Loveloudfest and LDS approval?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

FWIW, I think you guys are misunderstanding the Church's position on this.  It seems very clear to me.  They made the statement about the Loveloud event in an act of fellowship and charity.  They are involved with the gay wedding cake case to protect religious freedom....the cake is not religious, but it's a boundary issue.  

The issue of the Church and gays has many people upset for different reasons.  Here there is the Loveloud thing we are discussing in this thread, on the other side there are those who are upset with the church's stance on children of gay couples not being able to be baptized  (there are other issues, but these two issues from opposite sides of the spectrum suffice)....the answer for both sides of the issue is humble yourself and follow the Prophet.  

[SilentOne]

My understanding of self-esteem is that it is actually very similar to confidence.

And I find it best to understand the church's statements to mean exactly what they say. They Church said they supported the stated goal of "address[ing] teen safety and [expressing] respect and love for all of God’s children," and that, "We join our voice with all who come together to foster a community of inclusion in which no one is mistreated because of who they are or what they believe." Those are good things to support. They never claimed to support all the beliefs of the organizers.

[zil]

1 minute ago, SilentOne said:

They Church said they supported

No they didn't.

[SilentOne]

Sorry, applauded. I started typing before pulling up the statement and didn't think to check it against what I already wrote.

[Vort]

31 minutes ago, JoCa said:

Bingo; the Church is speaking out of both sounds of its mouth on this issue.

Harsh words, with which I vigorously disagree. Frankly, I'm saddened to see such open disloyalty to the kingdom of God and its leadership.

32 minutes ago, JoCa said:

Virtue “is a pattern of thought and behavior based on high moral standards.” It encompasses chastity and moral purity. Virtue begins in the heart and in the mind...Identifying as gay, lesbian, or bisexual or experiencing same-sex attraction is not a sin and does not prohibit one from participating in the Church, holding callings, or attending the temple.

Those two things can't be reconciled; The Church has cognitive dissonance on this issue.  I don't know why it has it, but it does.  You can't tell me that virtue begins in the heart and in the mind is a pattern of thought and behavior; Then tell me that identifying (i.e. something that comes from the heart and from thought) as homosexual is morally okay.

You are mistaken. Identifying as someone who has a short temper, or who craves Mountain Dew, or who is sexually attracted to aquatic mammals, or who is attracted to pornography, is NOT sinful. It's recognizing one's proclivities toward wickedness. As long as the person's thoughts and behaviors remain chaste, the person is fine to participate fully in Church activities, including temple and exercising the Priesthood. One's proclivities are not one's thoughts, and the hope and promise is that the former can be overcome by keeping the latter pure.

If your reasoning above were correct, then neither you nor anyone else could participate in Church activities. Your weaknesses would prevent you from doing so, no matter how disciplined you tried to behave.

I happen to agree with much of what you say, but you go much too far in some areas. This weakness is perhaps no more evil than other commonly exhibited traits; unfortunately, our present society demonizes the particular weaknesses you demonstrate, making them more problematic. You may want to consider following the example of the apostles more closely in this.

[JoCa]

17 minutes ago, Vort said:

Harsh words, with which I vigorously disagree. Frankly, I'm saddened to see such open disloyalty to the kingdom of God and its leadership.

You are mistaken. Identifying as someone who has a short temper, or who craves Mountain Dew, or who is sexually attracted to aquatic mammals, or who is attracted to pornography, is NOT sinful. It's recognizing one's proclivities toward wickedness. As long as the person's thoughts and behaviors remain chaste, the person is fine to participate fully in Church activities, including temple and exercising the Priesthood. One's proclivities are not one's thoughts, and the hope and promise is that the former can be overcome by keeping the latter pure.

If your reasoning above were correct, then neither you nor anyone else could participate in Church activities. Your weaknesses would prevent you from doing so, no matter how disciplined you tried to behave.

I happen to agree with much of what you say, but you go much too far in some areas. This weakness is perhaps no more evil than other commonly exhibited traits; unfortunately, our present society demonizes the particular weaknesses you demonstrate, making them more problematic. You may want to consider following the example of the apostles more closely in this.

