After my own deep dive into this territory, this was the perfect synthesis of all that I’ve learned...about myself, the church and my LGBTQ family...because they have become family to me in a way I hadn’t allowed them to be previously. What changed my heart? Matty’s beautiful and vulnerable sharing of his experience as a gay young man in our LDS faith on Mormon Stories and multiple interviews by Tom Christofferson who has become like an older brother to me. Thank you for organizing this podcast around this sensitive issue. And Patrick...it took me 2 minutes to love this good brother. Thank you for all that was shared here. You will do much good with this piece in building some tentative bridges across “Zion Canyon”!
As a non-American non-BYU non-Utah LDS church member, all I see from these conversations is the overall importance of truly keeping our commandments - even the 2nd greatest commandment "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". As a straight person myself, I love my LGBTQA friends & family members. My stepson is gay. It's not a "burden" - it's who they are, & respecting them for who they are. Same thing for people respecting my status as a person of color with a background of epilepsy seizures. All I ask is for people to love & respect who I am also. And the same thing with myself showing respect for people from diverse communities also. I would absolutely LOVE seeing more LGBTQA people attending church more. I see a lot of similar conflicts that happened when black people were not allowed the priesthood. We need more love, less hate. All & all, it's being true to the sign on our chapels ALL VISITORS WELCOME. Be true to our covenants. Anything that we don't understand ourselves, leave that in the Lords hands. As what was shared in the video, love people for what's in their hearts.
Exceptional discussion. I was looking for greater understanding and that is precisely what I found. Thoughtful, caring, discussion with foundation of faith and a desire for ultimate truth. No easy answers. The path forward isn't likely to be a simply flip of a switch where the issue just goes away tomorrow. Thank you for the open discussion and the light you shed on the topic. For those of us anxious to expand our understanding, you are making a real difference.
How grateful I am to Tom Christofferson for helping me to better understand the way an LGBTQ+ member might think. I have a niece and nephew both members of the community, they are perfect the way they are and I couldn’t love them more. Thanks Patrick and Tom for explaining the larger scope of the eternal family! I have been a huge fan of Tom since he gave the Northumberland Fireside, I immediately had the wish to become a better human being, the same goes for today’s discussion! Thanks to all who participated.
Such a great discussion. Thanks for sharing. The closing statements reminded me of this statement by President Uchtdorf During the Feb 2012 Worldwide Leadership training: “Unfortunately, we sometimes don’t seek revelation, or answers from the scriptures or the handbooks, because we think we know the answers already. Brothers and sisters, as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit.
"Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?” If we've already made our minds up about something, it can prevent us from asking the right questions, or even asking at all. And even if we do ask, it may prevent us from recognizing an answer we don't expect to receive, or to doubt the divine source of that answer. I pray for all, including our apostles and prophets, that we may open our iron gates to the additional light and knowledge we so desperately need on this subject.
@@jaredshipp9207 I hope every member of the church has insured that the foundation of their faith and testimony is rooted in Christ and his gospel, a sure foundation (Helaman 5:12) and not on a church and it's leaders. To think that the brother of an apostle would have hope for change if he had been told it would never happen is amazing to me. What is more amazing is that people don't see how the church is inching the members little by little toward that direction and succeeding in doing so. The Lord, his gospel and his laws are the same yesterday, today and forever but men have agency and even the elect can be deceived. If you think that what those in this podcast are hoping for will never happen, you better hold tight to the rod because I have no doubt it is going to happen.
You guys are doing such an amazing job! Thank you so much for this episode. It was timely and wise and gave me hope and comfort. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
The issue is that BYU was created to be a FAITH PROMOTING university first, and an academic institution second. If the university decides to start allowing or promoting faith diminishing issues, it becomes just another university, as Elder Holland said.
The idea of Black’s receiving the priesthood, being endowed and being sealed for eternity with keys to enter the celestial kingdom was at one time a faith diminishing idea. The idea that a person could enter into celestial glory with God and only having one wife was a faith diminishing idea. Why is this one the hill we’re going to die on?
A favorite quote of mine from Joseph Smith is “in proving contraries truth is made manifest”. It is in this proving in such difficult spots that expand my thoughts and feelings. Not a quick or simple process. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and helping me in my proving journey. ❤️
I so appreciate the thoughtful discussion recognizing the pain and the challenge of the words chosen by Elder Holland without attacking him. I definitely want to study more about the difference between conflict and contention. ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜🤎🤍🖤
The real issue is that BYU faculty are turning their backs on "The Proclamation on the Family". That's what the target was. The LGBTQ issue was a total of six minutes out of the entire talk. People sometimes want confirmation of what they believe to be true (whether it's true or not). When a member of the 15 or a seventy says otherwise they freak out. We saw this in Elder Holland's talk. He spoke the truth and this speech was a long time coming. BYU faculty are often out of line with what they are teaching in the classroom. Postmodernism has led to CRT, social justice activism, and critical theory. This is contrary to the mission of BYU. Faculty knew this when they signed up, LDS or non-LDS.
