Elder Oaks Tackles a Hard Hitting Question

[NeuroTypical]

Just now, LDSGator said:

Do you think it’s time for a national red state/blue state divorce?

I'm honestly spending time these days praying it doesn't come to that.   When it comes to me and my woke folk buddies, we can all agree on two principles: "Pretty much everyone wants more good things and less bad things", and "love is the solution to many of our biggest problems".    We disagree often about what is good and bad, and many times they simply cannot scrape together any love because they feel personally targeted and endangered by what they call "anti LGBTQ legislation".  

[Vort]

20 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Do you think the right wing has a playbook?

Indeed I do. The Right's playbook appears to be mostly stupidity, shooting from the hip and being reactionary.

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Indeed I do. The Right's playbook appears to be mostly stupidity, shooting from the hip and being reactionary.

Well, you said it. 

 

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm honestly spending time these days praying it doesn't come to that.  

Why? Maybe both sides would be much happier away from one another?

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I'm honestly spending time these days praying it doesn't come to that.

Why? I assume you must believe that things would be worse, not better, with a split. I can respect that and even agree that it's a possibility (maybe even likely). But the way things have been going in the last even five years, I see little hope and little evidence that we would be worse off with a national split.

The main problem I see is the likelihood of Balkanization. Democrat/Republican or Leftist/Conservative is the typical split, but further splits on issues such as abortion, health care, jaywalking, and getting rid of Mormons would be sure to follow. There is a minimal level of tolerance that is absolutely required to make our republic work. The Left has abandoned that tolerance like rats off a sinking ship, but if we follow their example, all will be lost. I do not know the answer, but I am no longer convinced that national divorce is not the right path. Well, maybe not the right path, but the better path compared to the alternative of doing nothing.

[Vort]

2 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Well, you said it.

Yes, I did. I try hard to be honest, and not only when talking about Leftist evils. So tell me, what do you see as the Leftist and Right-wing playbooks?

[NeuroTypical]

From where I'm standing, things look like this:

Most politicians follow two great commandments: Thou shalt gain power, thou shalt remain in and increase thy power.  Their actions and words are best interpreted as ways to follow these two commandments.  It's not that they believe in this or that principle.  They just figure if they appear to believe and fight for this or that principle, their voting base will vote more, lobbyists will throw more money that way, they'll have more leverage in their work.   

The majority of the media is beholden to their pocketbook, and will peddle outrage and sensationalism as a way of driving clicks/likes/follows/subscribes, because that drives revenue.  So their stories and agendas are not to give news, provide transparency, or even forward their personal agendas.  But instead they work to expand the number of people who consume their content, by playing to their various audiences.

Less than half Americans hold principled beliefs strongly enough to actually defend them.  Everyone else is just consumers of other people's beliefs/agendas/opinions/outrage/entertainment.  And they get blown about by whatever cultural wind populates their news feed and friend's conversations.

The most surprising thing I've found in my weekly hangout with the wolk folk, is my mirror image buddy (a genderfluid antifa supporter) and I usually end up agreeing on 95% of the core principles we discuss.  And we even agree on well over half of the best ways to get more good things and less bad things.   But we are all peddled images of reality that elevates and worships division and outrage, and the divisions seem wider than they are in reality.

[LDSGator]

Just now, Vort said:

Yes, I did. I try hard to be honest, and not only when talking about Leftist evils. So tell me, what do you see as the Leftist and Right-wing playbooks?

Oversimplified- 
 

Leftists: class warfare, elitism, envy, tolerance

Right Wing: scared of change, priggish, reactionary, respect for tradition

[person0]

Today during our Elder's Quorum meeting, we discussed President Nelson's recent conference talk, Peacemakers Needed.

Within the context of this thread, I really struggle with this, and I think I would appreciate more examples of real life application from the brethren.

One thing that bothered me is that, this quote from the talk seems to easily lead to the false conclusion that confrontation is never the answer:

Quote

Contention reinforces the false notion that confrontation is the way to resolve differences; but it never is.

