The Asterisk

[Libs]

From your OP:

Emphasis mine.

According to your own source and statement, one has to have undergone disciplinary action to receive the asterisk.

Yes, but normally, once the probation period is over, the asterisk is removed from the member's record. That policy was recently changed (according to Benji and John Dehlin - those are my only sources, so far) and currently anyone who even admits to SS attraction (not just acted on it, but admits to thoughts and feelings) will have that "asterisk" permanently on their record...and, will be excluded from serving in any teaching position that involves children.

Btw, Benji ASKED FOR this church court...it was not just thrust upon him from the leaders. Some were reluctant to participate, because they didn't think it was necessary. But, they did, finally, give in and do this, to help Benji through his repentance process.

[selek1]

I would hardly consider an article from "Women for Faith and Family", written by a health care worker, the last word on homosexuality.

Now comes the demagoguery and the distortion, right on cue.

I didn't say that it was "the last word". That "the thinking has been done" rhetoric came from your keyboard, not mine.

You asserted that the science was "settled" and "not-controversial".

I simply demonstrated that neither is the case.

I am not going to get involved in these types of arguments/attempted justifications, as I consider them very demeaning.

But you'll throw out baseless charges of discrimination and prejudice all day long.

Very enlightening- but also in direct contrast to your stated goal of having a civil dialogue.

[selek1]

and currently anyone who even admits to SS attraction (not just acted on it, but admits to thoughts and feelings) will have that "asterisk" permanently on their record...and, will be excluded from serving in any teaching position that involves children.

I'm sorry, but that is an assertion not in evidence.

You have inferred that, but it is not supported from the evidence you offered, nor has it been demonstrated to be a correct understanding of what was said.

Btw, Benji ASKED FOR this church court...it was not just thrust upon him from the leaders. Some were reluctant to participate, because they didn't think it was necessary. But, they did, finally, give in and do this, to help Benji through his repentance process.

Which supports my supposition that this would not have been an issue (and no asterisk would have been awarded) had he not been grandstanding over his orientation. Edited May 31, 2012 by selek1

[Libs]

I don't know if it was an overt part of forming the policy, but it's very likely that youth who become friends with an adult homosexual may find themselves much more tolerant of homosexuality in general.

As I mentioned in another thread, my wife and I lived in West Hollywood for a short time years ago. Almost everyone in our small apartment building was gay (men and women), and we became good friends with many of them. We had two young children at the time, and my older one loved our neighbors.

Obviously, he was too young to know what homosexuality was, but as he got older and the subject came up, it was interesting to see his attitude change when I mentioned some of those neighbors from his childhood being gay. Suddenly it went from being something weird and scary (as it is for many suburban teenagers) to something he associated with good, friendly people from his childhood. And this included a couple gay ward members as well.

So, apart from any theorized concerns about molestation, there may be a real concern that gay LDS could become role models and friends to the youth, and this could change the youth's attitudes in such a way that they start to become less enamored with Church policies and doctrine in that area.

Wow. If that were truly a part of the thinking, I would be even more astounded. I know I probably shouldn't be...but, truly I would be. It is true that a lot of our fears of people who are different, do disappear, with personal contact and familiarity with persons of of these different groups. I think that's a good thing.

[Libs]

I'm sorry, but that is an assertion not in evidence.

You have inferred that, but it is not supported from the evidence you offered, nor has it been demonstrated to be a correct understanding of what was said.

Which supports my supposition that this would not have been an issue (and no asterisk would have been awarded) had he not been grandstanding over his orientation.

Selek, there was no grandstanding...just the opposite, I would say. There was fear and shame and attempts to be "normal" and fit in. There were thoughts of suicide. You are misunderstanding right and left with your own presuppositions, and I don't think you have even listened to any part of the podcasts..that is pretty evident.

Would you please, please do me a favor and listen to the last podcast (at least, the pertinent parts)...and please try to put yourself in this person's shoes...for even just a minute.

Edited May 31, 2012 by Libs

[selek1]

Selek, there was no grandstanding...just the opposite, I would say.

Nonsense.

Rather than dealing with his fear and shame and attractions in private, with the appropriate priesthood leaders, he demanded and agitated for a far more public and formal venue.

And then went on to cash in on that notoriety with Dehlin, who is no friend to the faithful.

Would you please, please do me a favor and listen to the last podcast (at least, the pertinent parts)...and please try to put yourself in this person's shoes...for even just a minute.

