the Church™ must do more for LGBT youth ?

So I just had an “interesting” exchange on a social media platform, and wanted to 1) preserve it; and 2) see if anyone that might read this blog had any comment.

As the last comment indicates, I feel that I've said my piece.  That said, unless I consider a comment here to raise something new and substantial, I’ll likely not reply (other than to acknowledge your comment) Also, the stuff in [brackets] after posts, are my thoughts that were not part of the original thread.

So here it is:

I had a former mission flat mate (not my companion, but we lived in the same flat for awhile) post the Trib’s Op-Ed on the Church™ must do more for LGBT youth. http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/4064166-155/op-ed-lds-church-must-do-more

After reading the piece, my first comment was:

"Platitudes, lip-service and meaningless testimony sharing by the highest levels of LDS Church leadership must stop."
As if there's any chance of that .  :(

Then another guy from the mission (I don’t remember him) said:
So how do you justify the tribune's statement " Renouncing all past teachings that do not align with current medical and mental health standards and practices needs to happen immediately" with The Proclamation to the World "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." And D&C 43:15-16 "Ye are not sent forth to be taught, but to teach...And ye are to be taught from on high." This not meant to be trite. I can see no way for the church to change this doctrine short of a revelation that unravels the Temple Sealing ordinance(and all of my spiritual experiences in which gender exists with both those unborn and deceased). So the arguement becomes one of outreach. I know there is a lot of outreach going on with LDS social services (a relative and friends work there) but they are not trying to go the direction of the world with pure acceptance, it is treated from the perspective of help and full Gospel fellowship..

[Of course, it’s not the Trib’s statement, it’s Kimberly Anderson, the Op-Ed writer’s opinion]

The OP then said:
On one hand the Trib is going easy, they didn't make any mention of the electro shock treatments used on gay men at BYU in the 1970s. How the church is avoiding a lawsuit on that one defies logic, [Another missionary who is a lawyer] noted legal expert will need to answer that for me.

[But] I digress, the real point here is how do we change the climate in the church that causes young gays in the church to believe that suicide is a better option than living?

To which Other Missionary responds:

 I think it is easy to blame the church, but sometimes it really is "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." (Eph. 6:12) and people on the church need to realize "What we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive". (Eph 4:14). I think the world has created the climate and the definition of the climate. If you are not happy, it is not your fault, blame the church, others, society, government, etc. But really, if your life is not in order, you will not be happy. Satan then convinces them that they cannot repent, and they give up (which is his ultimate goal). To blame that on the church is wrong. I have watched people work through all types of sexual problems, including some that have been in jail for pedophilea, and they have found peace only after their life is in order with the church. Some have spend decades looking for that peace elsewhere, and it will never be found. So to blame the one place where peace can be obtained, because you refuse to believe it, or accept it, or to live it, and then demand that they change, will not give you peace.

The OP then said:

You're making a big mistake [Other Missionary] lumping gays in with pedophiles. Which is what you're implying.

I don't believe the church has the ability to make gay men straight by just telling them to "repent." That's crazy.

I have no idea why some people are attracted to others of the same gender, the reasons are not understood and far more complex than simply calling it a sin and telling the gays to "repent."

I know Elder Packer taught this, but, the church quickly changed his talk before it went onto LDS.org.

Other Missionary then replied:

I did not lump them, I stated that I knew a pedophonile that has overcome it. It's possible to work through severe moral issues. The gay lobby believes and actively lobbies that it is not possible. That is what I am arguing against.

To which OP then said:

And I agree with the "gay lobby" I don't think you can change your sexuality.

Other Missionary then asked:

Why?

And OP retorted:

I just don't believe you can.

