality), it's a pretty tough sell to imply that he said and taught the things he did because he wasn't loving.

I haven't known you very long on this forum, but we've had a fair amount of interaction. Where you and I have interacted, I have not once seen you demonstrate that you've understood the message I was attempting to convey. It's like we're speaking two completely different languages...

 

You infer wrong and have ignored the entire context of my statement. Go back and reread it. All of it, this time.

On a related note: 

"Love before repentance" is Satanic.

I can think of no more insidious false teaching than this.

 

"God is love." (1 John 4:16)

"Love is the fulfilling of the law." (Romans 13:10)

"Love covereth all sins." (Provers 10:12)

"Charity shall cover the multitude of sins." (1 Peter 4:8)

"Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:37-40)

"And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity." (1 Corinthians 13:13)

(Emphases added)

 

Anyone who would suggest that ANYTHING comes before love has "perverted the right way of the Lord" and "wo be unto them, saith the Lord God Almighty, for they shall be thrust down to hell!"

 

I tend to view this sort of idea that we know better than our ancestors how to be Christlike amounts to nothing but arrogance. I grant you conditioned it with "maybe", so I'm not calling you arrogant -- just the idea.

We understand everything better than our ancestors. EVERYTHING. Metallurgy, biology, chemistry, physics - we understand how to harness fire to propel ourselves faster than the speed of sound (we understand sound!), we understand how to harness light to create electricity, we understand how to harness electricity to create vast global libraries the size of your fingernail. We understand EVERYTHING better than our ancestors, so why should you make religion the one exception?

 

We learn. If we do it right, we pass on what we learn to our children and they learn more than we did. It's called progress. The only thing arrogant is ignoring that fact and thinking we got where we are on our own efforts.

 

Is it? I'm not so sure. I tend to feel that the loss of "tough love" has done significantly more harm than good. In fact, I have watched this whole "love them into being good"* thing take hold over the past 30 years or so, and right alongside it I've seen the world slide further and further into corruption.

 

* The word "love" here being used facetiously, as what I really mean is pandering, pampering, and spoiling.

And THAT is why we can't understand each other. Because I say love, and you hear pandering, pampering, and spoiling. We absolutely ARE speaking two different languages.

 

I disagree. It is indicative, rather, of a total and complete misunderstanding of what repentance actually means, how one actually does it, and what the power of the atonement can do.

And who or what is responsible for that misunderstanding? The people trying their hardest but seemingly unable to bring about the expected change? Or the people telling them their efforts are meaningless if the change never happens?

 

Can you back this up with real, honest, statistical data? Is it really higher than it was per other popular "sins" of the past? Is it really higher in faithful LDS? Can it be distinguished from other accompanying mental disorders? Drug use? Rejection from other sources?

 

This is an easy accusation to throw out, but without carefully controlled, valid statistics backing it, it is irresponsible.

Who cares? ONE suicide is too many. And there have been more than one. Why are you even choosing to argue that point? 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/635201873/Deadly-taboo-Youth-suicide-an-epidemic-that-many-in-Utah-prefer-to-ignore.html?pg=all

 

Applying this across the board to all sins, it does not ring true. What matters is that we repent. What matters is that we obey. What matters is that we change.

 

To be fair, I believe there is some truth in what you say. I've said before, myself, that what really matters is that we try. But I don't buy for a second that really trying leads to no change at all, particularly with the power of the atonement of Christ in the mix.

 

Perhaps it comes down to what we mean by "try" or "making the effort". Defined a certain way, I agree. Defined another, I don't.

Apparently the tables have turned, and now you demand miracles as evidence of faith. If those gay kids would just have more faith, they would instantly be able to walk on water - er - I mean - stop being gay.

 

But that's decidedly different than saying "success is in trying to get up on time, not whether you actually get up on time". Moreover, not baptizing is not a sin or wrong in any regard. The commandment is to declare the word. To declare repentance.

To use your own metaphor, I have insomnia and central sleep apnea. Neither is treatable. getting up at 7am? puh-lease. I can (actually, I do) have a dozen alarms set, lights on a timer, sunlight therapy, the whole nine yards and I still could not drag myself out of bed until 8:10 this morning (I actually slept better last night than I have all week). You might have no problem getting up on time. But just because it's so easy for you does not mean that it's just as easy or even possible for me.