So yes and no and I started to type this earlier, but this is where I go back to definitions.  If I identify as someone who has a short temper than my objective in life is to overcome this short temper so that at some point I no longer have a short temper.  I've said this before, I don't have a problem with someone who has homosexual feelings or thoughts who is earnestly striving to overcome them and become virtuous and chaste going to the temple.  Not one problem at all.

I have a short temper is different than I am short tempered.  Those are two totally different things.  The first is an attribute that I have meaning that over time I can change the attribute.  I am short tempered is just something I am as in there is no hope for me changing.

If I have a short temper it is something I can work on, I can try and fix-through the grace of God I can change and develop more patience.  If I am short tempered than it is just who I am and people just have to accept that is the way I am and there is no responsibility on my part to change.

I obviously haven't made myself clear; I'm not demonizing the weakness, I'm demonizing the ideology that it is immutable and fixed and therefore not subject to change.  I have stated nothing different than what the Apostles have said-so it is you who might want to consider following more closely the words of Apostles on this.

And this is where the big confusion comes in.  The doctrine of the Church has changed on this.  30 years ago- the Church recognized it is not immutable, to say I am means I don't have to improve and is therefore grounds for excommunication.  Today I am is totally fine. This change in doctrine occurred after Prop 8.

Edited September 19, 2017 by JoCa

[JoCa]

Again, I'm totally cool with saying hey I have a problem with being attracted to individuals of the same sex, I'm working on overcoming it-maybe it is a life-long struggle.

Big difference between that and I am homosexual, God made me that way and therefore I can be virtuous without even making the attempt to overcome it.

As I explained in the tldr thread on Nashville, we need to be explicit about what terms mean.  And according to the blooming dictionary, homosexual means sexual attraction and sexual desire and sexual desire is "I want to commit sexual acts with xyz". 

Simply saying or recognizing the pretty girl or pretty guy is not sexual attraction.  That is simply recognizing beauty as in oh that is a pretty flower.  That is not homosexual or heterosexual.  Homosexual or heterosexual attraction is sexual desire as in "I want to or I feel the urg to commit sexual acts with xyz".  That is not right, moral, and is sinful and we are commanded to control it and immediately push those thoughts out of our mind.

Saying I am homosexual mean that I can engage in those desires and urges.  

Look I'm married, but quite frankly heterosexual means nothing for me; b/c the only person I can have sexual desire for without committing sin is my wife.  Homosexual or heterosexual it doesn't matter b/c I'm actually wifesexual!. 

Edited September 19, 2017 by JoCa

[JoCa]

1 hour ago, SilentOne said:

My understanding of self-esteem is that it is actually very similar to confidence.

And I find it best to understand the church's statements to mean exactly what they say. They Church said they supported the stated goal of "address[ing] teen safety and [expressing] respect and love for all of God’s children," and that, "We join our voice with all who come together to foster a community of inclusion in which no one is mistreated because of who they are or what they believe." Those are good things to support. They never claimed to support all the beliefs of the organizers.

No self esteem is actually quite different.  To hold someone in esteem is to hold them in high regard.  Self-esteem is therefore to hold oneself in high regard.  

Confidence can be described as a belief in one's ability to succeed

self-esteem reflects a person's overall subjective emotional evaluation of his or her own worth.

Big, big difference between the two (again definition of words and what they mean).  When someone says they have high self-esteem what they really mean is they think very highly of themselves (without anything to actually back it up), it can lead to a very narcissistic attitude as in "I am the most important".  I don't want to be around people who have high self esteem and think they are all that.  Confidence is just a belief that one can succeed and get things done.