Other Missionary then declared:

I am the opposite. I think people can change many things, and are spiritually stronger than they realize. When I studied music there were studies on brain development that showed different sections of the brain physically changing based on the instrument the student played. I have also seen research that shows the brain rewires itself each time you choose not to get angry. So a choice of one reaction can restructure part of the brain. I think that this applies to sexual/ gay activities and thoughts. They can change their brains by what they constantly obsess about. As for the knowledge of Dr.'s. I have met enough that have told me they do not know, the research has changed, there is new research and they were wrong, that I know that they are not the expert. I absolutely believe 1 Cor. 10:13 "There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it." I think people are in more control of themselves than they will believe. I know a man that had a stroke 20 years ago that damaged the part of your brain that filters behavior, or moral decisions. He was warned that most people with that damage become severly immoral, gay, etc. He has not had a problem with it. The Dr's attribute his control to his spiritual development. The one that frustrates me the most is the belief that a child is transgender. There are even pediatric groups here that argue against that. A child has not gone through puberty. This is a societal construct. But the gay/ trans lobby will not let their voice be heard and they make more noise. I am not saying that people may not struggle with it. But I believe they can overcome it.

OP then said:

Do you know how many heart broken wives and kids there are out there in the church because a gay man got married and had kids, believing he could, "overcome it." Then ended up divorcing his wife, upon the realization that he is a gay man, and nothing can change that. I know of cases like this, one of them was in our mission BTW.

Other Missionary then said:
One was in my ward, and my friend. But I watched him spiritually fall first, before he left his wife (33 years of marriage). When he started to argue with the prophet the spirit left him, and then he failed. For the first 30 years when he was keeping the commandments, he was able to do it. I think people need the trust the Savior more. I do not believe that there is any commandment that we cannot keep. Just commandments that Satan convinces us we cannot keep. If we all gave into our bodies weakness'/appetites all of us would fail. It really is our choice.

[“one” was in your ward, and your friend. Really?  I’m not sure you know what a “friend “is.]

OP then kinda started to go after Other Missionary and said:

Uh huh, let me see you lose 40 lbs then.

Other Missionary then claimed:
You know that there is a difference between eating and sexual desire. President Clark even spoke on it. Sex is not mandatory to live. I lost my wife, and immediately stopped having sex until I remarried. I have lost 50 lbs in the past. Dr's cannot explain my weight vs my diet (endocrine disorder). But I can control what I eat so it does not become worse. I can gain 10 lbs in 2 days, without eating anything to cause it, then I slowly lose it again. But I control my diet so that it does not increase. But I was able to completely control my sex drive.

To which OP teased:

Oh sputter blah sputter, blah, sputter.....Uh [Other Missionary] says, [OP] the rules of self control only apply when I say they do. They certainly don't apply to me, and my diet. I can't control putting all that fat, sugar, and carbs into my body, I have no control over that [OP].

[Other Missionary], can you honestly tell me that you have a healthy diet and you don't stuff your face with fat, sugar, and carbs?

If we drop you onto a desert island for a year, you'll lose weight. And there won't be a daily buffet on set like the Skipper had :)

Other Missionary then gets defensive and says:

I have been working with Dr's since I was 6 on dietary issues. Their research has been constantly changing over that time.  In other words they do not know. Several of their recommended diets have made me gain weight. Now they have told they were wrong, and the current research say's I need more natural fats, less carb's, more full fat dairy, french cheeses, and that their previous recommendations had destroyed the natural gut biome in me and caused to gain weight. So the Word of Wisdom was correct, natural grains and foods. My diet is breakfast (3 eggs 210 calories and a small serving of a natural carbohydrate (usually our own homemade 3 day raised whole wheat sourdough breadand we grind the wheat, or small oatmeal. My lunch is usually 1-2 cups of vegetables, 1/4 cup brown rice and 1/4 cup of pan fried chicken breast, no sauce. I also eat 1/3 cup of anasazi beans (natural bean from the Anasazi Indians around southwest Colorado. No snack. My dinner is the same as my lunch, or a taco salad (homemade with 1/2 head of romaine lettuce, 1/2 avacado, one tomato, 1/4 cup chicken again, 1/4 beans, a few baked chips, salsa, grated cheese, and now sour cream (eat more dairy fats). I cannot eat processed breads, sugars or foods as my pancrease produces to much insulin as the response. I pass out in several hours. I can ocassionaly eat ice cream. I rarely eat out (nothing I can eat) and I cannot eat any red meat! If I do it goes into my joints and I cannot walk. My caloric intake is around 1,500 a day and I have been warned that it may be too low. If I eat more I gain weight. I have worked with several Dr's and a nutritionist (5 years) and no, I have never been able to stuff my face with sugar or carbs. I watch other people eat it around me, and then eat what I can. I have also been told to increase my olive oil intake (It is better for you than they have taught for 40 years) as it helps reduce fat buildup in your arteries, and cholesteral is not produced from diet but is 85% produced in your liver and genetic (new research). Reducing fat intake does not reduce it. So yeah, I do not eat it. I can eat poultry and fish so I rotates those around with the chicken, no pork or red meat. I would die in Texas.