(Tangent: I've actually stopped praying for a good night's sleep because I noticed that I always slept worse when I did. I actually did a study on myself - granted, you can't have a double blind study when you have one participant who is also your researcher and the subject is prayer and sleep, so I can't rule out psychological artifacts, but in this case that's immaterial, since I was measuring the correlation itself, not determining the cause. I'm a big fan of science, and don't be too surprised if you should find yourself unwittingly participating in an impromptu experiment by responding to my posts.)

 

This thread reminds me of an experience I had while serving as a home teacher to an elderly widow.

 

Norma was a stalwart member of the Church for most of her life. Her deceased husband had served as a bishop and a councilor in a stake presidency, she had served in just about every calling a woman can serve in, and together they had raised a fine family with all of the sons serving honorable missions.

 

I had been her home teacher for probably seven or eight years, during which time she faithfully attended all of her meetings and was worthy of a temple recommend.

However, she began having some serious health issues, and for about nine months she bounced back and forth between her home and the hospital unable to attend church during that time.

Eventually the major issues were resolved and she was able to live at home again without any help. But even after her health improved she didn't return to church, although she continued to pay a full tithe and maintain her recommend.

Each Sunday the bishop authorized the Aaronic priesthood to bring her the Sacrament, and she would spend her time reading the scriptures and watching old conference addresses on BUYtv. As far as she was concerned she was still a faithful Latter-day Saint.

 

She had no family living in town, so as her home teacher I visited with her once a week or so, while my son and I did yard work and anything else she needed done. Several times a month I would invite her back to church, and each time she would say, "Oh I'd like to attend if it wasn't for my stomach, or my bowels, or my "this" or my "that".

I talked to her children many times when they would visit, and they would say to me, "Oh I wish we could figure out a way to get mom back to church!" "We know she has some health problems but we think she could attend."

Yada, yada, yada.

Then when the subject of church would come up while Norma was in the room they would pat her on the back and say, "we understand, mom"; "don’t worry about it, mom"; "you're doing the best you can, mom".

 

Then one day during one of my weekly visits, after inviting her to church and hearing the same litany of excuses, I said, "Norma, do you know what you are?"

She gave me a quizzical look and said, "No, what am I?"

I said, "You're inactive."

 

I could just as well have said "you’re a child molester" and I doubt the look on her face would have been any different.

She rose up in her chair, her face flushed with anger, and she declared "If I didn’t love you I'd toss you out of my house this instant!!"

 

I replied, "Norma, think about it a minute. You drive down to the store a couple of times a week to get your groceries; you drive down to the post office almost every day to get your mail; and you drive to the senior citizen center twice a week for a meal and to visit with everyone for several hours. Now you explain why you can't drive over to the church and at least sit through a Sacrament meeting?"

I said, "Norma, you’re inactive."

She looked at me in stunned silence for a few seconds and then replied, "I suppose you’re right. I’ll be to church this Sunday."

 

And she was.

And she rarely missed another meeting until about a year later when she fell, ended up in the hospital, and passed away a month or so after that.

 

I remember talking to one of her sons after she began attending church again, and he asked me how on earth I got her to go back.

I told him that I told her she was inactive.

He laughed and said, "I’m surprised she didn’t toss you out of the house!"

 

The point of this story is this: With some people, rather than a sympathetic pat on the back, what they really need is a benevolent kick in the butt.

 

"VERILY, thus saith the Lord unto you whom I love, and whom I love I also chasten that their sins may be forgiven..."

 

I'm not suggesting that the above story is illustrative of the following principle, but I firmly believe that when it comes to SERIOUS sins, it's entirely possible to "love" someone right into hell.

I love that story :) There absolutely is a time and a place for "reproving betimes with sharpness". But I also love how your story illustrates a very key principle - her own words, as you quoted them, "If I didn’t love you I'd toss you out of my house this instant!!"

You would have been tossed out of her house if you had not first established that relationship with her. Love absolutely does come first. "Love is the fulfilling of the law" after all.