I can see what you are saying about the Family Proclamation and the need to defend it. But I think we should be careful about saying that we can't find anything good in Critical Race Theory or social justice activism. BYU's job is to sift through and take out that which is good, by the lens of the gospel. Not everything that "liberal" thinkers advocate is some kind of conspiracy.
Thank you for this heartfelt discussion. It is helping me process my own understanding and desires that all might come to a unity of faith as disciples of Christ. You are modeling well how anyone might navigate discussing hard sayings with love for all including a sustaining of our ordained apostles and prophets.
I wish that academics was what was described. With the modern woke religion enveloping the academy, everything is racist, sexist, oppressive and a capitalistic hegemony as the conclusion and they work backward from there. I wish there was open inquiry and a reservation of conclusions. The academy is already entrenched in its own religion and BYU is trying to not get sucked into the powerful tidal wave of the end of western thought and inquiry that is killing universities.
I didn't take the musket and trowel comment towards the lbq group rather a statement on standing for the church or terrring down faith. As for the scientific methods faith will always be faith. I love Tom his faith is inspiring. Love of all in this life is our duty if we are to take on the name of Chist.l have faith it will be all inclusive beyond our current understanding in the kingdom of God.
Merciful or violent God? It helped me tremendously when I put the Gospels above other scripture. Jesus showed us the true character of God much better than Moses, Joshua, Brigham Young, etc, did. If other scripture gave us a good enough understanding of what God is like, then the only reason Jesus came was to die. I think he came to also LIVE, and witness the true character of God. Thinking that way helps my sanity at least. I find it inspirational.
Both Official Declarations were given and implemented without the need to remove any existing scripture/proclamations. The only way the changes that were suggested at the end of the conversation could happen would be to remove or change existing scripture and the definition of exaltation. Not sure how that would happen.
The mortar and musket issue I saw as referencing the difficulty in building the Kirtland Temple among a disparate population. I think Elder Holland was referencing this because the temple brought so much enlightenment to our doctrine. we need more information regarding LGBTQ then we have doctrinally. I hope that we will be able to pray as a loving people for more information and withhold judgement for things we lack information about. We know that Christ exhibited respect to all people in all walks of life.
Tom Christofferson at 13:19. The parents were thinking of removing their children from BYU for another reason. Tom states it was about a "hostile" environment where all types of people would not be embraced. Subsequently parents who more liberal wanted among other topics LGBTQ issues discussed at BYU. There was however another group of parents who are even more strong. These parents are sending their children to BYU because it is ideally supposed to be more conservative than other universities and maybe not as politically correct as they are. They are fed up with CRT, social justice activism, LGBTQ activism, and radical feminism influencing their children. Faculty at BYU used to know their place and at one time supported "The Proclamation on the Family". This is no longer so.
Excellent conversation--thank you for it. Tim, I especially appreciate your, "hand grenade" question at 1:09:30, which in, my mind, is the real bottom line. Tom's answer focused on the centrality of the "doctrine of Christ, which is repentance, ordinances, and endure to the end." The crowning ordinance is a sealing between a man and a woman. That seems to be a rock-solid foundation stone in this noble gospel.
Reference to Elder Neal A Maxwell October 1996 Gen Conf. “According to the Desire of Our Hearts”. “For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts” (D&C 137:8-9). God thus takes into merciful account not only our desires and our performance, but also the degrees of difficulty which our varied circumstances impose upon us. We all have varying degrees of difficulty in our life’s circumstances. I cannot explain how much I love our great Redeemer.
Why are folks tip-toeing around the real issue related to LGBTQ concerns. Lets call a spade for what it is. Many of these individuals want The Brethren to change Church position. They want their life-style fully accepted in The Savior's Church. So many of us are trying to understand them, to love them. It just seems that is not enough.
Patrick Mason truly seems like a nice guy. But when he and Tom talk about leaving the door open for “new revelation” regarding the family, what that truly means in the LDS Church is all the old blokes who hold bigoted attitudes need to die off and social pressure needs to mount to such a a degree that the leaders are forced to change. This is such a strange way for the Lord to provide ongoing revelation and guidance in his one true Church.
Plural marriage could return. If the government can say marriage between two same-sex adults is constitutional how can it restrict plural marriage between consenting adults?
Turning a completely harmless metaphor into an occasion to take offense as if it were meant literally is one of the problems with the whole left-wing approach to grievance peddling & search for victimhood. We live in an age where "outrage culture" seeks out offence to react to, frequently making others an offender for a word, which is where this discussion went off the cliff for me. And just a note for Patrick Mason, in plural marriage, all marriages are between a man and a woman. It is simply repeated more than once.