What makes you think that I haven't been in his shoes? Is it simply that I refuse to endorse his conclusions and self-justifications (and yours)?

Or is the possibility that one can be tempted and fallen and still side with the Church completely alien to your worldview?

The "you're not X, so you can't possibly understand" meme is a cop-out.

I will not be shamed into quiesence by the "if you really understood, you'd agree with me" card.

Sympathy, compassion, charity, and genuine love are not defined by a willingness to accept, endorse, or gloss over self-destructive behavior.

Edited May 31, 2012 by selek1

[Craig Paxton]

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.

May I suggest that you lead by example?

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.

I just unloaded on another poster in the other thread dedicated to this subject...I see that my angst applies to you as well...since you also discust me

Shame on you and the mocking tone of your posts...you should be ashamed of yourself...how dare you judge Benji Schwimmer or his personal repentance sacrifice or the sincerity and depth of his penitence...who the hell are you to pass judgment on him or the choices he's made in his life. You don't know his personal struggles. You haven't walked even an inch in his shoes, yet you feel so comfortable casting that first stone of pious opinion from your sanctimonious, self righteous, rameumptum...shame on you. You disgust me.

BTW…his so called sin was petting…not homosexual activity…as you so piously stated. Were heterosexuals treated equally, I dare say that there would be less missionaries, Bishops, High Council members or Stake Presidents...as all of these callings require working with youth. It’s a blatant double standard.

This new policy is offensive, hurtful, manmade and unChrist-like. Members of all stripes should rise up and protest this policy…what more can they do to or ask of a repentant soul that they haven’t already done…oh I know let’s keep their church records marked with a scarlet letter for the rest of their lives. What ever happened to… “Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool”…I guess within Mormonism it is no longer the case….well at least with respect to Gays….who’s repented sins will follow them throughout their lives.

The policy is wrong in so many ways least of which is that it suggests that homosexuals are pedophiles and not to be trusted with children…this is just plain BS and not founded in any reality….even the Mormon reality.

I applaude Benji’s rejection of this humiliating, life-time mark…the church does not deserve this good man…I wish him well in life and all the happiness in the world.

My only hope is that you read this post before it is forever wiped from this thread by the moderators…

[treehugger]

not to retro-track the conversation, but, how about someone identify in the podcast wherein the person made the statement about SS and asterisk.

For the record, Part 3 19:27 he talks about being in a relationship with another guy, back rubs at Church, and holding pinkys, sleeping in the same bed, "almost crossing the line", "pecking" not lustful kissing, spooning, cuddling, played with fire, things he did that he felt where meant for repentance talked to bishop about it, fooled around with a couple of boys.

Edited May 31, 2012 by treehugger

[selek1]

Libs,

I want you to understand me quite clearly (before the realhucksters and gay-baiters join in the thread).

I have nothing but love and sympathy for young Brother Schwimmer. My heart aches for his struggles- including the temptation toward suicide. I have been there.

I am eternally grateful that he found the strength to resist that temptation (I know others who did not).

I am grateful that has found something approaching peace with himself, and wish him only the best in his life.

But love, sympathy, and Christian charity do not require me to compromise my conscience, nor do they demand that that I unquestioningly endorse his decisions, his rationale, or his conclusions. I can love someone and yet disagree with them. I can love someone without enabling behavior that I know to be wrong.

I can love the alchoholic while loathing the bottle which has enslaved him.

I can love the addict while ensuring that my children are not exposed to his vice.

I can love the compulsive gambler while not giving him access to my bank account.

I can love the elder with a pornography problem whilst simultaneously ensuring that he cannot recruit my sons into that habit.

Standing up for what I believe (and the Church teaches) to be right does not make me a bigot, nor a homophobe, nor any less a "Christian".

But to stand silent and ashamed while another wanders astray would render me a coward and a faithless friend indeed.

Am I my brother's keeper?

According to Christ, I am. And that extends not only to feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, and comforting those who weep, but also to warning my brethren when others have dug a pit in the hopes that they might fall in.

Edited May 31, 2012 by selek1

[Libs]

not to retro-track the conversation, but, how about someone identify in the podcast wherein the person made the statement about SS and asterisk.

For the record, Part 3 19:27 he talks about being in a relationship with another guy, back rubs at Church, and holding pinkys, sleeping in the same bed, "almost crossing the line", "pecking" not lustful kissing, spooning, cuddling, played with fire, things he did that he felt where meant for repentance talked to bishop about it, fooled around with a couple of boys.

