83 replies to this topic

[Libs]

I watch a lot of John Dehlin's Mormon Stories podcasts, and I just finished listening to a (marathon) podcast of an interview with Benji Schwimmer.  It's almost six hours long, but I was most interested in the last section, where Benji describes his church court (which he asked for) and the results of that action, which includes a new church policy disallowing men who have self-identified as "gay" from teaching or participating in any youth programs, in the church.  I guess this was instituted just last year.

Benji describes the policy of putting an asterisk on the record of any member who has currently had disciplinary action taken.  Once the probation period is up or the person resolves the issue (rebaptism or whatever it takes) the asterisk is, normally, removed from the person's record...except, now,  with this new policy, in the case of those who admit to having SS attraction, the asterisk remains for life.  Have to say, I was very shocked by this, so I decided to bring it up here and try to have a discussion about it.

I realize this is a very touchy subject, so please, please proceed with utmost respect and sensitivity, whichever side you support.

Below is a link to the podcast.  I would recommend listening to, at least, the last part of the third segment.

http://mormonstories...enji-schwimmer/

[Scott Lloyd]

Libs, on 31 May 2012 - 12:09 PM, said:

I watch a lot of John Dehlin's Mormon Stories podcasts, and I just finished listening to a (marathon) podcast of an interview with Benji Schwimmer.  It's almost six hours long, but I was most interested in the last section, where Benji describes his church court (which he asked for) and the results of that action, which includes a new church policy disallowing men who have self-identified as "gay" from teaching or participating in any youth programs, in the church.  I guess this was instituted just last year.

Benji describes the policy of putting an asterisk on the record of any member who has currently had disciplinary action taken.  Once the probation period is up or the person resolves the issue (rebaptism or whatever it takes) the asterisk is, normally, removed from the person's record...except, now,  with this new policy, in the case of those who admit to having SS attraction, the asterisk remains for life.  Have to say, I was very shocked by this, so I decided to bring it up here and try to have a discussion about it.

Perhaps, before we proceed, you should articulate why you find it so shocking.

[Buzzard]

I may have to put on an asbestoes suit for saying this, but I would be shocked and offended if someone who had been subject to church discipline for SS behavior in the past was allowed to teach youth in the church.
Cast me as a bigoted Neanderthal if you wish, but that's the way I feel.

[Libs]

Scott Lloyd, on 31 May 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

Perhaps, before we proceed, you should articulate why you find it so shocking.

I find it shocking that SS attracted would be treated as potential child molesters.

[oremites]

Before we get too far into the discussion, can we verify that church policy really is exactly what is represented in the podcast?  

I'm not saying I doubt their honesty.  I've just seen too many cases where information presented secondhand is  off just enough to cause misunderstanding and unnecessary controversy.

[selek1]

oremites, on 31 May 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

Before we get too far into the discussion, can we verify that church policy really is exactly what is represented in the podcast?  

I'm not saying I doubt their honesty.  I've just seen too many cases where information presented secondhand is  off just enough to cause misunderstanding and unnecessary controversy.

Hear Hear!  Before we begin a stampede of misguided sympathy and feigned outrage, let's verify the charges being made.

I know how much SSA advocates love to tar and feather the Church- but let's be sure of our facts before warming up the pitch.

Edited by selek1, 31 May 2012 - 01:04 PM.

[Libs]

Yes, I would very much appreciate that.  I'm not sure how to verify it, but I was hoping someone here could do just that.  Thanks for bringing that up, oremites.

Edited by Libs, 31 May 2012 - 01:00 PM.

[Libs]

selek1, on 31 May 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

Hear Hear!  Before we begin a stampede of misguided sympathy and feigned outrage, let's verify the charges being made.

I know how much SSA advocated love to tar and feather the Church- but let's be sure of our facts before warming up the pitch.

