"Mama Dragons, a support group for mothers of LGBTQ+ children which has 2,000 members, issued this statement on Monday via Facebook:

In light of the harmful rhetoric heard by our LGBTQ Mormon friends this past weekend from the pulpit at LDS General Conference, we as Mama Dragons would like to reiterate our unequivocal support of our LGBTQ children and the entire queer community. We remain committed to our mission of providing support and education to mothers and to condemning discrimination in any form. We love you. We celebrate you exactly as you are.
Lori Davis, a Mama Dragons Board Member and a member of the Church, said that for her, President Oaks’ talk caused her pain and sadness.

“It was doubling down on things that are really hard for our LBGTQ kids,” she said."

https://kutv.com/news/local/mothers-of-lgbtq-children-say-remarks-at-lds-general-conference-are-harmful-rhetoric

I am acquainted with a few of those Mama Dragons. I truly admire what they are doing for their children. Many of the Dragons still try to stay in the church but as time has gone on and people like Oaks continue with the harmful rhetoric, some Mama Dragons have begun questioning not just the LBGTQ stance but everything about "the gospel".

Oaks & those who support him & TSCC ought to feel the pain of those who've been devastated by ChurchCo policies & actions, but I don't think they ever will.


Mormonism:Poison except to the 'perfect' & wannabees.

Yep!

The faithful will lament that the Mama Dragons and their 'afflicted' loved ones refuse to follow the prophet.

Much dismay!

Oaks is still the mouthpiece of the Lord. Just on the other end.

ChurchCo can be as deliberately harmful as they please because they've Never borne the consequences as the members & others have.

I don't think you're totally correct. There have been occasions when the church did take it in the shorts or thought they were about to take it in the shorts.

They gave up on polygamy because the Feds made it too painful

and

They reversed ghawd's word on the curse of Cain because of the handwriting they were reading on the wall.

So I hold out hope. It would make a great TV drama: the removal of a current prophet who was not in tune with reality for one who was.

"So I hold out hope. It would make a great TV drama: the removal of a current prophet who was not in tune with reality for one who was."

Nope- never happen. That would crumble the entire pyramid scheme and order of ascent. Now, they might "remove" a prophet with an overdose of insulin or something else, but they'd never upset the plan, in place for a century, with a public, chaotic maneuver.

Your scenario is the only way removal would be, could be handled. I simply thought it was implicit. We all know that there is no means for 'legal' removal because ghawd would never call someone who wasn't worthy.

I hold people like Dallin Oaks personally responsible for the suicides, illness, and despair of LGBTQ MORMON MEMBERS as well as others who are affected by their hateful and unresponsible words shooting out from their empty, arrogant, UNTHINKING minds.

Such Christians! Such public servants! You better believe that a tiny two-year-old shows more caring and love than any of these.

So very true.

Our children deserve better than this.

That shit makes me want to puke

If it weren't for Christians - and good people in general - mormonism would look worse than it already does.

It will never save face [maybe the other end].
It is facing the music, but it can't sing along.

Oaks said something about gender being premortal and they are opposed to SSM, but I didn't think he said anything out of the ordinary? He was very sure that there are limitations to what mormonism will accept.

Uchdorf on the other hand went on and on about members making mistakes and we need to let by gones be by gones. And that through Mormonism his cares and worries disappear. I'm not sure he's aware of how deep peoples problems or issues with the church really are. It almost seems that he thinks that peoples feelings are pretty simple and the church can fix anything right now.

I'm thinking that when these two get together that their opinions must be complete opposite. Maybe even some arguments?

anono this week Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oaks said something about gender being premortal
> and they are opposed to SSM, but I didn't think he
> said anything out of the ordinary? He was very
> sure that there are limitations to what mormonism
> will accept.

He said, "Opposition is part of the plan, and Satan’s (the Adversary’s) most strenuous opposition is directed at whatever is most important to God’s plan. He seeks to destroy God’s work. He also seeks to confuse gender, to distort marriage, and to discourage childbearing—especially by parents who will raise children in truth."

It was a stronger condemnation than the church has issued in the past, literally calling transgender people, same-sex marriage, and childless marriages Satanic.

Upon reading the above I am impressed by the spirit to write myself a note:

Big Squarish, bristling beards! Channel Brigham Young!

Oaks has come out of the closet.

"Davis, whose son Zach is in college, said she doesn’t know why the Church would promote suicide prevention and anti-discrimination of LGBTQ+ people on one hand, then on the other hand, make statements that make LGBTQ+ people feel like outsiders in their Church."

One might well ask. Truth is, Mormons are notoriously ambivalent about their own beliefs, and after close to 200 years of their movement, still have not decided what their doctrine is. As dissidents often say, determining Mormon doctrine is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. And it doesn't help that some of the doctrine is still secret, privy only to those in control, and never dispensed to the rank-and-file Mormons.

"As dissidents often say, determining Mormon doctrine is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. And it doesn't help that some of the doctrine is still secret, privy only to those in control, and never dispensed to the rank-and-file Mormons."

I think you're right. The top leaders are like the board of directors of venture capitalists. Their plans are secret and what they tell their leveraged buyout employees is often different from their real intent. But, these Mama Dragons, aren't buying what they are selling. They are experiencing the heartache of losing their children due to rigid, ugly, church policy. They're not taking it any longer. I think the "stay off social media, ladies" plan is to assert their control over these uppity women. Instead of total obedience, like they arrogantly expected, they are seeing push back from mothers choosing their family over the church. If only more members, especially the men, would have such backbone.

Most secret doctrines are secret mostly from the public. These include the temple ceremonies. But you will find that almost all active Mormons who are not among the very few who have received the "Second Endowment," more well-known as the "Second Anointing," are almost totally ignorant that it actually exists. Other things that are secret, but not necessarily doctrine, include the Strengthening Church Members Committee. I seem to remember that in a BBC interview, Jeff Holland denied it existed, then had to admit during the same interview that it did exist. (Merely as I remember; I don't want to go find the interview just now.)

Oakie-Dokes is quoted as saying, “Our knowledge of God’s revealed plan of salvation requires us to oppose many of the current social and legal pressures ..."

This was pretty much the church's inspired stand just prior to back-tracking on plural marriage and on priesthood for Blacks.

I propose we respond to any who support any new change in the church's programs with "Go tell it to the Lamanites!"

So, why aren't these mamas dragon fierce enough to leave the church?

Used to be that revolution meant overthrowing said system of power.

Nowdays, it means, issuing statements of hurt feelings, begging, pleading, trying to find 'middle ground' and whatnot.

These same mamas post near endlessly about loving folks 'as you are' but cannot seem to accept and love the church AS IT IS.

No wonder they are ineffective.

They choose to self identify with a church founded by a paedo. How they justify that to themselves...that's no dragon mama. That's sanctioning child abuse.

And now they want a church more to their liking. For the children to be accepted, they say.

Whatever.

There's something to be said by effecting change from within. If they leave the church they will be discounted and ignored as sinners and apostates. They can be a loud thorn in the side of church leaders that have to deal with them. I think some are daring for another high profile, public excommunication.

I agree. This is useful stuff.