Pres. Nelson gives a very clear context for his message later, saying:

Quote

I am talking about treating others in ways that are consistent with keeping the covenant you make when you partake of the sacrament. You covenant to always remember the Savior. In situations that are highly charged and filled with contention, I invite you to remember Jesus Christ. Pray to have the courage and wisdom to say or do what He would. As we follow the Prince of Peace, we will become His peacemakers.

I brought up in the meeting today that confrontation, contention and conflict are sometimes the answer, such as liberating captive people's during WW2, and that Pres. Nelson was referring specifically to how we interact with one another.

All that considered, I can't seem to help but feel the anger rise when I consider sending my children to Church with leaders who's 'difference of opinion' means they will lead my children astray, either by their words, or their actions which betray their words, and which will betray the doctrine of Christ and the Restored Gospel.  It is too much for me to expect perfection from human leaders, but somehow, when they are lacking in areas that are fundamental doctrine, I don't know how to act or feel.

How was Alma able to cope with Alma the Younger leading astray members of the Church?  I can only imagine that he at least taught against the flattering words of his wayward child, but we don't really know.  We do see other examples of prophets and missionaries publicly defending the truth against those who sought to destroy it, such as Sherem, etc.

This message is what strikes me the most:

Quote

If a friend on social media has strong political or social views that violate everything you believe in, an angry, cutting retort by you will not help. Building bridges of understanding will require much more of you, but that is exactly what your friend needs.

What happens when it is a brother/sister in your ward and those views violate everything you believe in, and also violate everything you are under the impression that they are also supposed to believe in as members of the Church (especially when it is one in a leadership position)?

Will an angry cutting retort help?  No, but what will help?  And how can we accomplish it.  And how can I avoid being angry when I can see so clearly how the allowance of these things has directly impacted my children and the children of others?  With as much gospel focus as we try to have in our home, have I not taught my children well enough that they will see these actions of others and ignore them and forge their own way on the covenant path?  Am I actually angry at myself for not being a good enough father and example?

Or is at least some of my anger and frustration justified?  If so, how do I channel it into being a peacemaker and maintain composure?  I often feel like an outsider and stranger just for believing in and defending the principles of the gospel in the Church from whence they come.  How can I/we cope in such surroundings?

This stuff is hard, and I really seem to suck at it, and most of the time I don't know what to do.  Elder Oaks' answer was helpful at validating the truth, but as @Carb pointed out, seemed lacking in the practical application department.

Thoughts?

[NeuroTypical]

55 minutes ago, person0 said:

What happens when it is a brother/sister in your ward and those views violate everything you believe in, and also violate everything you are under the impression that they are also supposed to believe in as members of the Church (especially when it is one in a leadership position)?

Will an angry cutting retort help?  No, but what will help?  And how can we accomplish it. 

Help to do what?  What's the noble, Christlike, righteous end goal for you?

[person0]

35 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Help to do what?  What's the noble, Christlike, righteous end goal for you?

To know what the actual Christlike thing to do is.  To know when my anger is righteous, like Captain Moroni, and when it is not.

I have been in meetings with leaders where I had to ask them to explain how it is possible to teach someone that they are a daughter of God, and then in the next breath refer to them with male pronouns without contradicting what they just taught for both that child and all the other children in the room witnessing it.  They didn't have an answer other than to ask something like "what about just loving that person?"  To even be in a situation where it is needful to point out that problem, and the problem with the logic of the response is very frustrating at best, but I find it hard to hold back my anger because I am speaking with someone who's responsibility is to know better on such fundamental issues.

I think those leading and teaching other members of the Church, especially youth, should be expected to both believe and uphold the teachings of the Family Proclamation, and just the doctrines of the gospel in general.  Not sure how much a thing could be confirmed/enforced.

Edited May 28, 2023 by person0

[LDSGator]

12 minutes ago, person0 said:

To know what the actual Christlike thing to do is.  To know when my anger is righteous, like Captain Moroni, and when it is not.

I have been in meetings with leaders where I had to ask them to explain how it is possible to teach someone that they are a daughter of God, and then in the next breath refer to them with male pronouns without contradicting what they just taught for both that child and all the other children in the room witnessing it.  They didn't have an answer other than to ask something like "what about just loving that person?"  To even be in a situation where it is needful to point out that problem, and the problem with the logic of the response is very frustrating at best, but I find it hard to hold back my anger because I am speaking with someone who's responsibility is to know better on such fundamental issues.