 

As for loving someone "right into hell", see my above response to Vort's comment. (Tangent: Norma's children failing to be bold in calling her to repentance was fear, and therefore not love. There is no fear in love. Your call to repentance was made with real love, and received with love, hence why it actually made a difference.)

[The Folk Prophet]

I haven't known you very long on this forum, but we've had a fair amount of interaction. Where you and I have interacted, I have not once seen you demonstrate that you've understood the message I was attempting to convey. It's like we're speaking two completely different languages...

 

You infer wrong and have ignored the entire context of my statement. Go back and reread it. All of it, this time.

 

Perhaps your answer could have simply replied, "No I didn't mean that." Instead, you have to cut at me. Where does that leave you on the long-suffering, gentleness and patience scale?

 

We understand everything better than our ancestors. EVERYTHING. Metallurgy, biology, chemistry, physics - we understand how to harness fire to propel ourselves faster than the speed of sound (we understand sound!), we understand how to harness light to create electricity, we understand how to harness electricity to create vast global libraries the size of your fingernail. We understand EVERYTHING better than our ancestors, so why should you make religion the one exception?

 

We learn. If we do it right, we pass on what we learn to our children and they learn more than we did. It's called progress. The only thing arrogant is ignoring that fact and thinking we got where we are on our own efforts.

 

It's simple: My thinking on the matter stems from scripture.

 

2 Nephi 9:28

O that cunning plan of the evil one! O the vainness, and the frailties, and the foolishness of men! When they are learned they think they are wise, and they hearken notunto the counsel of God, for they set it aside, supposing they know of themselves, wherefore, their wisdom is foolishness and it profiteth them not. And they shall perish.

 

and...

 

Psalms 111:10

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: a good understanding have all they that do his commandments: his praise endureth for ever.

 

No matter how "learned" we are, if we are not humble, meek, obedient, etc., then we do not know the Lord, are not filled with His light and knowledge, etc. Therefore, I believe quite firmly, that as much as I know a whole lot more about electricity than Abraham did (even though I know, relatively, little about that subject), I am quite certain that a presumption that I know more than he did about God, righteousness, obedience, how to obey, faith, etc., would be arrogance.

 

And THAT is why we can't understand each other. Because I say love, and you hear pandering, pampering, and spoiling. We absolutely ARE speaking two different languages.

 

In the context of this thread, the related links, the discussion at hand, etc., you did not simply say "love" and I translated that to pandering, pampering and spoiling. One of the points here is that I am trying to make is with the thread is that, perhaps, some of our efforts to show "love" amount to these things. If you aren't getting that then maybe it's you who are speaking the different language and misunderstanding.

 

Who cares? ONE suicide is too many. And there have been more than one. Why are you even choosing to argue that point? 

 

Who cares about legitimate data behind the reasons for suicide? We'll just cry "SUICIDE!" and that's sufficient? Why bother to actually understand what's really going on, what's really causing it?

 

Asking for supporting data is not "choosing to argue the point". It is asking for supporting data. I read the news article you posted. No supporting data sources. How did they come up with their number? And even if the numbers are entirely accurate (I'm not saying I doubt them...just pointing out that they don't source anything that I saw) -- I didn't see anything about Mormons killing themselves because they're gay and the church rejects them. I don't doubt that is the cause sometimes...but where's the backing data -- and where's the support that the true reason might not be other factors?

 

Once again, you say, "When faced with rather staggering statistics about teen suicide among LGBT mormons, sticking to the "hard line" seems to be rather obtuse" you really need to show supporting data, for example, that A) there are "staggering" statistics for LGBT "mormons" committing suicide B) that being "mormon" is statistically related C) that the "hard line" relates to the cause D) That other factors involved (drugs, mental illness, etc) are not the real problem.

 

Some things the article did mention:

 

-Ninety percent of young people who complete suicide have some form of major psychiatric disorder, although the majority are not taking medication at the time they take their lives.

 

-63 percent had contact with the criminal justice system, and half of those had referrals for substance use, abuse or possession.

 

-Combining mental illness with drug abuse is the deadliest of combinations. "Having both of these raises the risk another level," Gray said.

 

Apparently the tables have turned, and now you demand miracles as evidence of faith. If those gay kids would just have more faith, they would instantly be able to walk on water - er - I mean - stop being gay.

 

Now who's inferring things that the other did not say -- or even hint at?