Perhaps the tendency to drive our favorite "philosophies of men" as truths is the reason for our current pathway to apostasy and fullfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy for our day. We can not change truth...we can only learn it, live it, and perhaps at times help others do the same.
I watched the whole podcast from start to finish, listening carefully to the arguments and explanations; and yet I am unmoved. Though I wasn't expecting much, I was hoping for a more objective review of Elder Holland's speech. Instead, it would seem that Tim, who was the only one to raised objective questions, spoke the least. Tom made Elder Holland an "offender for a word". Patrick highlighted the tension between intellectualism and faith. And Aubry simply agreed with everybody. This episode was more like a therapy session. I do, however, believe that the exchange was interesting and the topic compelling. It highlighted, for me at least, the fault line from which the divisiveness is emanating - the doctrine on the family.
To me it seemed Tom bent over backwards to be respectful and soft on Holland. Towards the end he was simply being honest about how the divisive parts of the speech hit him. We have different perspectives I suppose if you think Tom was out of line. And what do you mean the divisiveness is emanating from the doctrine of the family?
Hi and thanks, Lee, for the reply. I appreciate your opinion. All participants expressed a deep and abiding love for Elder Holland. So I don't think Tom was out of line, but we do have different perspectives. In the end both Patrick and Tom had a difficult time answering and expressing their feelings about Tim's question. So to clarify my point: the doctrine on the family [The Family: A Proclamation to the World] is the one hinge-pin around which much of the divisiveness on this issue revolves. This proclamation is THE definitive idea against which all other ideas assail. It either means what it says or it doesn't - parsing, equivocating or hair-splitting notwithstanding.
@@scottbowden4931 I'm going to listen to the last question from Tim again. In the meantime, I think I agree that the proclamation is the hinge-pin, because it was created to be exactly that, right? Wasn't it created more to push against gay marriage etc, than to promote heterosexual marriage? Heterosexual marriage is already extoled by all the romantic novels, movies, love songs, religions, most governments, etc, etc, etc. So the proclamation was not so much about protecting heterosexual marriage, as about fighting gay monogamous marriage. No?
@@leem3299 if I understood you correctly I’d have to disagree. The proclamation is fundamentally an official policy statement on traditional families and the role they play in God’s plan of happiness for his children. Though it hasn’t been canonized it represents official doctrine and it’s principles are foundational to sacred covenants made in holy temples. In my opinion, and lately to my chagrin, the church makes few definitive statements for or against policy issues in an effort to forestall contention. In this they can’t be too careful if they do not wish to alienate people they’re trying to win or retain.
@@scottbowden4931 Yes, it is an official policy statement on things that weren't specifically spelled out before, but as I understand it, the impetus for it's creation was to resist gay marriage. "Hinckley first read the Proclamation on September 23, 1995, at the church's General Relief Society Meeting, stating that the purpose was to "warn and forewarn" the world to the danger of deviating from its standards." His talk was entitled "Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World" (Ensign article). So to me it seems more of a tool created to resist something new, than to protect something traditional. And this is an interesting topic for me to find myself looking into. Before Holland's speech, same gender romance was the very last thing on my mind. But now I'm thinking things through. I never understood the context of the family proclamation before. I thought it was just a good idea leadership had one day to focus on the family. But now the warnings and predictions of calamity sound more ominous. Standing against something isn't as inspirational as standing for something. So when authorities characterize what they are doing as "protecting the family", I have to wonder if they are saying that but their real intention is to "prevent gay marriage". The former statement sounds a lot better, but that's not a good enough reason to mislead on the actual motive. Alas, I ask, does gay monogamous marriage harm heterosexual marriage in some way? What threat really is there to traditional marriage? We only need to protect it if it is in danger. If the actual goal is to prevent same gender marriage, just lead with that. Anyway, like I said, I'm new to thinking this through. Gotta hand it to Holland, he's powerful enough to pull my attention from other important things on my mind - One part of one speech and I'm all interested in this controversial topic that never really grabbed me before.
I appreciate the podcast. Something that I personally did not settle with me, not trying to add a bias or negativity to the talk, Elder Holland, mentioned that he is someone who cries at the “opening of supermarkets”, almost discrediting himself and his own tears, the he says that he cries for LGBTQ + individuals, seem to add also a mixed message to me, this was not addressed in the podcast but I think it is worth mentioning
I was disappointed in the way Elder Holland mischaracterized the intent of Matt Easton's valedictorian speech and indirectly smeared Matt. By doing so he fired a warning shot across the bow for BYU faculty that a repeat will not be tolerated. So sad.