Self-esteem is built by talk, as in parents or teachers tell children "oh you're so special, you're the greatest, you're the best . . .etc". This builds high self-esteem but does nothing for confidence.  Building high self-esteem leads to a very self-centered attitude and personality. Confidence is only built through accomplishing things by overcoming obstacles and hurdles.  People say we want our kids to have high self-esteem that's what they think but what they really mean is they want kids to have confidence.  So when they focus on self-esteem they build self-esteem rather than confidence. And thus why we have all the mental problems. Kids growing up have been told their entire life they are so special but yet they haven't accomplished jack.  So they think very highly of themselves but reality tells them they haven't done anything.  When those two things collide they have mental problems. 

As in when they encounter a big problem they don't have the actually experience that built the confidence to succeed, all they have is thoughts about how great they are and thus they end up having anxiety issues and nervous breakdowns b/c reality doesn't match with expectations.  They haven't realized that confidence is built by falling down flat on your face and picking yourself up again.  They think if they fail that will mean they are a failure which won't match up to the esteem they hold of themselves and thus they end up having major anxiety problems.

It's really quite simple.

-------

As for the Church's statement "We applaud . . .LGBT youth's aim to bring people together to address teen safety and to express respect and love for all of God’s children"

You can parse it anyway you want to but again this doesn't make sense.  Let's put it this way.  "We applaud . . .Planned Parenthoods aim to promote research and the advancement of technology in reproductive health care and encourage understanding of their inherent bioethical, behavioral, and social implications"

I'm not gonna carry water and do mental gymnastics on this issue and yes I am a TBM card carrying temple recommend holder.

You can't applaud the aim of an organization without applauding the organization itself, unless you stipulate where you agree and where you disagree in clear terms.  Anyone who is anyone knows that Planned Parenthood is all about making abortion free, accessible to anyone who wants it.  Their fluffy aims aside, it is an evil organization. You can't applaud the aim of an evil organization and then make the claim that well we don't applaud the organization, we are applauding their aims when the way they go about acheiving their goals is against God's law.

This "addressing teen safety" was all about "acceptance" of homosexuals, i.e. don't tell them homosexual behavior is a sin that's bad and it makes them want to kill themselves. So how can you applaud addressing teen safety when what they teach as teen safety is against the teachings of the Church. You can't applaud the aims of a homosexual love fest who's founders are openly against Church teachings.  It ain't what I was taught growing up by the Church.  

I was taught in no uncertain terms do not be associated with in any fashion organizations that teach things contrary to the commandments.  The Church's statement is just ludicrous. 

[The Folk Prophet]

It strikes me that the "if you disagree with my thinking, you need to follow the apostles/prophets better" back-and-forth rhetoric isn't particularly helpful.

[Guest MormonGator]

11 hours ago, Vort said:

Harsh words, with which I vigorously disagree. Frankly, I'm saddened to see such open disloyalty to the kingdom of God and its leadership.

 

@Vort? Sad? Awww.....now who is the little snowflake? 

Edited September 19, 2017 by MormonGator

[estradling75]

Seems to me that the church has always maintained the difference between temptation (which happens to all of us) that we do not control, and Sin (which happens to all of us) which we do control.

So the church repeats the Lord's commands to us to be virtuous... while knowing we will be tempted not to be so, and knowing at some point sin will mean that we are not virtuous.  The fact that we fail does not void the command nor the church need to repeat it.

The church has clearly condemned the sin of homosexuality (just like it has condemned all other sins)... This has not changed... what has changed is the world altered and convinced people that we are not defined by the choices they make (collectively)... but by the temptation they face.  In the past people where not homosexual unless they engaged in sex with a member of the same sex.  Thus in the past the church could make blanket statement condemning homosexuality because everyone accepted that it took action to be that.

However now a days the world will teach you that if you ever had a fleeting thought about that you are forever a homosexual or bisexual or whatever sexual except being heterosexual.  Because the world has smashed the two different things together the church has to separate them to maintain the standards it has always has.  

And that standard is Temptation is not sin...(although dwelling on temptation can be) you can be a faithful and good member of the church no matter your temptation.  Repentance is the answer to sin and a repentant person can be a faithful and good member of the church no matter what your prior sins were (assuming repentance).  The unrepentant person is not in good standing but the Christ-like response is to love the person anyways and hold the door open for them to repent and be healed

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It strikes me that the "if you disagree with my thinking, you need to follow the apostles/prophets better" back-and-forth rhetoric isn't particularly helpful.

