Those of you outside of the Intermountain states may not be familiar with it, but Deseret Book is the primary retailer for Church and Church related books and media in Idaho and Utah, and, I believe, Arizona. In many areas, including the Boise, Idaho, area, it is also the authorized distributor for temple garments.
The Cwik Media podcast ran an episode a couple weeks ago on the appearance of Pride flags and other pride symbols showing up in a Deseret Book video course.
If you don't want to watch the whole video, the key point is that Deseret Book is pushing "allyship" which, as we know from similar racial DIE programs, involves not being tolerant but, instead, requires actively pushing the particular ideology and it goals. In fact, Dictionary.com defines allyship as:
... the status or role of a person who advocates and actively works for the inclusion of a marginalized or politicized group in all areas of society, not as a member of that group but in solidarity with its struggle and point of view and under its leadership:
Genuine allyship does not come with special recognition—we do not get awards for confronting issues people have to live with every day.
There is nothing within that definition about changing the "marginalized group" to adopt the standards of the larger group: i.e., there is nothing about allyship in the LGBT context that suggests that the gay or lesbian Church member should be encourage or pushed to adopt the Church's views on morality or the commandments regarding chastity.
The host of the Cwic show also notes that the LGBT crap being pushed by Deseret Book subverts and diminishes the identities with which we should be concerned--i.e., being children of God, children of the covenant, and disciples of Christ--and replace it with identities based around sexual orientation.
Apparently followers of the podcast didn't like what they heard and saw coming from Deseret Book and sent messages to the Company to which Deseret Book's president made a disingenuous response typical of leftists when they get caught, which is discussed in the video below:
The theme running around the LGBT issue and the Church is the whole concept of tolerance and the idea that God expects us to be unconditionally tolerant. But that is not a correct doctrine.
God is tolerant only to the extent that he has granted us free agency and the opportunity to act upon that free agency. But the scriptures are clear that his tolerance stops there: He isn't tolerant of sin (although he has given us the opportunity to repent and reject our sins) and scripture is clear that no unclean thing will enter into heaven. And his tolerance doesn't extend to there being no consequence for sin. God sent the flood of Noah; He killed many of the rebellious Israelites that had fled into the wilderness with Moses; He has destroyed entire cities due to their sexual wickedness and killing of babies; He went after the money-changers with a whip; He cursed a tree that didn't produce fruit. His parables are replete with stories of the prideful and lazy not being accepted into heaven. The Book of Revelation spends considerable time detailing the horrific natural disasters that will be used to destroy the wicked.
More importantly for our condition, God expects us to forgive others their trespass and the Church is to be a refuge and place for the saints to gather and strengthen one another; but, at the same time, we have been warned about false prophets and wolves in sheep's clothing. God expects us to welcome the penitent (church is often described as a hospital for sinners) but to cast out those that would lead away the members of the flock. But this false doctrine of tolerance tells us to welcome and embrace the false prophet and ravening wolves. One of the means of identifying the false prophets and ravening wolves is through the symbols they use. Thus, there should be no tolerance to those displaying or pushing the symbols of enemy ideologies.
I'm not what you'd call 'active' in the church. Not because I don't believe doctrine, or because I've been offended or anything like that. I still believe all the same things I've ever believed, but I admit I've watched with some bewilderment as the officialdom of the church inch it's way towards "I mean, Whore of Babylon is kind of an uncharitable term..."
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking long and hard about this subject and I think there is a lot going on with this apparent drift, including pressures within and without the Church. There is the old saying that the squeaky wheel gets the oil, and I have read accounts how wealthy and educated members in California--particularly the Berkley area--were so upset over the Church's support of Proposition 8 (which would have forbidding same-sex marriage) that they organized letter writing campaigns, got media attention, and essentially formed lobbying groups to meet with Church leaders and "educate" them as to LGBT issues and essentially appeal to the leaders sympathy on the issue. And, at least according to these activists, their lobbying worked to get the Church to soften it stance on LGBT issues (even if the Church was and remains opposed to recognizing same sex marriages). It also didn't help that the Church leadership, as whole, seems desperate to be accepted, even desire social approbation, within the greater culture; and so the Church leadership is sensitive to public criticism and negative coverage of the Church. And, of course, the Church is obviously concerned over the threat of legal action or legislative action that might impact the Church. Thus, faced with both internal and external pressure, it is just easier for them to let their positions evolve.
DeleteNow, would this change if there was significant pushback within the Church? I don't know. I get the sense that the liberal California members were so successful in their efforts because of their position within the elites--professors, powerful professionals, and so on--and so I don't know if a group of working-class members would get the same attention from the Church leadership.
Of course, there is more going on here. There is a very strong liberal contingent in the Church, particularly at BYU, but which I believe has spread into the Church bureaucracy that are "woke"; and, unfortunately, it is this group which advises and briefs the top leadership on issues. The Church leadership is generally loath to make comments that would cause members to leave the Church in any great numbers (there are always going to be some leaving for whatever reason). And there is this current false worship of "tolerance" that is deeply embraced in almost all Christian churches.
Unstoppable force hitting an immovable object kind of territory. There's no "tolerant enough" position that can be staked out so in a way I guess it'll be interesting to see how far/fast the officialdom of the church moves to placate the insatiable wokeness.
DeleteCool blog! Added to my bookmarks.
That there is no "tolerant enough" position is why it is an exercise in futility. And as Vox Day has noted, apologizing to the Left just marks you as weak and vulnerable in their eyes.
Delete