 

To use your own metaphor, I have insomnia and central sleep apnea. Neither is treatable. getting up at 7am? puh-lease. I can (actually, I do) have a dozen alarms set, lights on a timer, sunlight therapy, the whole nine yards and I still could not drag myself out of bed until 8:10 this morning (I actually slept better last night than I have all week). You might have no problem getting up on time. But just because it's so easy for you does not mean that it's just as easy or even possible for me.

 

If, and when, evidence (real evidence, not a bunch of anecdotal fluff) comes to light that being gay is an un-treatable condition then maybe this stretch of my metaphor might work. But half the point of the thread, as discussed in the second of the two OP links, is that maybe, just maybe, by demanding that it was just who he was, something that could never be overcome, and that any sort of therapeutic help on the matter was "the wisdom of man", Ty was condemning himself to something that he did not actually need to.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

Perhaps your answer could have simply replied, "No I didn't mean that." Instead, you have to cut at me. Where does that leave you on the long-suffering, gentleness and patience scale?

Working on it :)

You did take my statement completely out of context. Had I said only the excerpt you quoted, I would be forced to agree with your inference.

 

It's simple: My thinking on the matter stems from scripture.

 

[...]

 

Therefore, I believe quite firmly, that as much as I know a whole lot more about electricity than Abraham did (even though I know, relatively, little about that subject), I am quite certain that a presumption that I know more than he did about God, righteousness, obedience, how to obey, faith, etc., would be arrogance.

Or doctrine... 

But if you're going to assume that Abraham knew more than you do, why not just assume that Thomas Monson also knows more than you do, and thus end this entire conversation?

 

In the context of this thread, the related links, the discussion at hand, etc., you did not simply say "love" and I translated that to pandering, pampering and spoiling. One of the points here is that I am trying to make is with the thread is that, perhaps, some of our efforts to show "love" amount to these things. If you aren't getting that then maybe it's you who are speaking the different language and misunderstanding.

To use your own words, "speaking harshly, clearly, bluntly, or sharply" can be expressions of love. That means that love is not the same thing as the way it is expressed. Nor is love the same thing as the way it is received. So if an expression of love amounts to pandering, pampering, or spoiling, the love is no less valid than if the expression amounted to arguing, shaming, or even violence.

Case in point: My father was abusive. It took a lot of growing up before I realized that that was his way of expressing love and correction. A very poor way, obviously, but still the only way he knew. It was a rather profound day when I realized my dad did actually love me.

 

Who cares about legitimate data behind the reasons for suicide? We'll just cry "SUICIDE!" and that's sufficient? Why bother to actually understand what's really going on, what's really causing it?

[...]

OK. Fine. I give up. You win! I concede that point, since there's no way for anyone to go to the spirit world and poll suicide victims to find out why they did it. (Not that we need to...)

 

(Tangent: I was also rather perturbed that the Deseret News article didn't cite any sources. Do you have any idea how hard it is to find any useful information if you include the words "mormon" or "LDS" in a web search?! And it only gets worse if you include any variation of LGBT in there... It's almost enough to make me want to do the research myself. Almost.)

 

Now who's inferring things that the other did not say -- or even hint at?

HAHA! Now we're communicating!  

 

If, and when, evidence (real evidence, not a bunch of anecdotal fluff) comes to light that being gay is an un-treatable condition then maybe this stretch of my metaphor might work. But half the point of the thread, as discussed in the second of the two OP links, is that maybe, just maybe, by demanding that it was just who he was, something that could never be overcome, and that any sort of therapeutic help on the matter was "the wisdom of man", Ty was condemning himself to something that he did not actually need to.

OK. That's fair. But while you're waiting for evidence about homosexuality, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have already determined (rather prayerfully, no doubt) that the current approach (that of compassion and understanding) to this issue is the correct approach.

To wit: a gay mormon does not need to be reminded that he's a sinner. He needs to be reminded that he's a child of God.

