[Carburettor]

Roy wrote:

I wish that we as a church had someone else that could speak on this issue. I can’t imagine that Elder Christofferson would answer these questions in the same way.

It may come as no surprise to hear that I have previously read this interview a couple of times or more. As you point out, the interview took place 17 years ago at a time when doctrine was still overflowing with incorrect assumptions and limited understanding.

What may surprise you is that I have no issue with DHO’s clinical rejection of wayward choices. Moreover, I have no reservations about anyone defending and upholding morality — and DHO’s position is precisely what I have come to expect from someone who has authority to speak on behalf of the Church on a topic about which they have limited understanding and precious little inspiration, revelation, and/or genuine Christlike compassion. DHO speaks as a lawyer since that is his area of expertise.

What I find egregious is that, a few years ago, I was assured by former and serving North Star board members that senior priesthood leaders (including members of the Quorum of the Twelve) have invested copious amounts of time discussing related issues with them and other subject matter experts. A fundamental problem with these so-called experts is that they all seem to be singing from the same or similar hymn sheets — and the music is off key. It comes as no surprise that DHO’s comments should reflect everything that is wrong with the poor advice he has been receiving for decades.

He approaches the issue of individuals who fail to perform gender and identity properly from the same perspective as someone addressing a repeat offender who keeps being incarcerated for their crimes — or a drug addict who continues to cave in to addiction. These scenarios involve choice underpinned by poor habits and unwise actions, and it is this same principle of choice that is central to every piece of “propaganda” (I put it in quotes because it is my personal view — and I’m not stating it as fact) that the Brethren continue to broadcast.

It is my sincerest conviction that senior leadership — and almost all of society, including all you lovely people — are fundamentally missing a critical part of the puzzle, without which a solution will never present itself.

Simply because someone looks like the majority, speaks like the majority, and otherwise acts like the majority does not mean they are able to process all aspects of life like the majority. Fail to grasp that, and the true nature of this issue will forever elude us.

Let us revisit the case of someone with Tourette’s syndrome. Please review the following short clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZfpJbjgCcI” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZfpJbjgCcI

Tourette’s is a neurodivergent condition with outward symptoms that are impossible to miss. We have no choice but to accept that it causes individuals to behave in ways that make no sense to the majority. Despite our bewilderment about what is going on the mind of someone who has Tourette’s, we can cut them some slack because it is clear they aren’t faking it.

I am convinced that challenges that prevent individuals from being able to perform gender and identity in prescribed ways are at least in part rooted in a form of neurodivergence that is reinforced by social imprinting and hardwired by the body’s sexual metamorphosis at puberty. Unfortunately, there are no visible ticks or aberrations, so it is unsurprising that conservative individuals such as DHO should continue to preach the issue as a matter of personal choice over which all are able to exercise adequate control. This is untrue. Worse than that, it is unwitting malfeasance. Given the mandate and influence of such individuals, their historical and current guidance is shameful, unenlightened, uninspired, uncharitable, and unChristlike. Unfortunately, I cannot imagine anything being resolved for as long as people like me insist they are no different from people like you. It’s as unhelpful as someone with Tourette’s syndrome insisting there’s nothing wrong — and profanity is simply part of who they are. It creates an impasse.

I have no plans to ever advocate for immorality. My hopes are pinned on better understanding how to cope with neurodivergence that presents the world to me in ways that cause discomfort and distress. I have no support from the Church in this regard — so I am left to go it alone.

[Carburettor]

DarkJedi wrote:

By your definition you probably are an apostate, and so am I. I generally admit such jokingly. You may in fact already be on the radar of the Strengthening Church Members Committee. (Yes, it does exist.)

Ha! I doubt I’m on anyone’s radar; I make a point of posting my position anonymously (albeit with a means to contact me) to protect the sensibilities of my wife and children.

If by questioning what prophets past and present have said about my pet topic is tantamount to apostasy, the cap does fit — and I will wear it. If, however, I should be called to account for my actions, I will condemn the distortions of truth that have led us to our current predicament.

Since I don’t publish my name with my accusations, bringing me to “justice” would require a confession of sorts from me. I will confess only to defending truth — whereas the publicly stated views of certain individuals have been anything but that.