I think those leading and teaching other members of the Church, especially youth, should be expected to both believe and uphold the teachings of the Family Proclamation, and just the doctrines of the gospel in general.  Not sure how much a thing could be confirmed/enforced.

Have you tried talking to people who you clash with about things other than what you clash with? Ie-football? Bird watching? Anything but what your differences are? You don’t have to hang out and play video games together but it might be a nice place to start. Just “Hey, Tom. You into football?”

[Guest Godless]

31 minutes ago, person0 said:

To know what the actual Christlike thing to do is.  To know when my anger is righteous, like Captain Moroni, and when it is not.

I think if a time comes for what you would call "righteous anger", the First Presidency will advise you as such.

31 minutes ago, person0 said:

I have been in meetings with leaders where I had to ask them to explain how it is possible to teach someone that they are a daughter of God, and then in the next breath refer to them with male pronouns without contradicting what they just taught for both that child and all the other children in the room witnessing it.  They didn't have an answer other than to ask something like "what about just loving that person?"  To even be in a situation where it is needful to point out that problem, and the problem with the logic of the response is very frustrating at best, but I find it hard to hold back my anger because I am speaking with someone who's responsibility is to know better on such fundamental issues.

Is it the Church's stance that the preferred names and pronouns of transgender members should be disregarded? My understanding is that social transitioning (pronouns) is cause for membership restrictions, but that the decisions of those who choose to transition should ultimately be respected and that, with some restrictions, they are entitled to the fellowship of the Church.

Edited May 28, 2023 by Godless

[Guest Godless]

I just realized that I hadn't actually watched the video at the beginning of this thread. I still haven't, but this stood out to me in the transcript:

 

Edited May 28, 2023 by Godless

[person0]

2 minutes ago, Godless said:

Is it the Church's stance that the preferred names and pronouns of transgender members should be disregarded? My understanding is that social transitioning (pronouns) is cause for membership restrictions, but that the decisions of those who choose to transition should ultimately be respected and that, with some restrictions, they are entitled to the the fellowship of the Church.

My understanding, and that which our Area Presidency was willing to issue guidance on, is that only names should be observed.

3 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Have you tried talking to people who you clash with about things other than what you clash with? Ie-football? Bird watching? Anything but what your differences are? You don’t have to hang out and play video games together but it might be a nice place to start. Just “Hey, Tom. You into football?”

Problem #1, I don't really care about other things enough for that to be realistically feasible.  Or perhaps better said, the other things we could discuss we also don't have in common.

That said, in general, the individuals relevant to this discussion have much more disdain for me than I do for them.  I don't tend to hold grudges, and I would have no problem sitting down to play a game or have a chat at any time.

[person0]

3 minutes ago, Godless said:

I just realized that I hadn't actually watched the video at the beginning of this thread. I still haven't, but this stood out to me in the transcript:

I don't disagree with anything in that transcript.

[LDSGator]

25 minutes ago, person0 said:

Problem #1, I don't really care about other things enough for that to be realistically feasible.  Or perhaps better said, the other things we could discuss we also don't have in common.

That said, in general, the individuals relevant to this discussion have much more disdain for me than I do for them.  I don't tend to hold grudges, and I would have no problem sitting down to play a game or have a chat at any time.

Understand, but how do you know they don’t like you? Have you had other encounters?  Also, if you don’t have other things in common and don’t need to have a “working relationship” with the person, let them go their way and you go yours. Let the church leadership deal with them if they break rules. 

[Guest Godless]

14 minutes ago, person0 said:

I don't disagree with anything in that transcript.

So then, in regard to trans LDS members and pronouns, which approach do you think best displays "love and dignity"?

1. Disregarding their preferred pronouns and treating them as if they're mentally ill.

or

2. Meeting them where they are and respecting the life choices they've made, with hopes that they will align their identity more with the Church at some point in the future.

Neither one of these options is perfectly fair to both you and the trans person, but one of them comes more from a place of love and dignity imo.