(One more thing - it really doesn't matter at all why a person is gay. Not one whit. Maybe you're heterosexual and have never once had even an inkling of temptation to find another man attractive, much less have sex with him. But the fact is that other men, and women, and transexuals, and non-binary, and pan-gender people DO have that temptation. While it may be just as easy for you to be heterosexual as it is for you to get out of bed in the morning, it is much more difficult for others. It doesn't matter why it's difficult for them to be heterosexual, it only matters that it is difficult. It's their trail of faith, not yours, so don't you dare judge them just because they sin differently than you do. It's worth noting that Carole M. Stephens included same gender attraction in the same category as death of a child and infertility when speaking in her April General Women's Conference address.)

Maybe it's time to change directions. Instead of asking "What happened to declaring repentance?" (which, as you've mentioned in your OP, is a very thin line from "Our leaders are wrong") we might be asking "Why has the Lord directed His apostles to change tones at this time?" That might be a more fruitful discussion.

[The Folk Prophet]

But if you're going to assume that Abraham knew more than you do, why not just assume that Thomas Monson also knows more than you do, and thus end this entire conversation?

 

You've lost me. Wherein did I express anything that is contrary to Thomas Monson, state, or even imply, that I know more or better, or....honestly...what are you talking about here?

 

OK. That's fair. But while you're waiting for evidence about homosexuality, the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve have already determined (rather prayerfully, no doubt) that the current approach (that of compassion and understanding) to this issue is the correct approach.

 

And I have not, nor do I, propose that we should be otherwise than compassionate and understanding. What does this have to do with maintaining that repentance can and does include the reality of change?

 

I'm not sure how you're getting out of this thread, the links posted, anything I've said, or anywhere else that we're supposed to be mean to gay people. That is not the point at all.

 

Rather, the point is (or at least one of the points), that the leader's call for compassion an understanding may be being misinterpreted in a way that leads to many, many instances of pampering, pandering and spoiling.

 

To wit: a gay mormon does not need to be reminded that he's a sinner. He needs to be reminded that he's a child of God.

 

Also outside the point. "You're a sinner" is a very different thing than "You can and should change."

 

The point is not to condemn or criticize. It is an exhortation for honest, legitimate, never-ending efforts for change.

 

(One more thing - it really doesn't matter at all why a person is gay. Not one whit. Maybe you're heterosexual and have never once had even an inkling of temptation to find another man attractive, much less have sex with him. But the fact is that other men, and women, and transexuals, and non-binary, and pan-gender people DO have that temptation. While it may be just as easy for you to be heterosexual as it is for you to get out of bed in the morning, it is much more difficult for others. It doesn't matter why it's difficult for them to be heterosexual, it only matters that it is difficult. It's their trail of faith, not yours, so don't you dare judge them just because they sin differently than you do. It's worth noting that Carole M. Stephens included same gender attraction in the same category as death of a child and infertility when speaking in her April General Women's Conference address.)

 

Sure it matters "why". Just as it matters "why" you struggle to get up in the morning vs. why I struggle to get up in the morning. For me, it's sheer laziness. The why absolutely matters as to the change. Who are friends are. The media we partake of. The articles we read. The failures we've had in obedience to the Lord. Even the literal, physical inclinations we may have. They are all important to understand and face when it comes to dealing with any of life's problems and inclinations we may have to do and be different than that which we should be doing and being.

 

Maybe it's time to change directions. Instead of asking "What happened to declaring repentance?" (which, as you've mentioned in your OP, is a very thin line from "Our leaders are wrong") we might be asking "Why has the Lord directed His apostles to change tones at this time?" That might be a more fruitful discussion.

 

Well this is to the point of the discussion.

 

My feeling. Their hand has been forced. The world has become spoiled rotten, and you have to deal with a spoiled rotten child differently than you deal with one who is not. Ideally the child shouldn't be spoiled in the first place. But it is. And so you deal with that reality.

 

Moreover, to the point, I feel that the change in tone does not, nor has it, nor will it ever mean that we should disregard the reality of change and the atonement. I feel this is an interpretation that is being placed on the tone change that is not inherent in it, and stems from the progressive ideology bleeding into the church from outside, not from the top down revelation standard that we should be listening to and following.

Edited August 10, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

And I have not, nor do I, propose that we should be otherwise that compassionate and understanding. What does this have to do with maintaining that repentance can and does include the reality of change?

 

I'm not sure how you're getting out of this thread, the links posted, anything I've said, or anywhere else that we're supposed to be mean to gay people. That is not the point at all.