Where can I find the transcript, I want to determine on my on own if Matt’s intent was. I trust Elder Holland’s interpretation of Matt’s goal. My first blush is Matt’s comments most likely was not for that moment appropriate. Please tell if you think my initial reaction is appropriate.
@@dfre102 I respect your view. As another gay guy, I think what Mr. Easton did needed to be done. One of the apostles is reported to have said there are no homosexuals in the Church. Time to face reality. I have no idea of what motivated Matt then or subsequently.
The church speaks honestly? Didn't they excommunicated people for saying the exact same thing that's in the church essays. It's this kind of behavior that makes people angry. It's hypocritical.
A tempest in a teapot. There is no real threat to BYU of losing accreditation, even it maintains its formal religious commitments. The First Amendment is much more powerful than Elder Holland imagines. At the same time, it is unlikely that BYU will be any sort of "think tank" for the LDS Church. It is explicitly not a research university, and does not take religious research seriously.
The enormous challenges, abuse and failures in the traditional family unit are rarely discussed. THE SILENT uncomfortable fruit of the Proclamation of the Family. Where is the learning? If this is the ideal in 2021 then it is severely lacking, and perhaps Elder Holland should put more energy into helping the fold discover its own musket metaphor for pride and unrighteous dominion.
Sure feels like the same situation the church was at before black people finally got to enter the temple. Top leadership has to hear and see the situation, even if it makes them uncomfortable. Marches and flags are not even metaphorically violent. Top leadership seem to see them as aggressive towards themselves though, and pull out metaphorical muskets. Sad.
I am sorry, but as much as one strains to sugarcoat the speech in question under layers of alleged "caritas", defending this affront is untenable. Even from a believing perspective, Mr. Holland was out of line and clearly abused his authority. "I can talk about anything I want", he said. One has to be callous or utterly insensitive to take advantage of the loudspeaker and the deference he enjoys as one of the supreme leaders of the most powerful institution in Utah, only to abuse such a venue on order to drag the LGBTQ issue through the mud once again. Mr. Holland is fully aware of the untenable suicide rate among this demographic in Utah, and the pain he would inflict with his words, especially among the faithful gay Saints who strive to navigate the contradiction between their sexuality and the tenets of a religion they love which has no adequate answers or revelations to given them. What is more, one is also to question Mr. Holland's ethical compass. Of all the relevant and crucial topics he could have addressed (we are dying by the thousands in a global pandemic!) on such an occasion, he chose instead to beat a dead horse of homophobia regardless of the suffering he knew he would cause among the little ones. If one thought Mr. Holland could not have embarrassed himself even more, he went as far as singling out a former student in his diatribe! How can an experienced, mature adult (let alone one who claims to be a mouthpiece for the Judeo-Christian God, an apostle like those depicted in the New Testament!) behave in such an unforgivably reckless and childish manner is unfathomable.
Interesting to observe the chasm between those who feel Elder Holland's remarks were entirely appropriate versus those who found them to be offensive. There seems to be no middle ground.
@@democraticpatriot2657 I think it was actually Mr. Holland who excavated the chasm and fell into it. And by the way, extremist positions are naturally met with polarized reactions.
Christ lost more followers than he gained and most who followed him at one time went away. People see what they want to see and get what they want to get. The message is the message. The interpretation and inferred meanings is what diverges as wide a chasm as can be imagined and inferred by the uncharitable and hyperbolic critique of Elder Holland.
I just listened to Elder Holland's speech. May the Lord bless him. What a brave man and disciple of Jesus Christ.
After my own deep dive into this territory, this was the perfect synthesis of all that I’ve learned...about myself, the church and my LGBTQ family...because they have become family to me in a way I hadn’t allowed them to be previously. What changed my heart? Matty’s beautiful and vulnerable sharing of his experience as a gay young man in our LDS faith on Mormon Stories and multiple interviews by Tom Christofferson who has become like an older brother to me. Thank you for organizing this podcast around this sensitive issue. And Patrick...it took me 2 minutes to love this good brother. Thank you for all that was shared here. You will do much good with this piece in building some tentative bridges across “Zion Canyon”!
As a non-American non-BYU non-Utah LDS church member, all I see from these conversations is the overall importance of truly keeping our commandments - even the 2nd greatest commandment "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself". As a straight person myself, I love my LGBTQA friends & family members. My stepson is gay. It's not a "burden" - it's who they are, & respecting them for who they are. Same thing for people respecting my status as a person of color with a background of epilepsy seizures. All I ask is for people to love & respect who I am also. And the same thing with myself showing respect for people from diverse communities also. I would absolutely LOVE seeing more LGBTQA people attending church more. I see a lot of similar conflicts that happened when black people were not allowed the priesthood. We need more love, less hate. All & all, it's being true to the sign on our chapels ALL VISITORS WELCOME. Be true to our covenants. Anything that we don't understand ourselves, leave that in the Lords hands. As what was shared in the video, love people for what's in their hearts.
