The Asterisk

[Craig Paxton]

Craig, please reread my post. It is discriminatory, but not more than keeping a male of any attraction from serving as a Young Women's leader and vice versa. Is that policy wrong? Does it mean that the church views all men as potential problems if they taught Laurel classes? In a way, yes. Our policy is we don't combine them since the attraction is to that gender and they have acted sexually with that gender in the past.

I suppose the church could say "Ok, you can serve in Primary in a set, but you can't serve in Yourn Men. Or Primary 11 year olds (because that's a boy's class). But that would probably be more of an administrative headache. And unfrotunately, a lot of wards don't do the double-up teaching system like they should.

Matthew re-read my reply to that post of yours...perhaps you missed it....in essance...the policy restricts access to "any" calling where children are involved YM, Sunday School, Primary, Scouts. Yet a man who cheats on his wife and repents has no such restrictions placed on him can work in any youth program and no "Mark" is placed on his membership record...he is forgiven ...blantant discrimination

And I don't believe that your example is a valid one...the reason that women teach YW and men YM is for completely different reasons...# 1 priesthood issues, #2 role model issues...these issues don't however apply in SS and that is why you will find both sexes teaching mixed groups of boys and girls ...YMYW and SS have different goals and needs. But this policy discriminates in BOTH areas

Edited June 1, 2012 by Craig Paxton

[Matthew J. Tandy]

While I accept that there are consequences to so-called Mormon defined-sin ... there are also rewards due the repentant soul...a grand bargin with God that their sin wil be forgiven, made white were once it was crimson...in other words forgotten. This policy flies in the face of this grand bargin between the sinner and God.

This policy is also discriminatory...why doesn't the church also "Mark" the membership records of repentant-hetro-sexual sinners?

Craig,

Answer this question: Do you believe that some or most gay men are repentant of engaging in homosexual activity, and choose a life of celibacy or a heterosexual marriage but are still attracted to men?

I believe the simple answer is yes, because they've said it over and over! It's about the gender they are attracted to and not putting them alone with the gender. Again, men are not leading young women, and young women are not leading young men. So repenting of engaging is not particularly relevant to the fact that they acted sexually with someone of that gender, and thus are not going to work with youth because the only half they could work with before is now not an option.

Again, I acknowledge it's discriminatory, but I disagree with it being a bad thing.

Matthew re-read my reply to that post of yours...perhaps you missed it....in essance...the policy restricts access to "any" calling where children are involved YM, Sunday School, Primary, Scouts. Yet a man who cheats on his wife and repents has no such restrictions placed on him can work in any youth program and no "Mark" is placed on his membership record...he is forgiven ...blantant discrimination

A man who cheats on his wife and repents still faces consequences. And he can still only teach young men when brought back in to full fellowship, not young women. Because no male can. And if he cheated on his wife with a man, then he could not teach young men. It's about acting out on gender attraction. Prudence declares that, in a litigious society, you don't put a leader over youth alone with those of the gender they are attracted to and have acted out within the past.

In a perfect world, we would be able to trust everyone and when an individual acts out inappropriately, the Church would not be sued and defamed across the media and the globe. But it's not a perfect world. We are constantly being sued for exactly that. And if sensible precatuins are not taken, then we are going to get sued more often. And lose. Because that's how the laws work here.

[Libs]

But, Matthew, it seems like, if the church followed it's own rule, about two deep teaching, there would not be a problem with any of that.

Edited June 1, 2012 by Libs

[treehugger]

Male teach females all the time in LDS Church, females teach males all the time in the LDS Church.

Why do males teach the Priesthood males of the Church? I can not say, but I am pretty sure it has more to do who actually bears the Preisthood and has less to do with who an adult male is attracted too.

I know a male who currently teaches a mixed gender class, he keeps the door open because a male teacher must either have a chaperon OR keep the door open; however there are no such restrictions placed on female teachers.

I think it is best to simply start and with "Yes, the policy - if true - is discriminatory. The Church has not provided the reasoning for the policy."

Edited June 1, 2012 by treehugger

[Craig Paxton]

Craig,

Answer this question: Do you believe that some or most gay men are repentant of engaging in homosexual activity, and choose a life of celibacy or a heterosexual marriage but are still attracted to men?

I believe the simple answer is yes, because they've said it over and over! It's about the gender they are attracted to and not putting them alone with the gender. Again, men are not leading young women, and young women are not leading young men. So repenting of engaging is not particularly relevant to the fact that they acted sexually with someone of that gender, and thus are not going to work with youth because the only half they could work with before is now not an option.

Again, I acknowledge it's discriminatory, but I disagree with it being a bad thing.

A man who cheats on his wife and repents still faces consequences. And he can still only teach young men when brought back in to full fellowship, not young women. Because no male can. And if he cheated on his wife with a man, then he could not teach young men. It's about acting out on gender attraction. Prudence declares that, in a litigious society, you don't put a leader over youth alone with those of the gender they are attracted to and have acted out within the past.