 

Rather, the point is (or at least one of the points), that the leader's call for compassion an understanding may be being misinterpreted in a way that leads to many, many instances of pampering, pandering and spoiling.

 It's also quite possible that another person's expression of love is interpreted as pampering or pandering or spoiling by those who have experience with other, very different, kinds of expression. The cycle of abuse has continued in some of my siblings, who ridicule others for "being too soft" - their idea of correction means beating the tar out of their kids, because that's what they grew up with and they never stopped to ask if there was a better way.

 

The first barrier to communication is the lack of a common core of experience. For example, I might say "airplane" and you picture a 747 and I picture a Cessna 172. 

 

Also outside the point. "You're a sinner" is a very different thing than "You can and should change."

 

The point is not to condemn or criticize. It is an exhortation for honest, legitimate, never-ending efforts for change.

And this is where the expression is often different from how it is received. A loving and compassionate exhortation for honest, legitimate, never-ending effort to change can be received as a condemning, judgmental, criticism. This has nothing to do with being spoiled or pampered, as much as it has to do with prior experience and attitude. Generally, those who have experienced real and frequent criticism will interpret many things as criticism that are not actually critical. I've seen you and I both do that in our communications.

 

Sure it matters "why". Just as it matters "why" you struggle to get up in the morning vs. why I struggle to get up in the morning. For me, it's sheer laziness. The why absolutely matters as to the change. Who are friends are. The media we partake of. The articles we read. The failures we've had in obedience to the Lord. Even the literal, physical inclinations we may have. They are all important to understand and face when it comes to dealing with any of life's problems and inclinations we may have to do and be different than that which we should be doing and being.

It matters to me why I have trouble getting up in the morning. But it shouldn't matter to you or anyone else. There is only one reason anyone else would care why I have trouble getting up in the morning: to justify or correct a judgment about me that they never should have made in the first place. To wit: "Until you show me that you have a real medical condition, I assume you're just lazy and don't want to get up." 

 

Well this is to the point of the discussion.

 

My feeling. Their hand has been forced. The world has become spoiled rotten, and you have to deal with a spoiled rotten child differently than you deal with one who is not. Ideally the child shouldn't be spoiled in the first place. But it is. And so you deal with that reality.

 

Moreover, to the point, I feel that the change in tone does not, nor has it, nor will it ever mean that we should disregard the reality of change and the atonement. I feel this is an interpretation that is being placed on the tone change that is not inherent in it, and stems from the progressive ideology bleeding into the church from outside, not from the top down revelation standard that we should be listening to and following.

"The most universal subjugation in our day, as it has been throughout history, is ideology or political beliefs that are inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ."

"It seems to be a trait of humanity to assume that we are right even when we are wrong."

 

How does one know if they are in bondage to a false ideology? I've seen false ideologies rampant among members of the church (the theology of prosperity I already mentioned is a big one that has even been discussed on this forum).

 

I ask this because I see the world very differently from the way that you apparently do. Perhaps even completely opposite. Which suggests that one of us might be in bondage to a false ideology - and of course I'm going to assume it's you, and you're going to assume it's me, and we both can back up our ideologies with scripture. So how do we tell?

[The Folk Prophet]

 It's also quite possible that another person's expression of love is interpreted as pampering or pandering or spoiling by those who have experience with other, very different, kinds of expression. The cycle of abuse has continued in some of my siblings, who ridicule others for "being too soft" - their idea of correction means beating the tar out of their kids, because that's what they grew up with and they never stopped to ask if there was a better way.

 

The first barrier to communication is the lack of a common core of experience. For example, I might say "airplane" and you picture a 747 and I picture a Cessna 172. 

 

And this is where the expression is often different from how it is received. A loving and compassionate exhortation for honest, legitimate, never-ending effort to change can be received as a condemning, judgmental, criticism. This has nothing to do with being spoiled or pampered, as much as it has to do with prior experience and attitude. Generally, those who have experienced real and frequent criticism will interpret many things as criticism that are not actually critical. I've seen you and I both do that in our communications.

 

So how people receive communication is as important as how it is being given.

 

In this we agree. And yet, for holding this view, you seem to feel the need to reprove me over and over again.