Start listening a couple of minutes past the one hour mark.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Selek,

I appreciate your viewpoint, but it is way too heavy in this thread on anger and bitterness and condescension. Tone it down mate while still making your point.

Personally, I do not equate homosexuality with pedophile. And, it appears, neither does the church based on past conference talks. I haven't heard them being equated by a leader before. I do think any lifestyle that encourages a free-love mentality can produce a higher rate of pedophiles, but most gays are against disgusting groups like NAMBLA, and many want stable relationships and families. So any free-love group, hetero or homo, is more likely to produce pedophiles than any group who is looking for relationship stability.

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.

Your welcome Libs. I touched on the sexual activity in the other thread. The two threads is getting a little confusing, but I am trying to move it all over here. I said in response to a similar question:

Petting was an earlier mention. Later in the podcast he alludes to other sins. In his church court he later discusses (which he requested), he discusses how he was very detailed and graphic in what he had done because he wanted it out in the open. I applaud him for that. It is apparent though that more than petting was involved after his initial petting. Which, by and by, is considered homosexual activity, but not homosexual intercourse. Mutual masturbation, for instance, is a sexual activity no matter the genders involved, but it is not intercourse and the church discipline on it is usually different than intercourse. Regarding the double standard, I address that in the other thread on this topic.

Perhaps I have the chronology wrong, but either way, sexual activity is a term that may mean different things to you and I.

I agree the asterisk is a form of discrimination. That however does not mean it is wrong. We discriminate constantly about who is best to fill certain positions based on current and past behavior. The discrimination is based in this case upon past action, not attractions. The church did not cause the person to engage in such activities, but they do set standards for certain roles. Incidentally, such a person could still serve as an Elder's Quorum President, Temple Worker, Executive Secretary, serve a couple mission, and do so many wonderful things. Thus, I think saying the church is motivated by fear is probably not something that can be backed up (sorry Cinepro, but if your theory worked, then they wouldn't be able to hold those other callings which hold a lot more influence). Again, this seems linked to not placing a woman to teach young men and a man to teach young women, which is because we don't want them over people of whom they are biologically attracted to in gender. It's not that we think the whole world is full of pedophiles, but we still discriminate based upon prudence in an organization that wants to play it safe and has been hit with ridiculous lawsuits. Such as a Young Men's leader molesting a boy.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Selek, my last comment about your tone in the thread was from previous posts you amde. The most recent one was quie nice, not compromising, but not berating either.

[selek1]

I appreciate your viewpoint, but it is way too heavy in this thread on anger and bitterness and condescension. Tone it down mate while still making your point.

We will have to agree to disagree on that count. I consider my tone to be direct and proportional to the seriousness of the allegations measured out against the Saints and the Church. YMMV.

Personally, I do not equate homosexuality with pedophile. And, it appears, neither does the church based on past conference talks.

Nor do I.

I haven't heard them being equated by a leader before.

Nor have we yet.

I do think any lifestyle that encourages a free-love mentality can produce a higher rate of pedophiles, but most gays are against disgusting groups like NAMBLA, and many want stable relationships and families. So any free-love group, hetero or homo, is more likely to produce pedophiles than any group who is looking for relationship stability.

I agree.

Selek, my last comment about your tone in the thread was from previous posts you amde. The most recent one was quie nice, not compromising, but not berating either.

Kinda figured. Edited May 31, 2012 by selek1

[treehugger]

Start listening a couple of minutes past the one hour mark.

Part 3, 1:06 "Actually if you admittedly participated in any homosexual activities, um, that's going to stay with you the rest of your life."

[Libs]

Libs,

I want you to understand me quite clearly (before the realhucksters and gay-baiters join in the thread).

I have nothing but love and sympathy for young Brother Schwimmer. My heart aches for his struggles- including the temptation toward suicide. I have been there.

I am eternally grateful that he found the strength to resist that temptation (I know others who did not).

I am grateful that has found something approaching peace with himself, and wish him only the best in his life.

But love, sympathy, and Christian charity do not require me to compromise my conscience, nor do they demand that that I unquestioningly endorse his decisions, his rationale, or his conclusions. I can love someone and yet disagree with them. I can love someone without enabling behavior that I know to be wrong.

I can love the alchoholic while loathing the bottle which has enslaved him.