Selek, that last comment is the kind of thing I was hoping we could avoid.  Please don't broad brush.  Have you listened to Benji's story?  This man did everything, I think, could reasonably be expected, to try and maintain his membership.  He was (and to some degree still is) a true believer.

Edited by Libs, 31 May 2012 - 01:05 PM.

[why me]

Libs, on 31 May 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

I find it shocking that SS attracted would be treated as potential child molesters.

I don't think that that is the implication. However, lets just say that someone has a son. And the church knew that his boy scout leader was gay. Then, this child was molested by the scout leader. What should the reaction of the parent be?

[Libs]

why me, on 31 May 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

I don't think that that is the implication. However, lets just say that someone has a son. And the church knew that his boy scout leader was gay. Then, this child was molested by the scout leader. What should the reaction of the parent be?

Is that the reasoning behind the permanent asterisk?  Boy Scout leadership?

As for the reasoning, why would a gay man be anymore suspect than any other man (without a record of child abuse)?  My brother was in a troop whose leader molested several boys, and he was a married man with children of his own.  Pedophilia is a category unto itself.

[selek1]

Libs, on 31 May 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

Selek, that last comment is the kind of thing I was hoping we could avoid.

Then perhaps you should have verified the truth of the accusations before alleging that the Church treats all SSA victims as potenital child molesters.

Your stated desires for a civil dialogue are at odds with your rhetoric.

Quote

Please don't broad brush.

  May I suggest that you lead by example?

Quote

Have you listened to Benji's story?  This man did everything, I think, could reasonably be expected, to try and maintain his membership.  He was (and to some degree still is) a true believer.

Not according to your other thread on this same topic.

This man had adopted a catch-as-catch can philosophy of self-justification, and with Dehlin's enthusiastic support, self-rationalized his way out of the Church and into sin.

Now he is attempting to cajole and seduce others down the same path, demanding that we embrace and celebrate a self-destructive choice that will not only damage him in this life, but eternally as well.

This man has wandered into an undertow of sin and self-deception that will ultimately destroy him.  He (and those who are wading along the shoreline of those same waters) are trying to assure the rest of us, "Come on in! The water's fine!"

Personally, I think your multiple threads on this topic are an attempt to "love-bombing" the Saints with sob-stories, and heartfelt pleas for "tolerance".

And I understand that some Saints are susceptible to the temptation of a rush to misguided sympathy engendered (pun intended) by a handsome face and a hearthsome story- but eternal law is quite clear.

This man has chosen a path of sin and iniquity, and is attempting to persuade and cajole others into endorsing that path.

I simply feel no need to offer my implicit or tacit endorsement of that behavior.

[selek1]

Libs, on 31 May 2012 - 01:16 PM, said:

Is that the reasoning behind the permanent asterisk?  Boy Scout leadership?

As for the reasoning, why would a gay man be anymore suspect than any other man (without a record of child abuse)?

What was that you were saying about painting with a broad brush?  You just tarred all men as potential molestors simply because of their gender.

Accepting (for a moment) your premise, I have to ask: Is an alcoholic more susceptible to other forms of drug abuse?  Is a smoker more susceptible to other forms of addictive behavior?

We know that both are true.   Susceptibility to one addictive behavior leaves a person susceptible to others.

That being the case, is it not possible (or even probable) that someone who has already demonstrated a weakness for one sexual sin might indeed be susceptible to another?

Assuming your accusation is true- an assertion nowhere in evidence- then where does one draw the line between unhealthy discrimination and simple prudence?

Would it be wise to place a recovering alcoholic in a calling where he is tasked with working around large quantities of alcohol?

Would it be wise to place a recovering drug addict in a position where he might have access to either drugs or needles?

Of course not.

Is it wise or prudent to place an individual with impulse control issues or a history of violence in a position where he might cause harm to himself or others?

Of course not.  Even setting aside issues of liability, it would be foolish, callous, and reckless to do so.

Yet the requirements of common sense and common decency are waived when it comes to this particular brand of "politically correct" deviancy.