OP continues teasing, saying:

I think the desert island will offer a guaranteed cure, when do you want to leave?

At this point I finally pipe in and say:

I think virtually everything that [Other Missionary] had said in this thread IS the problem.
Which is why this problem will likely never be improved in my lifetime. :(

OP then says

I will agree with [I’m Dence].

But Other Missionary just can’t leave it alone and wants the last word, so he condescendingly says:

If it is a choice between the medical (opinions) of the world, or the leaders of the church, I will follow the leaders of the church. Revelation trumps wordly knowledge everytime for me.

Well, that’s my cue, so I respond:

So show us a "revelation" where the Lord told the prophet (you know, the only guy authorized to receive revelation for the whole church/world) anything about this issue, and where he then, in his prophetic capacity, announced it to the church/world as the word of the Lord.
I'd sincerely like to see that; because if it exists, I must have missed it.

Other Missionary then posts:

The Family: A Proclamation to the World
https://www.lds.org/topics/family-proclamation?lang=eng


Followed by:
NEAL A. MAXWELL  “Cleanse Us from All Unrighteousness”
https://www.lds.org/.../cleanse-us-from-all...


And:

And finally President Faust "There is some widely accepted theory extant that homosexuality is inherited. How can this be? No scientific evidence demonstrates absolutely that this is so. Besides, if it were so, it would frustrate the whole plan of mortal happiness. Our designation as men or women began before this world was. In contrast to the socially accepted doctrine that homosexuality is inborn, a number of respectable authorities contend that homosexuality is not acquired by birth. The false belief of inborn homosexual orientation denies to repentant souls the opportunity to change and will ultimately lead to discouragement, disappointment, and despair." https://www.lds.org/.../serving-the-lord-and-resisting...

And:

SPENCER W. KIMBALL  - The Foundations of Righteousness - Ensign Nov. 1977
Pres. Kimball We hear more and more each day about the sins of adultery, homosexuality, and lesbianism. Homosexuality is an ugly sin, but because of its prevalence, the need to warn the uninitiated, and the desire to help those who may already be involved with it, it must be brought into the open. https://www.lds.org/.../the-foundations-of-righteousness...

And:

EZRA TAFT BENSON - Counsel to the Saints
This from Pres. Benson gives you a scriptural revelation, and explanation. "Do not commit adultery “nor do anything like unto it.” (D&C 59:6.) That means petting, fornication, homosexuality, and any other form of immorality." https://www.lds.org/gene.../1984/04/counsel-to-the-saints...

Other Missionary then sums up:

Nowhere does is say you cannot repent. But you cannot be happy commiting sin, especially homosexual or other deviant sexual behaviors. So the church cannot tell them it is ok. But they constantly try to help them overcome it. We need to help others develop the faith in Christ to overcome their (and our ) weakness'. Not give in and reduce the power of the "infinite atonement."

I then respond:

A "proclamation", that never claimed to be the result of revelation. Quotes from 2 guys who are NOT THE prophet, and 1 who wasn't THE prophet when he said it. So only the Spencer Kimball quote meets the first requirement that it be said by THE prophet. And the "permissiveness" part of his address clearly imply that it was the concerns of "we" (the brethren) he was voicing. It is plain that he was not even claiming to be speaking for the Lord.
But like I said, I think virtually everything that you have said in this thread IS the problem.
Your continued attempts to justify your brethrenite hard heart, just strengthens that judgment.