I can love the addict while ensuring that my children are not exposed to his vice.

I can love the compulsive gambler while not giving him access to my bank account.

I can love the elder with a pornography problem whilst simultaneously ensuring that he cannot recruit my sons into that habit.

Standing up for what I believe (and the Church teaches) to be right does not make me a bigot, nor a homophobe, nor any less a "Christian".

But to stand silent and ashamed while another wanders astray would render me a coward and a faithless friend indeed.

Am I my brother's keeper?

According to Christ, I am. And that extends not only to feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, and comforting those who weep, but also to warning my brethren when others have dug a pit in the hopes that they might fall in.

Thanks, Selek. I am not calling you a bigot or a homophobe, really, I am not. Or anyone else here, for that matter. This issue just tears at my heart, because I know there is a lot of hurt created, because of this particular belief. I do not doubt that you love Benji and want only the best for him and others like him. It's just that, from my perspective, religions that embrace the "gay is sinful" attitude, are asking the impossible of people who were born that way. I just don't see any good solutions for most of them, within the boundaries of the church....and perhaps that's just the way it will have to be, for now. It's just very sad for those, like Benji, who do consider themselves Mormon and had a testimony of this gospel.

[blackstrap]

Asterix or not,if a man has been disciplined for heterosexual sins ,he is not eligible to work for CES. If a man has been found to have participated in child pornography I would hope there is a huge asterix if he were to be considered to teach in Primary.

[Libs]

Part 3, 1:06 "Actually if you admittedly participated in any homosexual activities, um, that's going to stay with you the rest of your life."

Thank you, treehugger. I was misremembering that, then. Apparently, it was homosexual activity and not just an admittance of homosexual thoughts. But, wouldn't/shouldn't this be the same as anyone admitting to inappropriate sexual behavior (heterosexuals engaging in sexual activity outside of marriage, for example). This is being treated differently, if it stays with you for life.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Asterix or not,if a man has been disciplined for heterosexual sins ,he is not eligible to work for CES. If a man has been found to have participated in child pornography I would hope there is a huge asterix if he were to be considered to teach in Primary.

Interestingly, if you have ever been disciplined for pornography of ANY kind, you are not allowed to be employed by CES as a for-pay (and possibly even voluntary, but I don't know) Seminary or Institute Teacher/Director. Its considered to big of a risk, No pedophile oriented porn needed, it could be old grannies. Either way, no working for the Church in CES for Seminary or Institute.

[Libs]

Asterix or not,if a man has been disciplined for heterosexual sins ,he is not eligible to work for CES.

Hmm, I didn't know that. Could he teach children in his own ward, though? Be a scout leader?

[Mark Beesley]

^{Shocking, that some decisions we make in life have lifelong consequences.}

[selek1]

Thanks, Selek. I am not calling you a bigot or a homophobe, really, I am not. Or anyone else here, for that matter.

I know- which is why I was careful to distinguish between those participating thus far and "the real hucksters and gay-baiters".

There was never a moment in my mind when I doubted your intentions or your overall good will. Unfortunately, your statements and comments could have been distorted or misused by those whose intentions were less pure (which is why I felt that my responses needed to be clear and emphatic).

For my own part, if my comments came across as though I held any ill-will or hostility towards you personally, I apologize (I can still love and respect someone even when they're wrong ).

This issue just tears at my heart, because I know there is a lot of hurt created, because of this particular belief.

And here's where we can (and must) disagree. You are arguing as though the alleged policy and its motivations have been confirmed and your worst fears verified. That is not the case.

You have called upon us to give young Schwimmer the benefit of the doubt- is it not then required that you reciprocate?

There are two principle questions here:

1) Is there a policy within the Church that those who have been disciplined for homosexual sin are permanently disqualified from working with children?

2) Are there good and just reasons why this policy might have been implemented?

At the moment, the answer to both questions is, "We don't know."

I do not doubt that you love Benji and want only the best for him and others like him. It's just that, from my perspective, religions that embrace the "gay is sinful" attitude, are asking the impossible of people who were born that way.

Again- there are an awful lot of assumptions and preconceptions packed into this statement that do not reflect either scientific fact or Latter-day Saint theology.

I just don't see any good solutions for most of them, within the boundaries of the church....and perhaps that's just the way it will have to be, for now. It's just very sad for those, like Benji, who do consider themselves Mormon and had a testimony of this gospel.