Quote

Pedophilia is a category unto itself.

  That is a statement of faith, not fact.

In reality, despite the fact that homosexuals represent only 1 to 5% of the population, more than a third of molestations against children are homosexual assaults.

While correlation is not necessarily causation, if five percent of a population (with a particular behavior or affinity) is commiting more than a third of a certain category of crimes, prudence demands that behavior or affinity is deserving of a little more scrutiny, wouldn't you say?

Edited by selek1, 31 May 2012 - 01:35 PM.

[Libs]

Quote

What was that you were saying about painting with a broad brush?  You just tarred that all men as potential molestors simply because of their gender.

No, I did not.  You misunderstand.  I simply said that gay men should not be anymore suspect than any other man.  I don't believe ANY man should be suspect, until and unless there is some kind of reasonable evidence to support that kind of an accusation.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Libs,

I listened to the entire 2 hours of the third podcast wherein he talks about the church and leaving it. See here: http://www.mormondia...enj-schwimmer/.

Regardng the asterisk, which I will assume is valid, as he didn't strike me as out to deceive (though of course he could have misunderstood), I understand it. I noted this while lsitening (posted in the other thread):

Quote

1 hour 8 minutes into it: He totally slams President Monson, church policy etc. He tries to frame it in the context of how he felt at the moment he found out that because he engaged in homosexual activity, the policy was changed in 2010 that he would never be able to serve in callings teaching youth, but he continues on and it's apparent he feels exactly the same way right now. He obviously doesn't understand the difference between administrative functions and forgiveness through Christ, which are two improtant different aspects.

So accepting that the administrative side is different than the Christ's forgiveness side, which Benjia apparently did not and does not comprehend (well, leaving hte church, I suppose he views it separate now...), let's consider the administrative reasons:

1) Any youth that is aware of the teacher's past homosexual behavior, NOT jsut attraction, is a candidate of someone who may ask the adult. While it can be a growing experience, it can also be difficult for the adult. Youth may mock him more, or challenge his choice to remain celibate or enter into a hetero marriage. Youth are going through a lot of social challenges at that time, and unlike adults who the church expects better behavior from, we realize youth can be downright nasty without even believing they are.

2) Again, any youth that is aware of the teacher or leader's past, if experiencing homosexual leanging themselves, may seek personal direction from that teacher. Because it is of a sexual nature, this discussion is best had with the Bishop and family, or on the sides if acquainted, but not as a youth looking to their leader.

3) Women, not men, are called to lead the Young Women. Men, not women, are called to lead the Young Men. This isn't jsut for rolemodels, it's because we don't want them at any age being regularly in a room alone with people of the same gender they are attracted to. It is inviting trouble, and it has nothing to do with being gay, except for you are now attracted AND acted to/with men so you can't serve young men, and policy already prevents that person serving in Young Womens. Sunday School is I suppose a grey area since the genders are taught together, but reasons one and two are enough to say that it's a small enough occurence we aren't going to get bent out of shape for not letting them teach there. Benji was upset because he couldn't serve in Young Mens or Scouts.

[Libs]

Quote

Accepting (for a moment) your premise, I have to ask: Why is an alcoholic more susceptible to other forms of drug abuse?  Why is a smoker more susceptible to other forms of addictive behavior?

Is this the reasoning behind the possible exclusion of gay men from teaching children?  If it is, it is misinformed, IMO.

Quote

That is a statement of faith, not fact.

No, I believe that is a statement of fact.  No psychologist would put gay men and pedophiles in the same category.

[Libs]

Matthew J. Tandy, on 31 May 2012 - 01:35 PM, said:

Libs,

I listened to the entire 2 hours of the third podcast wherein he talks about the church and leaving it. See here: http://www.mormondia...enj-schwimmer/.

