October 2019 General Conference

[MartyFunkhouser]

.............

[Bo Diddley]

This is the best one yet. Does your mission president ever respond or all these all one-way correspondence?

Agreed. That was awesome.

[falafel]

I'd agree. For example, I think that question encompasses "supporting or promoting" gay marriage. It encompasses supporting or promoting the belief that gender is something other than biological sex determined at birth. It encompasses supporting or promoting women's priesthood ordination.

Haha. Glad to know you will be able to answer truthfully during your next temple recommend interview.

[MartyFunkhouser]

.............

[Katy Lied]

I'd agree. For example, I think that question encompasses "supporting or promoting" gay marriage. It encompasses supporting or promoting the belief that gender is something other than biological sex determined at birth. It encompasses supporting or promoting women's priesthood ordination.

Pshaw. GM defines it "It goes from support/affiliation with any group to support/promote teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to the COJCOLDS" You can support your gay son who is a member of Affirmation. You can affiliate with your gay son who is in Affirmation. You can do that and still pass the new recommend question. The new definition is less onerous than the old one-- The church itself is at odds with the old one, as DHO himself said the church has provided support and funding to welfare projects that benefit LGBTQ people. (Or what he actually said was that they gave money without regard to LGBTQ status.) Am I trying too hard?

[The_Tick]

Pshaw. GM defines it "It goes from support/affiliation with any group to support/promote teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to the COJCOLDS" You can support your gay son who is a member of Affirmation. You can affiliate with your gay son who is in Affirmation. You can do that and still pass the new recommend question. The new definition is less onerous than the old one-- The church itself is at odds with the old one, as DHO himself said the church has provided support and funding to welfare projects that benefit LGBTQ people. (Or what he actually said was that they gave money without regard to LGBTQ status.) Am I trying too hard?

No ma'am. This is how I read it as well.

[All-American]

Pshaw. GM defines it "It goes from support/affiliation with any group to support/promote teachings, practices, or doctrine contrary to the COJCOLDS" You can support your gay son who is a member of Affirmation. You can affiliate with your gay son who is in Affirmation. You can do that and still pass the new recommend question. The new definition is less onerous than the old one-- The church itself is at odds with the old one, as DHO himself said the church has provided support and funding to welfare projects that benefit LGBTQ people. (Or what he actually said was that they gave money without regard to LGBTQ status.) Am I trying too hard?

That was my initial reading, though I think I see GM's point too. I'd say the Venn diagrams do not completely overlap.

I always found the question as it stood before to be odd; of course I affiliate with people and organizations whose views are not the same as the Church's. I just figured that can't be the problem they are trying to address with that question and gave the right answer without thinking too hard about it. The focus is no longer on the beliefs and practices of others, but on YOUR practices and beliefs, and which of them you support and promote. I think that is the right focus to have.

[MartyFunkhouser]

.............

[Moliere]

That was my initial reading, though I think I see GM's point too. I'd say the Venn diagrams do not completely overlap.

I always found the question as it stood before to be odd; of course I affiliate with people and organizations whose views are not the same as the Church's. I just figured that can't be the problem they are trying to address with that question and gave the right answer without thinking too hard about it. The focus is no longer on the beliefs and practices of others, but on YOUR practices and beliefs, and which of them you support and promote. I think that is the right focus to have.

So, can I believe that the church is wrong in not allowing gay married couples to be members and still hold a temple recommend? I guess it would depend on how I promote my belief, or if I promote that belief?

[MartyFunkhouser]

.............

[Jeff Lebowski]

You are right you can support and affiliate with your gay son who is a member of Affirmation. However, you cannot support your gay son's marriage to his husband or promote his marriage as an acceptable family.

I think the answer is actually a nuanced one here. It is less onerous in some ways and more onerous in other ways. How is that for some nuance Dude?

This is nonsense.

[falafel]

This is nonsense.

#funklogic

[MartyFunkhouser]

.............

[Jeff Lebowski]

The church has repeatedly taught that the only acceptable marriage unit is between a man and a woman. It has repeatedly spoken out against homosexual marriages. For a period of time, it called people married as homosexuals apostates. All homosexual sex, including that in a marriage has been deemed by the LDS church to be immoral.

If you support your son's gay marriage as an acceptable family unit and not immoral, you are supporting teachings contrary to the LDS church.

Funk, I am not going to waste time on this.

[MartyFunkhouser]

.............