The Church's stance on LGBTQ members will never be completely satisfactory to both sides of the issue, but I think the idea is that the proper application of Christ-like love can help bridge the distance. Yes, it's a two-way street. No, the other side won't always reciprocate. But isn't giving unreturned love the ultimate Christ-like act?

[LDSGator]

8 minutes ago, Godless said:

The Church's stance on LGBTQ members will never be completely satisfactory to both sides of the issue

Exactly. A cold truce is the best we can hope for. 

[laronius]

2 hours ago, person0 said:

Today during our Elder's Quorum meeting, we discussed President Nelson's recent conference talk, Peacemakers Needed.

Within the context of this thread, I really struggle with this, and I think I would appreciate more examples of real life application from the brethren.

One thing that bothered me is that, this quote from the talk seems to easily lead to the false conclusion that confrontation is never the answer:

Pres. Nelson gives a very clear context for his message later, saying:

I brought up in the meeting today that confrontation, contention and conflict are sometimes the answer, such as liberating captive people's during WW2, and that Pres. Nelson was referring specifically to how we interact with one another.?

I guess a rule by which to judge if what we are feeling is "righteous" is to consider whether we can feel that way while also saying we forgive them. Of course forgiving does not mean to simply continue submitting to whatever it is that's causing the problem. But the Lord has directed us in this matter:

D&C 42:88 And if thy brother or sister offend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or she confess thou shalt be reconciled. 89 And if he or she confess not thou shalt deliver him or her up unto the church, not to the members, but to the elders. And it shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world.

But you need to do something because having a festering grievance is only going to eat away at you and that's not good.

[person0]

6 minutes ago, Godless said:

So then, in regard to trans LDS members and pronouns, which approach do you think best displays "love and dignity"?

Not sure if either of your suggestions seem appropriate.  I think it is best to use the individual's name, and always use their name and avoid using any pronouns at all.  In doing so, I can be respectful without forcibly imposing their biological pronouns, and also without being dishonest.

9 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Understand, but how do you know they don’t like you? Have you had other encounters?  Also, if you don’t have other things in common and don’t need to have a “working relationship” with the person, let them go their way and you go yours. Let the church leadership deal with them if they break rules. 

It isn't as simple as you are making it sound.  Ultimately we are talking about leaders who directly or indirectly influence my children and other members of the Church.

To be clear, none of the people I have an issue with are people who deal with gender dysphoria.  I am concerned about leaders who affirm transitions through word and deed, in contrast to the doctrines of the Restored Gospel.

[LDSGator]

2 minutes ago, person0 said:

It isn't as simple as you are making it sound.  Ultimately we are talking about leaders who directly or indirectly influence my children and other members of the Church.

To be clear, none of the people I have an issue with are people who deal with gender dysphoria.  I am concerned about leaders who affirm transitions through word and deed, in contrast to the doctrines of the Restored Gospel.

Okay. Best of luck you to you with this. It’s obviously something you are struggling with. 😞 

[person0]

4 minutes ago, laronius said:

I guess a rule by which to judge if what we are feeling is "righteous" is to consider whether we can feel that way while also saying we forgive them.

Uh. . . forgiving them isn't my issue.  The issue is that they don't stop because they believe what they are doing is right, despite being dishonest and contrary to the doctrines of the gospel.  If they were to turn from that, I would have no problem whatsoever.

[person0]

5 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

Okay. Best of luck you to you with this. It’s obviously something you are struggling with. 😞 

Uh, this is a nationwide issue.  I'm pretty sure that's why Elder Oaks' addressed it.

[LDSGator]

14 minutes ago, laronius said:

D&C 42:88 And if thy brother or sister offend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone

That seldom happens. In most cases it’s much more fun to admonish someone publicly because everyone can then bask in how holy and righteous I am. That’s partially why people admonish in public and almost never take you aside and talk to you. No one would see them doing that and they don’t really care about you at all in the end.

 

that said I don’t think that’s applicable here. I don’t get those vibes at all from @person0  

 

Edited May 28, 2023 by LDSGator

[LDSGator]

1 minute ago, person0 said:

Uh, this is a nationwide issue.  I'm pretty sure that's why Elder Oaks' addressed it.

It is, but it’s clear to all of us you are struggling with how to treat the LGBTQ+ members. You’ve even admitted it.