I agree.  However, I don't think that has been said here. What has been said, and not only in this thread, is that if one finds himself in opposition with the Church Leaders, that person - not the Church Leaders needs to change his heart. 

It does not matter if one is upset about the statement on the Loveloud concert, or the policy on children of gay couples not being baptized. If you find yourself in opposition with the church leaders, you are the one who needs to change. 

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I agree.  However, I don't think that has been said here. 

That is almost literally what Vort and JoCa said.

 

13 hours ago, Vort said:

You may want to consider following the example of the apostles more closely in this.

 

13 hours ago, JoCa said:

so it is you who might want to consider following more closely the words of Apostles on this.

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That is almost literally what Vort and JoCa said.

 

 

 

That doesn't change what I said though. If I came to the forum and complained about the church policy on baptism of children of gay couples (I'm not BTW)  wouldn't you agree that I need to change my heart?  It wouldn't be the Leaders who need to change. And that wouldn't be about your opinion, but about supporting our Leaders. 

[JoCa]

Well we would all do well to remember something.  The Church is not the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not the Church. Talks have been given on this. The Church is a vehicle that allows people access to the ordinances necessary for salvation.

Simply strongly disagreeing with a PR statement is not in opposition to Church leaders.  I know b/c I've explicitly asked my Stake President and had a conversation on this.

We'll see what GC talks come out in 2 weeks . . .but I know that a PR statement is just that a PR statement.  It doesn't state doctrine it doesn't state policy, it doesn't have the stamp of approval of the 12.  (it may, but I'm under no obligation to accept it as such). 

If the 12 want to move on this, then they can issue a joint statement or the 1st Presidency can; if I come out in severe disagreement to a joint statement by the 1st Presidency and/or the 12, then we can talk about not heading Apostles.  The 1st Presidency and 12 have issued plenty of joint statements in my lifetime on various issues-this isn't one of them-if they want to they can issue a statement with their names on it.  They haven't.

Edited September 19, 2017 by JoCa

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

That doesn't change what I said though. If I came to the forum and complained about the church policy on baptism of children of gay couples (I'm not BTW)  wouldn't you agree that I need to change my heart?  It wouldn't be the Leaders who need to change. And that wouldn't be about your opinion, but about supporting our Leaders. 

Sure. But that is not what was going on between Vort and JoCa and not why I said what I said.

What I see as going on is two people who see something a bit differently and are accusing the other of not following the prophet as an argumentative tactic (perhaps unintentional). And so I made my comment. The fact is that I agree with a great deal of what Vort says and a fair amount of what JoCa says (though I do think he/she goes too far and that when we step into the realm of criticizing the church and the leaders it's problematic). And I don't think an assessment of either of their views as "you're not following the prophet!" is valid.

In point of fact, I don't think the response of "you're not following the prophet" when it comes to this particular issue works very well because the "prophets" (quoted to include the apostles as well) have been and are all over the map on the issue themselves. Sure -- there are some consistencies, and I don't think anyone would disagree with the idea that we need to be kind to our fellow man.

Edited September 19, 2017 by The Folk Prophet

[JoCa]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

(though I do think he/she goes too far and that when we step into the realm of criticizing the church and the leaders it's problematic).

I totally agree it can be problematic. I recognize the danger.  It's not something I say lightly.  I completely agree we should follow the Prophets and the Apostles; but we also need to recognize that the Church is also an organization a bureaucracy with layers and layers of individuals working at various levels, some called to positions some not called some simply working for a paycheck.  

If you think about the enormous responsibilities the 12 have it is mind-boggling.  The 1st Presidency approves every Bishop and Stake President (all 30k +), they approve and assign each and every missionary to a field (all 80k of them).  Tack on speeches, conferences, traveling, etc. The simple administrative weight on their shoulders is impressive.  And then to tell me that every PR statement put out by the Church is personally approved by each and every member of the 12?  I highly doubt it. 