I sustain Elder Holland and believe he spoke the truth
Exceptional discussion. I was looking for greater understanding and that is precisely what I found. Thoughtful, caring, discussion with foundation of faith and a desire for ultimate truth. No easy answers. The path forward isn't likely to be a simply flip of a switch where the issue just goes away tomorrow. Thank you for the open discussion and the light you shed on the topic. For those of us anxious to expand our understanding, you are making a real difference.
How grateful I am to Tom Christofferson for helping me to better understand the way an LGBTQ+ member might think. I have a niece and nephew both members of the community, they are perfect the way they are and I couldn’t love them more. Thanks Patrick and Tom for explaining the larger scope of the eternal family! I have been a huge fan of Tom since he gave the Northumberland Fireside, I immediately had the wish to become a better human being, the same goes for today’s discussion! Thanks to all who participated.
Great discussion! I love the hostess and the outstanding guests.
Profound and powerful thoughts! Thanks to you all!
Such a great discussion. Thanks for sharing.
The closing statements reminded me of this statement by President Uchtdorf During the Feb 2012 Worldwide Leadership training:
“Unfortunately, we sometimes don’t seek revelation, or answers from the scriptures or the handbooks, because we think we know the answers already. Brothers and sisters, as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit.
"Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?”
If we've already made our minds up about something, it can prevent us from asking the right questions, or even asking at all. And even if we do ask, it may prevent us from recognizing an answer we don't expect to receive, or to doubt the divine source of that answer. I pray for all, including our apostles and prophets, that we may open our iron gates to the additional light and knowledge we so desperately need on this subject.
@@jaredshipp9207 I hope every member of the church has insured that the foundation of their faith and testimony is rooted in Christ and his gospel, a sure foundation (Helaman 5:12) and not on a church and it's leaders. To think that the brother of an apostle would have hope for change if he had been told it would never happen is amazing to me. What is more amazing is that people don't see how the church is inching the members little by little toward that direction and succeeding in doing so. The Lord, his gospel and his laws are the same yesterday, today and forever but men have agency and even the elect can be deceived. If you think that what those in this podcast are hoping for will never happen, you better hold tight to the rod because I have no doubt it is going to happen.
Love this discussion. So needed. We are not good at discussing difficult subjects and this shows how that can happen. And I love all the books!
Finished listening. Hugs to all four of you! (covid safe hugs that is)
Thank you, Lee! 🤗
Excellent discussion!😊
Those last comments by Tom and Patrick were amazing!! So good.
You guys are doing such an amazing job! Thank you so much for this episode. It was timely and wise and gave me hope and comfort. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
The issue is that BYU was created to be a FAITH PROMOTING university first, and an academic institution second. If the university decides to start allowing or promoting faith diminishing issues, it becomes just another university, as Elder Holland said.
The idea of Black’s receiving the priesthood, being endowed and being sealed for eternity with keys to enter the celestial kingdom was at one time a faith diminishing idea. The idea that a person could enter into celestial glory with God and only having one wife was a faith diminishing idea. Why is this one the hill we’re going to die on?
A favorite quote of mine from Joseph Smith is “in proving contraries truth is made manifest”. It is in this proving in such difficult spots that expand my thoughts and feelings. Not a quick or simple process. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and helping me in my proving journey. ❤️
I so appreciate the thoughtful discussion recognizing the pain and the challenge of the words chosen by Elder Holland without attacking him. I definitely want to study more about the difference between conflict and contention. ❤️🧡💛💚💙💜🤎🤍🖤
The real issue is that BYU faculty are turning their backs on "The Proclamation on the Family". That's what the target was. The LGBTQ issue was a total of six minutes out of the entire talk. People sometimes want confirmation of what they believe to be true (whether it's true or not). When a member of the 15 or a seventy says otherwise they freak out. We saw this in Elder Holland's talk. He spoke the truth and this speech was a long time coming. BYU faculty are often out of line with what they are teaching in the classroom. Postmodernism has led to CRT, social justice activism, and critical theory. This is contrary to the mission of BYU. Faculty knew this when they signed up, LDS or non-LDS.
You nailed it.
@@k4949 Absolutely. This was not a talk about LGBT issues, it was a call to employees of the Church to defend the Proclamation.
I can see what you are saying about the Family Proclamation and the need to defend it. But I think we should be careful about saying that we can't find anything good in Critical Race Theory or social justice activism. BYU's job is to sift through and take out that which is good, by the lens of the gospel. Not everything that "liberal" thinkers advocate is some kind of conspiracy.