In a perfect world, we would be able to trust everyone and when an individual acts out inappropriately, the Church would not be sued and defamed across the media and the globe. But it's not a perfect world. We are constantly being sued for exactly that. And if sensible precatuins are not taken, then we are going to get sued more often. And lose. Because that's how the laws work here.

Your argument is a strawman...Men don't teach YW for completely other reasons and vise versa...physical attaction has NOTHING to do with this policy...to start with gay men are NOT attracted to children..pedophiles are. And this policy treats repentant gay men as pedophiles. If it was about attraction they would exclude them from teaching adult men in priesthood as well...but they don't.

And you are wrong again in your premise...repentant hetro's CAN teach young women...in both primary and SS.

The policy is discriminatory, discusting...and un Christ-like and unforgiving to a repentant soul...it reeks of a man made church...not a Christ headed church.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

But, Matthew, it seems like, if the church followed it's own rule, about two deep teaching, there would not be a problem with any of that.

That would apply to primary only. So it would still exclude them from Young Men callings. But the church does follow it's rules... they set them. Sadly, some wards and branches do not. We don't police our wards every week via authorities from the stake or area presidency. Additionally, some wards and branches simply do not have enough members to meet all the callings and corners are cut. Layers of protection then create a failsafe mechanism. Which, in a litigious society, is needed.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Male teach females all the time in LDS Church, females teach males all the time in the LDS Church.

Why do males teach the Priesthood males of the Church? I can not say, but I am pretty sure it has more to do who actually bears the Preisthood and has less to do with who an adult male is attracted too.

Only in combined/mixed classes.

I know a male who currently teaches a mixed gender class, he keeps the door open because a male teacher must either have a chaperon OR keep the door open; however there are no such restrictions placed on female teachers.

Never seen this done in Sunday School, only in Primary. Must be a local thing. I think it's a good idea though.

Your argument is a strawman...Men don't teach YW for completely other reasons and vise versa...physical attaction has NOTHING to do with this policy...to start with gay men are NOT attracted to children..pedophiles are. And this policy treats repentant gay men as pedophiles. If it was about attraction they would exclude them from teaching adult men in priesthood as well...but they don't.

Physical attraction does have something to do with it, but it is not the only reason. In the past history of the Church however, men did teach young women classes, solo taught primary, were primary presidents on a ward level, etc. That changed. And it is absolutely discriminatory. I have often thought how much I wish I could be a Primary President (but not a teacher of the little kids...). But I can't. Why? Because I am a male. Completely discriminatory. And I haven’t even done anything! But I am ok with it. I am not leaving the church over it. And I understand the reasons for it.

As for the prohibition of not teaching adult men, I think your emotions are getting the better of you. There is a vast legal difference between teaching adults and teaching youth.

And you are wrong again in your premise...repentant hetro's CAN teach young women...in both primary and SS.

Where did I say they could not? I said they could and gave the situations they could.

The policy is discriminatory, discusting...and un Christ-like and unforgiving to a repentant soul...it reeks of a man made church...not a Christ headed church.

I am sorry you feel it is so revolting. It has nothing to do with forgiving sins. That is between them and Christ. There is not a second asterisk next to their name that says they cannot go to the temple. That says they cannot work as temple works. Or be a counselor in a Bishopric or the Elder's Quorum President (or, for Lesbians, Relief Society President). The Church doesn't forgive sins, Christ does. It's taught in every class I've ever been to. But the church does have an obligation to create an environment that is safe and comfortable and legally sound for as many people as possible. Forgiveness has nothing to do with it.

[ERayR]

While I accept that there are consequences to so-called Mormon defined-sin ... there are also rewards due the repentant soul...a grand bargin with God that their sin wil be forgiven, made white were once it was crimson...in other words forgotten. This policy flies in the face of this grand bargin between the sinner and God.

This policy is also discriminatory...why doesn't the church also "Mark" the membership records of repentant-hetro-sexual sinners?

There is also a "grand bargain" with the youth of the church and their parents that the church will take no unnecessary chances with the safety of the youth. When two "grand bargains" collide then one must take precedence. I vote for the safety of the children.

Providing it is true(and that hasn't been established for sure) how do know that the records of "repentant-hetero-sexual sinners" are not marked. Before we can accept your indignation over this you must first establish that "repentant-hetero-sexual sinners" are not treated the same way.

[Libs]

Providing it is true(and that hasn't been established for sure) how do know that the records of "repentant-hetero-sexual sinners" are not marked.

Yes, so many unanswered questions, I think it's going to be difficult to proceed.

Going strictly by the linked interview, there seems to have been a policy change that treats gay men differently from other men, even those who have had disciplinary action taken against them....but, I have no way to verify that, so I think this thread is just going no were, without proper verification. Might consider asking the mods to close it. Besides which, there is another thread on this same subject.