Then start to recognize that there are individuals inside Church headquarters who were not called but who are paid employees who all have their own personal agendas and biases (MormonLeaks wouldn't be a thing if someone who had access to the material didn't leak it-i.e. it comes from inside the Church).  Then recognize that their are high powered individuals like Steve Young who openly advocate for the right of homosexuals to marry.  

Once you recognize all these factors- you can come to understand that there are a multitude of forces, some good some evil being pushed on the Church as an organization.

My guides to doctrine are 1st Holy Scripture, what is written in OT,NT, BoM, D&C, PoGP.  Next comes direct words from Prophets and Apostles.

PR statements from the Church don't meet that cut.  PR statements are just that PR statements put out from a bureaucracy. My guess is (having been involved somewhat in bureaucratic organizations and see how they work) is someone pulled the trigger on this and I bet there were several people who weren't fully aware of what was going to actually be said and I bet there is some internal discussion at high levels from this.

[JoCa]

23 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

In point of fact, I don't think the response of "you're not following the prophet" when it comes to this particular issue works very well because the "prophets" (quoted to include the apostles as well) have been and are all over the map on the issue themselves. Sure -- there are some consistencies, and I don't think anyone would disagree with the idea that we need to be kind to our fellow man.

And if anything; this is more the point that I am driving home.  I'm sure I don't say it in the proper manner and for that fault/sin it lies at my feet.  But overall this is what I mean.

Oh and just to be a little more clear; I only threw the response of "following the prophets" back at Vort b/c it was thrown at me . . .

Edited September 19, 2017 by JoCa

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

@The Folk Prophet okay. I will happily keave this to you, Vort and JoCal to sort out. I trust your  assessment of the miscommunication happening there.

To be honest, I initially responded because I thought you were referring to something I said  (ah hubris, LOL).  I was surprised when you mentioned them, but the point seemed the same so I continued.  Now, i am conceding that there may be some sublty in your conversation with them that I am missing. Apologies for my hubris, battling pride is an on going issue for me....hopefully for all of us

(I believe pride is the root of all sin, and thus we must all battle it if we wish to become perfect some day.)

Edited September 19, 2017 by LiterateParakeet

[JoCa]

3 hours ago, estradling75 said:

Seems to me that the church has always maintained the difference between temptation (which happens to all of us) that we do not control, and Sin (which happens to all of us) which we do control.

So the church repeats the Lord's commands to us to be virtuous... while knowing we will be tempted not to be so, and knowing at some point sin will mean that we are not virtuous.  The fact that we fail does not void the command nor the church need to repeat it.

The church has clearly condemned the sin of homosexuality (just like it has condemned all other sins)... This has not changed... what has changed is the world altered and convinced people that we are not defined by the choices they make (collectively)... but by the temptation they face.  In the past people where not homosexual unless they engaged in sex with a member of the same sex.  Thus in the past the church could make blanket statement condemning homosexuality because everyone accepted that it took action to be that.

However now a days the world will teach you that if you ever had a fleeting thought about that you are forever a homosexual or bisexual or whatever sexual except being heterosexual.  Because the world has smashed the two different things together the church has to separate them to maintain the standards it has always has.  

And that standard is Temptation is not sin...(although dwelling on temptation can be) you can be a faithful and good member of the church no matter your temptation.  Repentance is the answer to sin and a repentant person can be a faithful and good member of the church no matter what your prior sins were (assuming repentance).  The unrepentant person is not in good standing but the Christ-like response is to love the person anyways and hold the door open for them to repent and be healed

I agree with a lot of this; I especially agree with the bold.  Which is why I am totally fine with terminology like "I have SSA".  Separating the two is quite difficult . . .especially when the Church as an organization puts out PR mormon videos  about the MacKintosh (sic) family.  That video does nothing to separate the two, articles put on ldsliving about Todd Christoferson and put on Deseret news does nothing to separate the two, to the contrary it helps smash them together.