Contentiously, Other Missionary then says:

So then lets turn this around. You find me one statement from a prophet that justifies your position.  I'm staying with D&C 1:38 "Whether by mine own voice, or by the voice of my servants, it is the same." Multiple servants for almost 200 years (6,000 from all dispensations) have stated it is a sin. As far as I am concerned they have spoken in their official capacity, it has been published, and they have backed it.D&C107:30-31. If you are not happy with the proclamation and believe that it is not revelation then try applying D&C107:33 and see if you can get it overturned. But I believe "they shall not be unfruitful in the knowledge of the Lord." (vs 32) I fully believe in this process. "“The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles counsel together and share all the Lord has directed us to understand and to feel, individually and collectively,” he said. “And then, we watch the Lord move upon the President of the Church to proclaim the Lord’s will.”

This “prophetic process”—which also includes fasting, prayer, studying, pondering, and counseling with each other as they wrestle with the issue—was followed in 2012 with the change in age for missionary service, as well as the recent additions to the Church’s handbook, consequent to the legalization of same-sex marriage in some countries, President Nelson said.

“Filled with compassion for all, and especially for the children, we wrestled at length to understand the Lord’s will in this matter,” he said. “Ever mindful of God’s plan of salvation and of His hope for eternal life for each of His children, we considered countless permutations and combinations of possible scenarios that could arise. We met repeatedly in the temple in fasting and prayer and sought further direction and inspiration.

“And then, when the Lord inspired His prophet, President Thomas S. Monson, to declare the mind of the Lord and the will of the Lord, each of us during that sacred moment felt a spiritual confirmation. It was our privilege as Apostles to sustain what had been revealed to President Monson. Revelation from the Lord to His servants is a sacred process. And so is your privilege of receiving personal revelation.” https://www.lds.org/.../president-nelson-encourages-lds...

I then said:

I'm not sure I've taken a position, other than LDS culture has serious flaws on this issue, and is absent legitimate revelation. I don't think you can "turn around" the idea of just being a decent person to others.  But if you insist, how about we just look at the example of the Lord. ;)
BTW D&C 1:38 doesn't mean what you think it does. Misinterpretation of scripture, clearly colored by your personal political bias, holds no weight with me.
Believe what you will, but know that trusting in the arm of flesh, especially when it's not even necessary, is done at your peril. Good luck with that.

Confused and/or offended, Other Missionary then says:

How does having a spiritual experience that verifies that President Monson and all of his counselors, and the quorum of the 12 are inspired qualify as "trusting in the arm of the flesh?" I am willing to follow their teachings, even though you do not believe they are inspired by revelation, unless they provide you documentation of each revelation. How do you come up with that statement?

Minutes later he adds:

If you do not trust me on D&C 1:38 , trust Elder Ballard. "Many of us may find ourselves in a similar situation as we make our way through life’s challenging thoroughfares. These are difficult times, and the world’s cultural and sociological landmarks of propriety, honesty, integrity, and political correctness are constantly shifting. Just when we think we know the way to happiness and peace, some new ideology comes along which can lead us down a path that will only heighten our confusion and intensify our despair. At such times, we might well ask, “Is there one clear, unpolluted, unbiased voice that we can always count on? Is there a voice that will always give us clear directions to find our way in today’s troubled world?” The answer is yes. That voice is the voice of the living prophet and apostles.

When The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was organized 171 years ago this month, the Lord gave a revelation to the members of the Church through His prophet, Joseph Smith Jr. Speaking of the President of the Church, the Savior instructed Church members to “give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

“For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith” (D&C 21:4–5).

Then the Lord gave a magnificent promise to those who are obedient: “For by doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name’s glory” (D&C 21:6).

A year and a half later, the Lord added to that significant promise this stern warning: “The arm of the Lord shall be revealed; and the day cometh that they who will not hear the voice of the Lord, neither the voice of his servants, neither give heed to the words of the prophets and apostles, shall be cut off from among the people” (D&C 1:14).