Regardng the asterisk, which I will assume is valid, as he didn't strike me as out to deceive (though of course he could have misunderstood), I understand it. I noted this while lsitening (posted in the other thread):



So accepting that the administrative side is different than the Christ's forgiveness side, which Benjia apparently did not and does not comprehend (well, leaving hte church, I suppose he views it separate now...), let's consider the administrative reasons:

1) Any youth that is aware of the teacher's past homosexual behavior, NOT jsut attraction, is a candidate of someone who may ask the adult. While it can be a growing experience, it can also be difficult for the adult. Youth may mock him more, or challenge his choice to remain celibate or enter into a hetero marriage. Youth are going through a lot of social challenges at that time, and unlike adults who the church expects better behavior from, we realize youth can be downright nasty without even believing they are.

2) Again, any youth that is aware of the teacher or leader's past, if experiencing homosexual leanging themselves, may seek personal direction from that teacher. Because it is of a sexual nature, this discussion is best had with the Bishop and family, or on the sides if acquainted, but not as a youth looking to their leader.

3) Women, not men, are called to lead the Young Women. Men, not women, are called to lead the Young Men. This isn't jsut for rolemodels, it's because we don't want them at any age being regularly in a room alone with people of the same gender they are attracted to. It is inviting trouble, and it has nothing to do with being gay, except for you are now attracted AND acted to/with men so you can't serve young men, and policy already prevents that person serving in Young Womens. Sunday School is I suppose a grey area since the genders are taught together, but reasons one and two are enough to say that it's a small enough occurence we aren't going to get bent out of shape for not letting them teach there. Benji was upset because he couldn't serve in Young Mens or Scouts.

Thank you for the reasoned response, Matthew.

I don't think Benji was sexually active during his probation period (and, if I am recalling correctly, not yet sexually active in any sense?)....but, definitely not during the one year probation.

The problem I'm having with the "asterisk" policy (if it is, indeed, true) is purely a matter of discrimination and treating SS attracted differently from those who are not.  I just believe that is wrong, and has no real basis or foundation.

Edited by Libs, 31 May 2012 - 01:45 PM.

[selek1]

Libs, on 31 May 2012 - 01:37 PM, said:

Is this the reasoning behind the possible exclusion of gay men from teaching children?  If it is, it is misinformed, IMO.

And you are, as always, entitled to your own opinion.

We are- equally- entitled to ignore it as such.

Quote

No, I believe that is a statement of fact.  No psychologist would put gay men and pedophiles in the same category.

"I believe" relegates it to mere opinion.  And your "No True Scotsman" fallacy emphasizes the error.

In point of fact, homosexuality and pedophilia were both classified as sexual disorders up until the 1970's, when a political campaign and onslaught of low-level domestic terrorism persauded a minority of the APA to de-list homosexuality as a disorder.

Interestingly enough, this was done by mail-in vote.  The vast majority of accredited psychiatrists declined to answer.  Of the minority of responses, the balance fell towards the decision to de-list the disorder.

That's not science.  That's politicking.

And the decision is controversial to this day.

[selek1]

Libs, on 31 May 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

The problem I'm having with the "asterisk" policy (if it is, indeed, true) is purely a matter of discrimination and treating SS attracted differently from those who are not.  I just believe that is wrong.

False, according to your own statements.
That "broad brush" you were complaining about just can't seem to stay out of your hands.

If the "asterisk policy" is true, it falls upon those who have been disciplined for same-sex sexual misconduct, rather than those who are merely SS attracted.

In other words, merely being attracted isn't enough- you have to have compromised yourself.

[Libs]

Quote

And the decision is controversial to this day.

It is not controversial in scientific circles, Selek.

[Kenngo1969]

Libs, on 31 May 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

... The problem I'm having with the "asterisk" policy (if it is, indeed, true) is purely a matter of discrimination and treating SS attracted differently from those who are not.  I just believe that is wrong, and has no real basis or foundation.

Isn't it equally wrong, by that logic, to prevent women from leading the young men, and men from leading young women?