[Carburettor]

Roy wrote:

It basically means to follow the living prophet. If the prophet says the sky is green and he knows this through revelation then it must be true. Unless a later prophet says that the previous prophet was mistaken and that he knows this through revelation – then the sky is actually brown. Maybe the sky was green and then changed or maybe it was never green but the most important part is that we all agree that it is now brown … unless an even later prophet says otherwise.

I’m afraid it’s worse than that.

I decided to be one of those annoying people who write to FAIR using the Contact form.

I wrote about the unresolved topic that confronts me every day without levying criticism at anyone — I simply pointed out that there exists a vacuum where once there was pejorative revelation, but now there is nothing (without a retraction of the former revelations). All that does is compound the problems.

Yesterday, I received a response from a lovely FAIR volunteer. I am grateful for the time she spent formulating her email to a stranger, but she hasn’t realised that her response undermines (or is undermined by) the FAIR article discussed in this thread.

She shared two other FAIR articles with me.

Article 1

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2016/01/11/what-should-i-do-if-i-think-ive-received-revelation-different-from-apostles-and-prophets” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2016/01/11/what-should-i-do-if-i-think-ive-received-revelation-different-from-apostles-and-prophets

My summary: rather than questioning the Lord’s prophets, we should question ourselves and/or simply be patient.

Article 2

https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/09/28/evaluating-claims-that-contradict-the-prophets” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.fairlatterdaysaints.org/blog/2022/09/28/evaluating-claims-that-contradict-the-prophets

My summary: the Lord’s prophets do not dispense revelation on demand. Those who seek to fill in perceived gaps or to correct prophecy are guilty of priestcraft. Even if we receive true personal revelation that contradicts or complements prophecy revealed to date, it is for our personal benefit only, and we are forbidden from sharing it.

It seems that the apologist’s position is that even if a prophet (or prophets in concert) makes a mistake — and we can see it — we are not permitted to do anything but wait for them to correct their mistake (if ever), else we put ourselves in a position of apostasy. Sadly, I therefore infer that I’m already an apostate because I published my letter to the Office of the First Presidency on a website. Oops.

My response to the lovely volunteer from FAIR (whom I thanked for her gracious response) included a reference to the unknown number of saints who continue to commit suicide on account of previous punitive revelations that seem to be vanishing into thin air: “My faith in the Lord Jesus Christ remains as robust as it has been for decades. My confidence in the Church as an organisation that holds influence over the choices we make on a daily basis, however, feels destined to wane for as long as the bodies pile up.”

[Carburettor]

nibbler wrote:

What do you do with the member that feels like a doctrine the church has taught has shown cracks of imperfection? If the linked article is any indication, you respond with a combination of gaslighting and victim blaming.

Sadly, this is true.

nibbler wrote:

I know the article is apologetic for the church but it tramples all over my and many other members’ experiences. Pretending my experiences didn’t happen or that I’m at fault because I dutifully did my best to follow what I was taught is not going to be a winning strategy. The article just adds to the abuse.

It does.

nibbler wrote:

Ok. Point conceded. The church doesn’t teach that members have to follow the prophet.

I may be oversimplifying it, but that is precisely what I have learnt throughout my lifetime of membership. I have learnt that prophets are real people with feelings and failings; but if we don’t follow them, we’re going to the bad place. Even when they’re wrong, they’re right — because we must overlook their foibles for the greater good.

nibbler wrote:

Do you want that temple recommend? Do you want that eternal family? The Lord will bless you if you follow the prophet, even when he’s wrong, so just do it.

Everything you say is true. I think I need to abandon FAIR. I subscribed only to find out what happens to comments that question their dogma. I now know. They suppress dissent — just like everyone who is defending territory.

It is for this reason that I must step away if/when DHO takes the reins. I will not turn myself a hypocrite on account of his failings. He won’t be just another guy in a suit, he will be someone I have covenanted to follow. I won’t do it. I’ll come back later.

[Carburettor]

PazamaManX wrote:

Adopting the idea that the prophet and the rest of the GAs can be wrong has made it a lot easier for me to stay LDS.

That’s a fair point that is entirely understandable. However, if you’re in a Sunday School class and you express a view that you don’t take a particular aspect of doctrine too seriously “because, well, that prophet had his flaws,” you are likely to be veritably roasted. Marshmallows, anyone?

Roy wrote:

When someone feels deceived or betrayed, telling them that they kinda deserved it by being too gullible or failing to do their homework or failing to read the small print is not helpful and is not kind.

