You seem to be either a troll or a fanatical LDS hater or both. Since you just misstated my own posted opinion as well as that of green, I think I won't continue this conversation further.
LDS General Conference, Apr 2016
- Thread starter colton
- Start date
You seem to be either a troll or a fanatical LDS hater or both. Since you just misstated my own posted opinion as well as that of green, I think I won't continue this conversation further.
Uh, how did I misstate green? You took my opinion without much respect or discernment so I asked for clarification. To which you responded accusing me of being fanatical LDS hater.
Green was specific that holding onto anti-LDS beliefs will eventually lead to changed religious policy. He or she gave specific details on how this has happened in the past. What was the wording? Hold strong you gay supporters because you will change the prophets by outliving them? Tell me how that is not heretical.
Sorry if you believe a church should be molded to the will of its members. I believe religion should be directed by JEHOVA through prophetic inspiration. What green wrote sounded more of a baptist perspective to me so sorry I am trolling and a fanatical LDS hater because I took it that way. I thought the LDS church believed in prophetic inspiration but apparently I was mistaken.
Not true for everyone.
I do agree with your post. If a person gains more good than bad from staying and can make a difference, then they should do so. It isn't easy thinking a bit differently from the majority, but it is how change occurs.
green
Well-Known Member
I agree with this. I'd wish most would stay. Some should leave and that's ok. If they do what God has asked of them, they'll end up in a great place.
green
Well-Known Member
To me, it sounds like you are using the Church to justify your bigotry.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Why? Sometimes, just walking away is the best thing to do. It was for me.
While I find pleas for greater tolerance and love for gays coming from the pulpit to be a good thing, one can, I believe, reasonably question the LDS Church's commitment to these principles. For example, while the LDS Church is on one hand reaching out to the gay community in rapprochement, with the other hand, it is working behind the scenes in secret to institute the horribly tone deaf and uncharitable internal policy about children of same sex parents. So which is the real LDS Church, the tolerant one extending a hand of friendship, or the intolerant one stigmatizing children of same sex parents and requiring them to renounce their parents' union to remain in full Church fellowship?
Regardless, certain messages we are hearing today we never would have heard 5-10 years ago. So, I think progress is being made.
On the same topic, here's my theory as to why the LDS Church is trying to appear more socially tolerant of gays. LDS Leaders realize that they are having a harder and harder time holding onto their youth, who are, in general, more socially conscious/progressive than their parents. Such messages of tolerance are not targeted to the WWII generation, or even the baby boom generation, who generally care less about such issues and are probably on average more anti than pro gay, but to the millennials who are, I believe, leaving the Church at an alarming rate, or what is to the LDS leaders an alarming rate. If the LDS Church continues to take stands on social issues that put them squarely out of tune with the views of millennials, it will continue to hemorrhage its younger members. Thus, while I'd like to think that such gestures of tolerance represent a sincere extension of the hand of charity, I am cynical enough to believe that it's more of a strategic/marketing ploy to keep more of the young members in the flock.
jimmy eat jazz
Well-Known Member
Why was it powerful? Are they saying things or raising insights that nobody else has? I believe that there have been plenty of others in both the religious and secular communities who have expressed similar sentiments and have been doing so for some time now. Did you feel the same sense of 'wow' when they spoke? Or is what made it a 'wow' moment is that it was coming from people or an organization to whom you would not normally attribute such sentiments?
I'm not asking to be snarky, but more to understand aspects of LDS culture in that LDS leaders rarely, if ever raise 'moral' issues that others have not also raised prior to that moment. Yet, when the same sentiments expressed by so many others are expressed by an LDS Leader from the pulpit, suddenly the words have moral import and LDS leaders are credited by the faithful with deep moral insights. If the moral insights they speak are so powerful, why does it require them to be uttered by an LDS general authority for the LDS faithful to perceive them as such?
While I didn't listen to General Conference and do not know the specific quotes you are referencing, I understand what you are saying here. My conservative family and friends have been very opposed to bringing refugees to the U.S. based on their fear of all things Middle Eastern/Muslim. Although somewhat reluctantly, the tone is changing because of what has been said in women's conference and general conference. It is sad that they needed to be reminded of their humanity, but I'm glad that they had someone to help them with it. I do get frustrated that they were not being able to figure that out for themselves. And yes, I realize that not all LDS members are this way. I'm talking about specific people in my life.
I don't think someone needs to express a completely original thought for it to be powerful. It is powerful when it is finally heard and understood, no matter the source.
Thanks for the thought jimmy eat jazz.
Just as a clarification, it was powerful because Elder Kearon shared first hand stories which were extremely emotional. After he finished, Pres. Uchtdorf had the responsibility to announce the rest of the meeting. Pres. Uchtdorf was himself a WWII refugee as a child and was overcome with emotion. He could barely speak. We all love and respect Pres. Uchtdorf, he's the only non-American in the first presidency that most of us have seen in our lifetime, and he is an incredible man. To see his reaction was extremely powerful.
Hopefully it was able to get through to the crowd that jazzgal described.
What bigotry would that be? [MENTION=14]colton[/MENTION] already accused me of this and ran off without wanting to explain anything beyond his anti-LDS paranoia.
I was specifically talking about the reaction of Pres. Uchtdorf as being powerful. He came to the stand after the talk and could barely speak. For those who don't know, Pres. Uchtdorf was a refugee himself in the aftermath of WW2.
But the talk itself was powerful as well. As Jazzgal said, many LDS--especially in Utah--are pretty right-wing. And many/most right-wingers seem to be pretty against helping out the Syrian refugees. Elder Kearon essentially reminded all church members of our responsibilities to help our fellow man. Yes, it's sad that that had to be said, but it was said in a powerful and moving way. He pointed out that not only were the LDS ourselves refugees not too long ago, but Jesus was as well.
Here's a link to the talk: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2016/04/refuge-from-the-storm?lang=eng
Sadly they don't post the stuff in between the talks, so you can't see Pres. Uchtdorf's reaction.
D
Deleted member 365
Guest
One of the problems facing Mormon (Utah) families today is the popularity of right wingers (Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity) and progressive talks like the one given in women's conference and Sunday afternoon.
For 6 months all many of these families do is watch/listen far right wingers and their hate.
Then, for one weekend every 6 months, they hear a few talks that reminds them that:
Muslim refugees aren't the anti-Christ
The poor aren't all lazy
It must be confusing to many of these families.