Thank you for this heartfelt discussion. It is helping me process my own understanding and desires that all might come to a unity of faith as disciples of Christ. You are modeling well how anyone might navigate discussing hard sayings with love for all including a sustaining of our ordained apostles and prophets.
To keep the commandments is the key for deciding to follow Jesus Christ. Everyone has a cross to carry upon.
I wish that academics was what was described. With the modern woke religion enveloping the academy, everything is racist, sexist, oppressive and a capitalistic hegemony as the conclusion and they work backward from there. I wish there was open inquiry and a reservation of conclusions. The academy is already entrenched in its own religion and BYU is trying to not get sucked into the powerful tidal wave of the end of western thought and inquiry that is killing universities.
I didn't take the musket and trowel comment towards the lbq group rather a statement on standing for the church or terrring down faith. As for the scientific methods faith will always be faith. I love Tom his faith is inspiring. Love of all in this life is our duty if we are to take on the name of Chist.l have faith it will be all inclusive beyond our current understanding in the kingdom of God.
@@jaredshipp9207 the scripture D&C 132 says it has to be a polygamous marriage. What are you talking about?
Merciful or violent God? It helped me tremendously when I put the Gospels above other scripture. Jesus showed us the true character of God much better than Moses, Joshua, Brigham Young, etc, did. If other scripture gave us a good enough understanding of what God is like, then the only reason Jesus came was to die. I think he came to also LIVE, and witness the true character of God. Thinking that way helps my sanity at least. I find it inspirational.
Well said and so true.
Both Official Declarations were given and implemented without the need to remove any existing scripture/proclamations. The only way the changes that were suggested at the end of the conversation could happen would be to remove or change existing scripture and the definition of exaltation. Not sure how that would happen.
The mortar and musket issue I saw as referencing the difficulty in building the Kirtland Temple among a disparate population. I think Elder Holland was referencing this because the temple brought so much enlightenment to our doctrine. we need more information regarding LGBTQ then we have doctrinally. I hope that we will be able to pray as a loving people for more information and withhold judgement for things we lack information about. We know that Christ exhibited respect to all people in all walks of life.
Tom Christofferson at 13:19. The parents were thinking of removing their children from BYU for another reason. Tom states it was about a "hostile" environment where all types of people would not be embraced. Subsequently parents who more liberal wanted among other topics LGBTQ issues discussed at BYU. There was however another group of parents who are even more strong. These parents are sending their children to BYU because it is ideally supposed to be more conservative than other universities and maybe not as politically correct as they are. They are fed up with CRT, social justice activism, LGBTQ activism, and radical feminism influencing their children. Faculty at BYU used to know their place and at one time supported "The Proclamation on the Family". This is no longer so.
Yes, it’s unfair to say the environment somehow is hostile to LGTBQ more than other universities seems to me to be a overly simplistic.
Excellent conversation--thank you for it. Tim, I especially appreciate your, "hand grenade" question at 1:09:30, which in, my mind, is the real bottom line. Tom's answer focused on the centrality of the "doctrine of Christ, which is repentance, ordinances, and endure to the end." The crowning ordinance is a sealing between a man and a woman. That seems to be a rock-solid foundation stone in this noble gospel.
I love Elder Holland and found nothing controversial in his talk. Some times chastisement is necessary.
Reference to Elder Neal A Maxwell October 1996 Gen Conf. “According to the Desire of Our Hearts”.
“For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts” (D&C 137:8-9).
God thus takes into merciful account not only our desires and our performance, but also the degrees of difficulty which our varied circumstances impose upon us.
We all have varying degrees of difficulty in our life’s circumstances.
I cannot explain how much I love our great Redeemer.
Yes.. Elder Holland’s speech was just comfusing. We need clear doctrine and application. The way the Church leadership is acting is fuzzy.
They are talking out of both sides of their mouth in an attempt to apease both sides, yet apeasing neither.
Why are folks tip-toeing around the real issue related to LGBTQ concerns. Lets call a spade for what it is. Many of these individuals want The Brethren to change Church position. They want their life-style fully accepted in The Savior's Church. So many of us are trying to understand them, to love them. It just seems that is not enough.
If the Lord Himself declared, in person, the definition of marriage and the law of chastity, there are those who would challenge Him.
Patrick Mason truly seems like a nice guy. But when he and Tom talk about leaving the door open for “new revelation” regarding the family, what that truly means in the LDS Church is all the old blokes who hold bigoted attitudes need to die off and social pressure needs to mount to such a a degree that the leaders are forced to change.
This is such a strange way for the Lord to provide ongoing revelation and guidance in his one true Church.
Thank you.
this affront is unfathomable.
How would one compare Elder Holland’s talk to Leviticus 18 or Genesis 19? Or Alma 39-42? Y’all have read the Bible, right?
Sincere question, why was it "sustainable" in years past but not now?