It is neither helpful, nor kind, nor true. It is contrary to the essence of what we, as a church, teach about prophecy; it’s simply an apologist get-out-of-jail-free card. A prophet whose words require filtration because they may or may not be inspired is no better than a drunk on the street corner.

Take a look at this page from the Liahona magazine: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2016/09/youth/to-the-point/what-should-i-do-if-i-question-something-a-prophet-has-taught?lang=eng

Quote:

Joseph Smith also said that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.” This means that “a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church.” It’s usually obvious when the prophet is “acting as such,” such as addressing Church members in an official capacity.

It is our privilege to ask Heavenly Father for our own witness “about whatever His prophet has proclaimed.” If we don’t receive a witness, then we should study what other prophets have said about the matter and choose a course of action. The best course of action is to follow the combined, consistent counsel of the prophets “in all patience and faith.” As we do, we will be blessed.

Let us be clear; we are welcome to study and act all we like in private after a prophet has spoken from the pulpit. However, there is no space for due diligence in respect of our public church membership when a senior leader speaks in an official capacity — and especially so when various messages are in concert with each other. These statements are either officially canonised, or they become unofficial scripture and commandments. We don’t get to question them and remain on the right side of church discipline — even if, sometime later, the Church discards them for reasons of convenience.

[Carburettor]

kotm wrote:

That’s a good point. I am not seeing a therapist as of right now, but am currently in the process of trying to find one.

Nothing personal, but the American obsession with therapy really irks me. It’s such a first-world compulsion. The vast majority of humanity has no access to therapists to help unravel their angst and mistreatment at the hands of others.

Personally, I feel that if the gospel were doing its job properly, there would be no need for such support.

Why should you or anyone else have to pay for the services of a third party to help you resolve conflict in a religious setting? To me, “conflict in a religious setting” reflects poorly on everyone.

[Carburettor]

Roy wrote:

While I do have some concerns for our future, I don’t think I despair.

I fear I may be teetering on the brink of despair.

I’m part of the committee for a local sports club. A couple of weeks ago, we held the AGM, and the chairperson mentioned that the club can qualify for some local-government funding if we can demonstrate that we are actively catering for the LGBT community.

Is that progress? Really?

There is so much bundled up in that prospect that I shudder to think too deeply about it. The “community” that the government has in mind are the same banner-waving individuals who wish to promote drag events for our kids and want every type of sexual coupling to be taught in schools. We are circling the drain.

My previous hyperbole (sorry) was intended to draw attention to the rise in power and influence of that so-called community, which is at least in part a concession for all the past hatred directed at them. And I suspect they will leverage everything at their disposal to change our societies beyond recognition. The Abrahamic faiths will never accept what they have done, but they are partly to blame for what is coming down the line.

[Carburettor]

AmyJ wrote:

I just did the 15 second overview of the concepts of “Herzberg’s Theories of Hygiene” since I had never heard it before (and/or didn’t remember it). Thanks for the update:)

Thank you for bringing Maslow into the discussion. It was a worthy contribution.

[Carburettor]

AmyJ wrote:

We can’t get to the top of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs [Love & Belonging and Self Actualization] without starting at the bottom [Physical Needs, Safety Needs].

I am oft disappointed to hear people refer to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs while so few mention Herzberg’s Theories of Hygiene. I studied both back in the eighties. 🙂

[Carburettor]

Roy wrote:

“Ever deteriorating crisis of gender and identity” – I assume that this is referring to the increase in people identifying as LGBTQ+ recently. I do confess that I wonder if some impressionable youth might not be trying out different pronouns to “find themselves.” However, I don’t understand how that qualifies as a crisis.

It’s more than a growing cohort; it’s everything that comes with it. It’s loud. Proud. Front and centre. It’s getting into everything and refusing to compromise. Sheesh; I sound like one of the general authorities who have helped to fuel the fires.

Roy wrote:

“secular and faith-based social orders are under threat” – Do you mean traditional families? Marriage is still the norm and is advantaged and protected by many laws. This was illustrated in the efforts to legalize SSM. Anything less than “marriage” was disadvantaged. What other social orders?

(I do recognize that when a group is accustomed to privilidge, any erosion of that privilidge feels like an attack)

I suspect that views from mainstream U.S. communities may differ wildly from those beyond its borders. The BBC article has Canada warning travellers to U.S., alleging that legal moves to restrict LGBT rights are on the rise there. Not so in many other countries.