IMO the reason why there is discord and confusion on this is b/c the Church as an organization is being confusing on it.  Over the past several years (since 2008), I've had various thoughts about the Church as an organization doing this or doing that of "welp that's interesting, the Church seems to be catering to the LGBT group" but no big deal.  But once you stack it all up over time it is really very plainly obvious what has happened.

The Church got it's tail whipped in the court of public opinion in 2008 and since then they have recognized the LGBT lobby has become the most powerful, influential lobby in the US-if you run afoul of them- they will cook your goose.  The Church also sees politically what is coming down the road-i.e. anti-religious freedom laws disguised in anti-discrimination  So the Church as an organization has made the tactical and strategic decision to give up on fighting the public opinion losing battle of separating out the two.

In this issue it is focused on surviving.  Because if and when the anti-religious freedom laws come knocking, at least the Church will have hopefully (in their minds) built up enough good will with the LGBT lobby to survive. They can point to "look we have been accommodating to homosexuals", look we've advocated for anti-discrimination laws in housing and employment, we don't "discriminate" against them in our organization-they are allowed into our Church's they can be full members, we just ask that our members obey certain behavioral standards just like all our members.

Put it this way, as the US becomes more and more secular and more and more atheistic. A "church" simply becomes another organization or company subject to all the same laws. 

And when religious freedom is knocked down in this country at least the Church will still survive as an organization.

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by JoCa

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

@The Folk Prophet okay. I will happily keave this to you, Vort and JoCal to sort out. I trust your  assessment of the miscommunication happening there.

To be honest, I initially responded because I thought you were referring to something I said  (ah hubris, LOL).  I was surprised when you mentioned them, but the point seemed the same so I continued.  Now, i am conceding that there may be some sublty in your conversation with them that I am missing. Apologies for my hubris, battling pride is an on going issue for me....hopefully for all of us

(I believe pride is the root of all sin, and thus we must all battle it if we wish to become perfect some day.)

Well it would be a flat out lie if I said I wasn't aware that my response tied somewhat into your comment. That being said, I intentionally, after thinking about it, determined to not rise to that particular bait for the same reasons. I do not think the "you're not following the prophet" response holds water as to my particular concerns. But arguing with you about it did not seem useful. If you don't think I'm following the prophet because the church's varied responses on the matter over the years have me a bit confused, then that's what you think.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Well it would be a flat out lie if I said I wasn't aware that my response tied somewhat into your comment. That being said, I intentionally, after thinking about it, determined to not rise to that particular bait for the same reasons. 

We must still be having a communication issue. "Bait" was never my intention.  

And my last post was meant to be conciliatory, but I read your response as the opposite. To each his own. Have a good day.

[JoCa]

I'll point out another example.  So in today's Church Todd Christoferson could get up in Sacrament meeting bear his testimony and say things much like what was printed in the LDSliving article and as long as he doesn't advocate for any behavioral sin he would be fine (I'm not saying he would or wouldn't do that . . .I don't know him).

Well let's add what if a transgender person does the same thing?  They believe they are a man trapped in a girls body-they say the exact same things except replace homosexual with transgender. "I knew from age 5 I was transgender".  What if they identified as trangender but didn't act on it. I can be a complete worthy member of the Church, shoot I can tell everyone I'm trans, but as long as I don't behaviorally do anything trans I'm okay. I can openly advocate that I'm a girl in a man's body and that God placed my spirit in this body for a reason, it is natural, God made me that way and one day I will really be a girl .   . . .but I don't act on it so I'm good.

Once you go down this route of saying someone who identifies as homosexual can be a full faithful member, then saying someone who identifies as trans can be a full faithful member isn't far behind.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

We must still be having a communication issue. "Bait" was never my intention.  

I didn't mean it was your intention.

6 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

And my last post was meant to be conciliatory, but I read your response as the opposite.

Singing Kumbaya was never my bag.

[zil]

oops, wrong thread.

Edited September 19, 2017 by zil