Plural marriage could return. If the government can say marriage between two same-sex adults is constitutional how can it restrict plural marriage between consenting adults?
Turning a completely harmless metaphor into an occasion to take offense as if it were meant literally is one of the problems with the whole left-wing approach to grievance peddling & search for victimhood. We live in an age where "outrage culture" seeks out offence to react to, frequently making others an offender for a word, which is where this discussion went off the cliff for me.
And just a note for Patrick Mason, in plural marriage, all marriages are between a man and a woman. It is simply repeated more than once.
Perhaps the tendency to drive our favorite "philosophies of men" as truths is the reason for our current pathway to apostasy and fullfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy for our day. We can not change truth...we can only learn it, live it, and perhaps at times help others do the same.
I would have thought the bridges would have come from those that tell us the are the representatives of GOD here on the earth.
I’m not that interested in peoples sexual orientation and wish people would not publicly announce it..
The wheat and the tares are doctrines that are thought to be from Christ. Not so much people.
Is Tom Christofferson planning to get married?
What I understand is that he's not currently pursuing any romantic partnerships. I recently finished his memoir and I highly recommend it.
I watched the whole podcast from start to finish, listening carefully to the arguments and explanations; and yet I am unmoved. Though I wasn't expecting much, I was hoping for a more objective review of Elder Holland's speech. Instead, it would seem that Tim, who was the only one to raised objective questions, spoke the least. Tom made Elder Holland an "offender for a word". Patrick highlighted the tension between intellectualism and faith. And Aubry simply agreed with everybody. This episode was more like a therapy session. I do, however, believe that the exchange was interesting and the topic compelling. It highlighted, for me at least, the fault line from which the divisiveness is emanating - the doctrine on the family.
To me it seemed Tom bent over backwards to be respectful and soft on Holland. Towards the end he was simply being honest about how the divisive parts of the speech hit him. We have different perspectives I suppose if you think Tom was out of line. And what do you mean the divisiveness is emanating from the doctrine of the family?
Hi and thanks, Lee, for the reply. I appreciate your opinion. All participants expressed a deep and abiding love for Elder Holland. So I don't think Tom was out of line, but we do have different perspectives. In the end both Patrick and Tom had a difficult time answering and expressing their feelings about Tim's question. So to clarify my point: the doctrine on the family [The Family: A Proclamation to the World] is the one hinge-pin around which much of the divisiveness on this issue revolves. This proclamation is THE definitive idea against which all other ideas assail. It either means what it says or it doesn't - parsing, equivocating or hair-splitting notwithstanding.
@@scottbowden4931 I'm going to listen to the last question from Tim again. In the meantime, I think I agree that the proclamation is the hinge-pin, because it was created to be exactly that, right? Wasn't it created more to push against gay marriage etc, than to promote heterosexual marriage? Heterosexual marriage is already extoled by all the romantic novels, movies, love songs, religions, most governments, etc, etc, etc. So the proclamation was not so much about protecting heterosexual marriage, as about fighting gay monogamous marriage. No?
@@leem3299 if I understood you correctly I’d have to disagree. The proclamation is fundamentally an official policy statement on traditional families and the role they play in God’s plan of happiness for his children. Though it hasn’t been canonized it represents official doctrine and it’s principles are foundational to sacred covenants made in holy temples. In my opinion, and lately to my chagrin, the church makes few definitive statements for or against policy issues in an effort to forestall contention. In this they can’t be too careful if they do not wish to alienate people they’re trying to win or retain.
@@scottbowden4931 Yes, it is an official policy statement on things that weren't specifically spelled out before, but as I understand it, the impetus for it's creation was to resist gay marriage. "Hinckley first read the Proclamation on September 23, 1995, at the church's General Relief Society Meeting, stating that the purpose was to "warn and forewarn" the world to the danger of deviating from its standards." His talk was entitled "Stand Strong against the Wiles of the World" (Ensign article). So to me it seems more of a tool created to resist something new, than to protect something traditional. And this is an interesting topic for me to find myself looking into. Before Holland's speech, same gender romance was the very last thing on my mind. But now I'm thinking things through. I never understood the context of the family proclamation before. I thought it was just a good idea leadership had one day to focus on the family. But now the warnings and predictions of calamity sound more ominous. Standing against something isn't as inspirational as standing for something. So when authorities characterize what they are doing as "protecting the family", I have to wonder if they are saying that but their real intention is to "prevent gay marriage". The former statement sounds a lot better, but that's not a good enough reason to mislead on the actual motive. Alas, I ask, does gay monogamous marriage harm heterosexual marriage in some way? What threat really is there to traditional marriage? We only need to protect it if it is in danger. If the actual goal is to prevent same gender marriage, just lead with that. Anyway, like I said, I'm new to thinking this through. Gotta hand it to Holland, he's powerful enough to pull my attention from other important things on my mind - One part of one speech and I'm all interested in this controversial topic that never really grabbed me before.