 

Why is my understanding of this judgmental but yours is benevolent? I cannot quite understand what your objective is here. What are you trying to defend against? Beating the tar out of someone? Do you believe I'm promoting such?

 

It matters to me why I have trouble getting up in the morning. But it shouldn't matter to you or anyone else.

 

Sure it should. If I know that my mission companion has a medical condition that keeps him from getting up on time or I know that my mission companion is simply unwilling to try and get up on time it makes a great deal of difference in how I would respond.

 

There is only one reason anyone else would care why I have trouble getting up in the morning: to justify or correct a judgment about me that they never should have made in the first place. To wit: "Until you show me that you have a real medical condition, I assume you're just lazy and don't want to get up." 

 

You have a cynical view of people's motivation.

 

"The most universal subjugation in our day, as it has been throughout history, is ideology or political beliefs that are inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ."

"It seems to be a trait of humanity to assume that we are right even when we are wrong."

 

Declaring repentance is not inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ. And the second sentence, while true, doesn't support anything.

 

How does one know if they are in bondage to a false ideology?

 

By not listening to, following, and obeying ALL the teachings of God as given by His prophets, apostles, and the Holy Spirit.

 

one of us might be in bondage to a false ideology - and of course I'm going to assume it's you, and you're going to assume it's me, and we both can back up our ideologies with scripture. So how do we tell?

 

I'm not even sure what it is you're trying to back up. I'm trying to back up that declaring repentance is a commandment that is just as applicable today as it ever was. For some reason, that I cannot quite understand, this has turned you hostile. Certainly you aren't trying to back up the opposite -- that we shouldn't be declaring repentance. So I'm not quite sure how you think we're -- how did you put it? -- perhaps completely opposite in our view of the world.

[Traveler]

It is my observation that human nature is much more happy to call others to repentance than to have someone call them to repentance - especially if one thinks themselves more repentant (righteous) than whoever is issuing the call to repentance.  And if there is anything that will definitely anger or offend someone - it is a call to repent in how they go about calling others to repentance. 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

So how people receive communication is as important as how it is being given.

 

In this we agree. And yet, for holding this view, you seem to feel the need to reprove me over and over again.

 

Why is my understanding of this judgmental but yours is benevolent? I cannot quite understand what your objective is here. What are you trying to defend against? Beating the tar out of someone? Do you believe I'm promoting such?

Reproof against you or contention with you is not my intent. That would be one of the ways in which you and I simply don't seem to be communicating.

 

If I know that my mission companion has a medical condition that keeps him from getting up on time or I know that my mission companion is simply unwilling to try and get up on time it makes a great deal of difference in how I would respond.

Maybe it shouldn't make a difference.

When you don't know what the reason is, how should you respond?

Your words have indicated that you prefer to respond as though your companion is lazy until proven otherwise.

I suggest you respond as though there is a legitimate reason.

 

You have a cynical view of people's motivation.

My statement was to demonstrate your apparently cynical view.

 

Declaring repentance is not inconsistent with the gospel of Jesus Christ. And the second sentence, while true, doesn't support anything.

  

By not listening to, following, and obeying ALL the teachings of God as given by His prophets, apostles, and the Holy Spirit.

By this I infer that you assume that I am not listening to, following, or obeying ALL of the teachings God has given us. I might make the same assumption about you. Hence that second sentence. You assume that you are right and have the more complete view of the Gospel, and I assume that I am right and have the more complete view of the Gospel, and we can't both be right. So my question still remains.

 

I'm not even sure what it is you're trying to back up. I'm trying to back up that declaring repentance is a commandment that is just as applicable today as it ever was. For some reason, that I cannot quite understand, this has turned you hostile. Certainly you aren't trying to back up the opposite -- that we shouldn't be declaring repentance. So I'm not quite sure how you think we're -- how did you put it? -- perhaps completely opposite in our view of the world.

Your assertion is that the current official stance of the church does not qualify as "declaring repentance" because it does not meet your standards for harshness, clarity, bluntness, or sharpness.

My assertion is that it absolutely qualifies as "declaring repentance" and is possibly far more effective with this particular example and demographic.

Everything else is just you and I bickering over semantics on provincial topics because we can't agree on that single point.