“What I the Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself; and though the heavens and the earth pass away, my word shall not pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same” (D&C 1:38).

It is no small thing, my brothers and sisters, to have a prophet of God in our midst. Great and wonderful are the blessings that come into our lives as we listen to the word of the Lord given to us through him. At the same time, knowing that President Gordon B. Hinckley is God’s prophet also endows us with responsibility. When we hear the counsel of the Lord expressed through the words of the President of the Church, our response should be positive and prompt. History has shown that there is safety, peace, prosperity, and happiness in responding to prophetic counsel as did Nephi of old: “I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded” (1 Ne. 3:7). https://www.lds.org/.../2001/04/his-word-ye-shall-receive...


Finally, I responded:

You clearly conflate “the Church” (a trademark of the Sole Corporation of “the corporation of the president” and/or inter-mountain west LDS culture) with the gospel of Jesus Christ, which the true church (the followers of Christ) seeks to live and teach. To my mind, you also have a warped idea of what a “prophet” is and/or when one is acting as such.
When the drunkards of Ephraim claim to speak for the Lord, without his express direction to do so, they take his name in vein.
I see those who abdicate their agency to follow such men (because of their title, rather than the title holder’s express direction from the Lord) as trusting in the arm of flesh. Feel free to “FOLLOW THEIR TEACHINGS.” But know that you have been warned, and woe is likely to be unto you.
For me, I’ll follow the example of the Lord. He already has spoken and told us to love one another, and to treat other as we want to be treated. He also told us to remove the beam from our own eyes before removing the splinter from our neighbor’s eye.
I don’t need revelation in matters like this. And neither does anyone else. If I follow the gospel (the afore referenced actual teachings of Christ) it’s crystal clear how I am to treat others.
If you (or those you apparently presume to be your betters, who hold a title) want to change what the Lord has already clearly taught, it is incumbent on you (or them) to provide an actual revelation where the Lord says: Yea, I said that, but what I meant was, except for [whatever folks you/they want to disparage]. Or: what I said was true in times of old, but now days things have changed, and now I’m telling you this.
Instead you have the opinions of a group of extremely insulated old white men, who in large part claim at most to have felt inspiration (as opposed to having received actual revelation), about a matter, that requires neither. In part due to their own personal biases and prejudices, as well as to those of their followers.
BTW, I’m quite certain that those who can’t distinguish inspiration from revelation have yet to RECEIVE the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Perhaps you ought to seek spiritual experiences based on the Lord, rather than men, regardless of who they are, or what title they claim. Then your whole house of cards doesn’t have to fall down because they inevitably change what they’ve said.
Finally, even a revelation is only binding on the church when THE prophet records it, then announces it, and then the membership accept it by common consent. Historically it is then published. (Something that hasn’t actually happened in either of our life times. And I’m well aware of the 1978 Official Declaration 2. The argument for even a negative revelation there is tautological at best.)
I've said my piece. I'll not waste my time with further replies in this matter.

Thoughts?  Am I out of line here?  After all, I'm Dence.

Bringing about Zion

So the Church™ hasn’t really talked about bringing about Zion in my lifetime (or in the life of anyone currently alive) from what I can tell.  Oh there's the occasional lip service to some general idea (usually if it helps bolster an argument by a GA to give/pay more to the Church™).  But nothing tangible.  Nothing concrete.  Nothing serious.  And I find that very distressing.

It’s clear they are supposed to.  The Lord commands us to “seek to bring forth and establish the cause of Zion” (D&C 6:6, see also D&C 11:6; 12:6; 14:6)

Maybe they forgot.  Maybe they don’t even know what that is, or what it might look like, so they ignore it.  I could infer sinister motives, but I tend to subscribe to Hanlon's razor (Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity/ignorance.)

Well, maybe we ought to know what Zion is if we’re going to talk/think  about it.  Certainly, if we are going to seek to bring it about.

Google says Zion is the hill of Jerusalem on which the city of David was built (or it’s Africa if you are a Rastafarian)

Wikipedia says it’s a place name often used as a synonym for Jerusalem, which commonly referred to a specific mountain where a Jebusite fortress of the same name stood and later became a metonym (a figure of speech which is a substitute for reduction) for Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem, the city of Jerusalem and "the World to Come", the Jewish understanding of the hereafter.