I appreciate the podcast. Something that I personally did not settle with me, not trying to add a bias or negativity to the talk, Elder Holland, mentioned that he is someone who cries at the “opening of supermarkets”, almost discrediting himself and his own tears, the he says that he cries for LGBTQ + individuals, seem to add also a mixed message to me, this was not addressed in the podcast but I think it is worth mentioning
09:45 Go Aggies!
I was disappointed in the way Elder Holland mischaracterized the intent of Matt Easton's valedictorian speech and indirectly smeared Matt. By doing so he fired a warning shot across the bow for BYU faculty that a repeat will not be tolerated. So sad.
Where can I find the transcript, I want to determine on my on own if Matt’s intent was. I trust Elder Holland’s interpretation of Matt’s goal. My first blush is Matt’s comments most likely was not for that moment appropriate. Please tell if you think my initial reaction is appropriate.
@@smuggythornton No.
@@smuggythornton Yes. You’re taking a mature approach. God bless you in your journey.
@@dfre102 I respect your view. As another gay guy, I think what Mr. Easton did needed to be done. One of the apostles is reported to have
said there are no homosexuals in the Church. Time to face reality. I have no idea of what motivated Matt then or subsequently.
@@jaredshipp9207 thanks for telling the truth.
The church speaks honestly? Didn't they excommunicated people for saying the exact same thing that's in the church essays. It's this kind of behavior that makes people angry. It's hypocritical.
A tempest in a teapot. There is no real threat to BYU of losing accreditation, even it maintains its formal religious commitments. The First Amendment is much more powerful than Elder Holland imagines. At the same time, it is unlikely that BYU will be any sort of "think tank" for the LDS Church. It is explicitly not a research university, and does not take religious research seriously.
The enormous challenges, abuse and failures in the traditional family unit are rarely discussed. THE SILENT uncomfortable fruit of the Proclamation of the Family. Where is the learning? If this is the ideal in 2021 then it is severely lacking, and perhaps Elder Holland should put more energy into helping the fold discover its own musket metaphor for pride and unrighteous dominion.
Sure feels like the same situation the church was at before black people finally got to enter the temple. Top leadership has to hear and see the situation, even if it makes them uncomfortable. Marches and flags are not even metaphorically violent. Top leadership seem to see them as aggressive towards themselves though, and pull out metaphorical muskets. Sad.
@@jaredshipp9207 Priesthood and temple entry ban was temporary policy? Policy, not doctrine staunchly defended huh? You may want to review history.
@@jaredshipp9207 Temporary policy, God's will at the time. Well, at least it's flexible.
I am sorry, but as much as one strains to sugarcoat the speech in question under layers of alleged "caritas", defending this affront is untenable. Even from a believing perspective, Mr. Holland was out of line and clearly abused his authority. "I can talk about anything I want", he said. One has to be callous or utterly insensitive to take advantage of the loudspeaker and the deference he enjoys as one of the supreme leaders of the most powerful institution in Utah, only to abuse such a venue on order to drag the LGBTQ issue through the mud once again. Mr. Holland is fully aware of the untenable suicide rate among this demographic in Utah, and the pain he would inflict with his words, especially among the faithful gay Saints who strive to navigate the contradiction between their sexuality and the tenets of a religion they love which has no adequate answers or revelations to given them. What is more, one is also to question Mr. Holland's ethical compass. Of all the relevant and crucial topics he could have addressed (we are dying by the thousands in a global pandemic!) on such an occasion, he chose instead to beat a dead horse of homophobia regardless of the suffering he knew he would cause among the little ones. If one thought Mr. Holland could not have embarrassed himself even more, he went as far as singling out a former student in his diatribe! How can an experienced, mature adult (let alone one who claims to be a mouthpiece for the Judeo-Christian God, an apostle like those depicted in the New Testament!) behave in such an unforgivably reckless and childish manner is unfathomable.
No, he just said the truth in as kind a manner as he could. In no way was he out of line.
Interesting to observe the chasm between those who feel Elder Holland's remarks were entirely appropriate versus those who found them to be offensive. There seems to be no middle ground.
@@democraticpatriot2657 I think it was actually Mr. Holland who excavated the chasm and fell into it. And by the way, extremist positions are naturally met with polarized reactions.
Christ lost more followers than he gained and most who followed him at one time went away. People see what they want to see and get what they want to get. The message is the message. The interpretation and inferred meanings is what diverges as wide a chasm as can be imagined and inferred by the uncharitable and hyperbolic critique of Elder Holland.
Why should there be a middle ground when the middle ground lacks truth?