"Good" is a subjective judgement, and will vary greatly from person to person and depends greatly on whether one's perspective is temporal, eternal, and upon what preconceptions one brings to the table.

There are no tried-and-true absolutes in confronting these issues that we all share (save one- that we should withold judgement at least until we understand the actual position of the other).

Edited May 31, 2012 by selek1

[zerinus]

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

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.

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

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

The Catholic experience shows a strong correlation between homosexuality and child molestation. The Catholic clergy attracts a disproportionally large percentage of gays, because of their rule of priestly celibacy. According to a survey carried out in one Catholic seminary some years ago, nearly 50% of the candidates enrolled for training to become priests were gay. And the scandal of child sex abuse by Catholic priests that has engulfed the Catholic Church for several decades now almost internationally indicates a correlation between the two.

EDIT: The Catholic Church apparently now recognizes this, and actively discourages gays from applying to become priests. I don't have a reference for this, but I recall having read it in some news report at one time.

Edited May 31, 2012 by zerinus

[Libs]

I know- which is why I was careful to distinguish between those participating thus far and "the real hucksters and gay-baiters".

There was never a moment in my mind when I doubted your intentions or your overall good will. Unfortunately, your statements and comments could have been distorted or misused by those whose intentions were less pure (which is why I felt that my responses needed to be clear and emphatic).

For my own part, if my comments came across as though I held any ill-will or hostility towards you personally, I apologize (I can still love and respect someone even when they're wrong ).

lol...so can I.

I would be cautious about calling anyone a "gay baiter", as I think there are people out there (with whom I agree), that are rather more like you, when it comes to stating their opinions (meaning, very straight forward, pulling not punches).

That said, I am glad to know that you don't doubt my sincerity. Thank you for that.

And here's where we can (and must) disagree. You are arguing as though the alleged policy and its motivations have been confirmed and your worst fears verified. That is not the case.

You have called upon us to give young Schwimmer the benefit of the doubt- is it not then required that you reciprocate?

Yes, of course. But, I have already said, I don't doubt your good intentions.

There are two principle questions here:

1) Is there a policy within the Church that those who have been disciplined for homosexual sin are permanently disqualified from working with children?

2) Are there good and just reasons why this policy might have been implemented?

At the moment, the answer to both questions is, "We don't know."

You're right. We may not know all of the facts. I would really like to know, but I'm not sure how to go about verifying or finding out what the actual facts and reasoning may be.

If it is, as it appears to me, right now, I cannot even imagine a "good" justification. But, understand that I am coming from a position of rejecting the idea that SS attraction is a sin or in any way makes one any more susceptible to "criminal behavior" than anyone else.

Again- there are an awful lot of assumptions and preconceptions packed into this statement that do not reflect either scientific fact or Latter-day Saint theology.

Perhaps. I really do want to understand, but that doesn't mean it will change my mind on the basics.

"Good" is a subjective judgement, and will vary greatly from person to person and depends greatly on whether one's perspective is temporal, eternal, and upon what preconceptions one brings to the table.

There are no tried-and-true absolutes in confronting these issues that we all share (save one- that we should withold judgement at least until we understand the actual position of the other).

Yes, I agree. And, that should go both ways...I hope.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Libs

[Libs]

The Catholic experience shows a strong correlation between homosexuality and child molestation. The Catholic clergy attracts a disproportionally large percentage of gays, because of their rule of priestly celibacy. According to a survey carried out in one Catholic seminary some years ago, nearly 50% of the candidates enrolled for training to become priests were gay. And the scandal of child sex abuse by Catholic priests that has engulfed the Catholic Church for several decades now almost internationally indicates a correlation between the two.

EDIT: The Catholic Church apparently now recognizes this, and actively discourages gays from applying to become priests. I don't have a reference for this, but I recall having read it in some news report at one time.

But, I have read that it was a very low percentage of the entire church's priesthood, that were actually involved in pedophilia.

My view on that is, it shouldn't matter, if you are in some high risk group (perceived or in reality..in this case, I think it is more perception than reality), each individual should be judged by their own merits, not on the "fear" that they might be this or that.

[David T]

I think a key part about being a male youth leader is the Scouts thing. it is currently Boy Scouts of America policy that homosexuals cannot be leaders. And since all male youth leaders are expected to participate in scouting leadership/activities, that disqualifies them from those positions from an outside organization - Boy Scouts of America.