In the well hidden Young Women’s unit on building up the church, lds.org says: “Zion refers to the Lord’s people who are of one heart and one mind and dwell together in righteousness. We can establish Zion by building unity and spiritual strength in our homes, wards or branches, and communities.”  Well, maybe.  But like most things that come out of the correlation committee, you can bet there’s a LOT more to it than just that.

If you actually looked up the scriptures I cited above, you’ll see that 3 of the 4 D&C versus actually say “the cause of Zion” rather than Zion.  Is there a difference between the cause of Zion and the Lord’s Zion?

Honestly, I don’t know.  If anyone thinks they do, I’d be pleased to hear from you.

At first blush, I’d think that the cause of Zion is the doctrines and/or concepts that when practiced actually bring about the Lord’s Zion.  And what would those doctrines and/or concepts be?  I think Alma had it pretty well in hand when we’re told of his initial ministry:

20 Yea, even he commanded them that they should preach nothing save it were repentance and faith on the Lord, who had redeemed his people.
21 And he commanded them that there should be no contention one with another, but that they should look forward with one eye, having one faith and one baptism, having their hearts knit together in unity and in love one towards another.
22 And thus he commanded them to preach. And thus they became the children of God. (Mosiah 18:20-22, emphasis added.)

I’d submit that the cause of Zion is to become the children of God; and that when we do so, we are well on our way to bringing about Zion.

Perhaps there’s more though.

Scripturally, Zion is the Lord’s people. (“And the Lord called his people Zion, because they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them.”) (Moses 7:18)

It is also the City of Holiness which came to pass in Enoch’s days, after his continued preaching in righteousness unto the people of God  (Moses 7:19) The abode of the Lord forever. (Moses 7:21)

And Zion is also the Kingdom of God on earth.  The Kingdom the Lord prayed for in “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” (Matt 6:10)

And Zion is also the pure in heart. (D&C 97:21) In their latest attempt to create scripture without revelation, the correlation committee says in True to the Faith, that “Zion is often used in this way [the pure in heart] to refer to the Lord’s people or to the Church and its stakes.” (They then cite D&C 82:14, which says nothing of the kind)

I prefer to believe that the pure in heart is a reference to those with real charity.  Those possessed with the pure love of Christ.  Those who have the both the same love Christ has for each of us, as well as the love Christ has for our Father.

So it seems that if we preach nothing but repentance and faith in Christ, and look forward to his return by being united with, and loving our neighbors with true charity, we actually can bring about Zion.  And maybe we don’t need the Church™ to follow the injunction to seek to bringing about Zion.

Perhaps if we just act Christlike, the others around us who are observant (watchful, not necessarily rule following), would not only notice, but seeing our good works, would emulate that example, thereby allowing their eyes/minds to be opened and in turn their hearts to become pure.  I have no illusions that such a course would be quick, nor that there would likely not be that many who’s hearts would actually be turned.  But I’m sure there would be some.  More importantly, I believe that it could lead to the ultimate creation of a critical mass of such folks, who could then band together to actually bringing about the physical Kingdom of God Zion that we are supposed to be seeking.

So what do I mean by just act Christlike? When Rock Waterman recently blogged about The Refiner's Fire , he spoke of Mosiah 4:17-18 and called it the “easiest and most rewarding of God's commandments.”  He then concluded: “Doing my meager part to assist someone in having a bite to eat now and then turns out to be the one thing I can do that actually brings me closer to God.”

I think that keeping this commandment (to do unto the least of these) is the first step in becoming pure in heart and having charity.  Not the act of giving to the beggar itself, but the desire behind the act to help your brother/sister in need.  Without regard to how the need arose.  Without assigning blame, or finding fault.  For aren’t we all beggar’s?

Until I hear of a better method of bringing about Zion, this is my plan.  Feel free to adopt it yourself.  Or not.  After all, I'm Dence.