Roy wrote:

“ideological terrorists” – What does this even mean? Who are these people? What do they do? How do they create terror? Literally, I think that the 9/11 hijackers would accurately be described as ideological terrorists or terrorists with a driving ideology. “Terrorist” is an extremely loaded word and I have half a mind to moderate it.

Sorry, boss. I’ll edit it out if it’s problematic. The definition of “ideology” is “a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy.” From where I stand, the foundations of the society in which I live are at risk of being progressively dismantled in the name of “equality.” For me, the cost is too high. I do not wish to be led where this is heading. Sorry if “terror” sounds too strong, but I believe the implications are indeed terrifying.

Roy wrote:

Are all these descriptors a sort of hyperbolic portrayal of the mindset of “senior Church leaders and conservatives worldwide who stubbornly double-down on their positions?”

We are seeing a mounting countermovement against repressive societies. Now that imprisonment, torture, and/or death is off the cards in many countries, there seems an insatiable appetite for normalising every fetish, predilection, and philia that mankind can dream up.

Roy wrote:

I’m not sure I understand who you are referring to as “those who make headlines in objectionable ways.” Are you talking about the LGBTQ+ activists?

Yes. Some of these individuals are what I would refer to as ideological terrorists. They aim to fragment society and replace it with a new world order in which morality is whatever is done with consent.

Perhaps I need meds or something. 😆

[Carburettor]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66654134” class=”bbcode_url”>https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-66654134

When I read articles like this, I empathise with senior Church leaders and conservatives worldwide who stubbornly double-down on their positions in the face of an ever-deteriorating crisis of gender and identity. After all, our secular and faith-based social orders are under threat from ideological terrorists.

This should come as no surprise, of course, because senior priesthood leaders have been warning us of approaching moral-Armageddon for decades.

It stands to reason, however, that these ideological “freedom fighters” will continue to take aim at the status quo for as long as they self-identify with a minority who have been maligned, negated, murdered, silenced, abused, and vilified in the name of God for centuries. And let us be clear that our church has played an active role in invalidating these people for decades.

The “world” will and must reap what it has sown by the demonising of individuals instead of trying to understand them and their unmet needs. While I despair at the direction in which we are headed, I also relate to the motivations of those who make headlines in objectionable ways.

[Carburettor]

DarkJedi wrote:

Cheating – copying someone else’s answers on tests, submitting someone else’s work as your own, etc. This was what the original version of the honor code was about.

Thanks.

[Carburettor]

PazamaManX wrote:

The cheating part of the honor code, on the other hand, is something they care very very VERY much about.

I don’t follow. Which cheating part do you mean? Failure to follow the dress code if you can get away with it, cheating in respect of prescribed standards of morality, or something else? Perhaps it’s all of them and more. I’m simply trying to understand.

[Carburettor]

PazamaManX wrote:

But because I’m not showing my face very often in the ward I’m assigned to, I get to play a round of leadership roulette and hope I’ll get the endorsement.

Back in the 80s, I spent four weeks at the Provo MTC before heading to the mission field proper. I got to walk through the BYU campus several times, but I have never since returned to North America — and certainly not BYU.

I simply don’t understand why people even want to go there. There are other universities.

[Carburettor]

Roy wrote:

As in years past, each situation will be handled on a case-by-case basis to help each student feel the love of the Savior and to encourage them to live their gospel covenants and university/college commitments.

Want to know which “years past” they hark back to? How about 1965?

Let’s consider the words of Ernest L. Wilkinson, former President of Brigham Young University — whose name still graces the BYU Wilkinson Center. His speech, “Make Honor Your Standard,” has been removed from the official archive (https://speeches.byu.edu/speakers/ernest-l-wilkinson/), despite five of his speeches remaining accessible. The missing speech was published in Deseret News, however, so a copy is easily found: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/94125938/make-honor-your-standard-page-1

President Wilkinson was serving as a senior, respected, and influential employee of the Church when he announced to the student body on September 23, 1965, “Nor do we intend to admit to our campus any homosexuals. If any of you have this tendency and have not completely abandoned it, may I suggest that you leave the university immediately after this assembly; … We do not want others on this campus to be contaminated by your presence.”

Note the word “tendency.” Have we moved on? You decide. Personally, I imagine the same types of comments are probably still being expressed behind closed doors in CES circles and the Quorum of the 12 and First Presidency.

[Author]

Posts