Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
flameburns623

GLBT+ Protest planned for Fast Sunday?

Recommended Posts

On June 2, 2016 at 2:11 PM, rockpond said:

 

 

No, it's you and MM who are making this more complicated than it actually is. 

And your inability to defend your statements is noted. 

Rockpond, you seem to be looking for a church that is welcoming to all. I am not talking about a church that mouths those words but one that welcomes all that wish to come to Christ, even sinners

This church won't even baptize children of gay couples for heaven sakes. Why would you think members would be ok with wearing a rainbow ribbon?  Scott and Mystery  Mest are right. You shouldn't expect that wearing a ribbon would be ok. What kind of message would that send to a gay member struggling to find his place in the church?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Rockpond, you seem to be looking for a church that is welcoming to all. I am not talking about a church that mouths those words but one that welcomes all that wish to come to Christ, even sinners

This church won't even baptize children of gay couples for heaven sakes. Why would you think members would be ok with wearing a rainbow ribbon?  Scott and Mystery  Mest are right. You shouldn't expect that wearing a ribbon would be ok. What kind of message would that send to a gay member struggling to find his place in the church?

Thank you for being dishonest and putting words in my mouth. That tells me quite a lot.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, rockpond said:

I've commented multiple times about the change.  And I've quoted from the article regarding the change... Here it is again:

"The simple act of wearing a rainbow ribbon does make a change for the better. It signals to others that we are safe spaces for those who are in crisis."

That's not all it's about, and I think you know it.

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, rockpond said:

I've commented multiple times about the change.  And I've quoted from the article regarding the change... Here it is again:

"The simple act of wearing a rainbow ribbon does make a change for the better. It signals to others that we are safe spaces for those who are in crisis."

Perhaps we can reach a compromise?

I will concede that wearing a ribbon is not the bad, terrible thing I have ascribed to it if it is only done to show love. If there are other motives in play by those who wear the ribbons, such as making a statement of opposition to, rejection of, or defiance to the policy, the Church's stance on SSM and the prophets and apostles themselves, then wearing them in Sacrament meeting is entirely inappropriate.

Can we agree to that much?

Share this post


Link to post

In the church I attend, most regulars have nametags they wear.

Individuals often personalize their nametags with stickers or pins representing various aspects they'd like to bring awareness to... sometimes advocating awareness of social issues like empowering women or helping the poor, cancer, autism, and LGBT issues.  Many intentionally wear a rainbow or transgender pin to let others know they are supportive of creating a safe and welcoming congregation for gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals.

How funny (read: 'odd,' not humorous) to read this thread.  How alien that human expression and individuality is viewed with contempt as a threat to and usurp-ment of established power.

While I sympathize with the intent of the organizers of encouraging others to wear a rainbow to send a message to LGBT Latter-day Saints, the comments in this thread are indicative of how hostile many Mormons are to that type of message.  Indeed, the church's own policies contradict that Mormonism could be a safe space for any gay, lesbian, or transgender Mormons who are in any way accepting of their own sexual orientation or non-conforming gender identity.  It is NOT a safe place.  It is hostile.  Based on their defense of their policy, it is safe to conclude that LDS leaders DO NOT WANT openly, self-accepting gays and lesbians, nor their children, to be an active, vocal, participating part of their congregations.

Based on the research I've found, in my opinion self-accepting LGBT LDS youth would be best served by finding a private confidant who can help them alleviate the emotional and spiritual effects of any cultural ostracism, while simultaneously staying in the closet among their family and church community, until they are old enough to become self-sufficient and move away from any negativity and rejection.

Edited by Daniel2

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

In the church I attend, most regulars have nametags they were.

Individuals often personalize their nametags with stickers or pins representing various aspects they'd like to bring awareness to... sometimes advocating awareness of social issues like empowering women or helping the poor, cancer, autism, and LGBT issues.  Many intentionally wear a rainbow or transgender pin to let others know they are supportive of creating a safe and welcoming congregation for gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals.

How funny (read: 'odd,' not humorous) to read this thread.  How alien that human expression and individuality is viewed with contempt as a threat to and usurp-ment of established power.

While I sympathize with the intent of the organizers of encouraging others to wear a rainbow to send a message to LGBT Latter-day Saints, the comments in this thread are indicative of how hostile many Mormons are to that type of message.  Indeed, the church's own policies contradict that Mormonism could be a safe space for any gay, lesbian, or transgender Mormons who are in any way accepting of their own sexual orientation or non-conforming gender identity.  It is NOT a safe place.  It is hostile.  Based on their defense of their policy, it is safe to conclude that LDS leaders DO NOT WANT openly, self-accepting gays and lesbians, nor their children, to be an active, vocal, participating part of their congrI love thiegations.

Based on the research I've found, in my opinion self-accepting LGBT LDS youth would be best served by finding a private confidant who can help them alleviate the emotional and spiritual effects of any cultural ostracism, while simultaneously staying in the closet among their family and church community, until they are old enough to become self-sufficient and move away from any negativity and rejection.

I love this..you are not required to answer..but what church do you belong to now?

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Daniel2 said:

In the church I attend, most regulars have nametags they were.

Individuals often personalize their nametags with stickers or pins representing various aspects they'd like to bring awareness to... sometimes advocating awareness of social issues like empowering women or helping the poor, cancer, autism, and LGBT issues.  Many intentionally wear a rainbow or transgender pin to let others know they are supportive of creating a safe and welcoming congregation for gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals.

How funny (read: 'odd,' not humorous) to read this thread.  How alien that human expression and individuality is viewed with contempt as a threat to and usurp-ment of established power.

While I sympathize with the intent of the organizers of encouraging others to wear a rainbow to send a message to LGBT Latter-day Saints, the comments in this thread are indicative of how hostile many Mormons are to that type of message.  Indeed, the church's own policies contradict that Mormonism could be a safe space for any gay, lesbian, or transgender Mormons who are in any way accepting of their own sexual orientation or non-conforming gender identity.  It is NOT a safe place.  It is hostile.  Based on their defense of their policy, it is safe to conclude that LDS leaders DO NOT WANT openly, self-accepting gays and lesbians, nor their children, to be an active, vocal, participating part of their congregations.

Based on the research I've found, in my opinion self-accepting LGBT LDS youth would be best served by finding a private confidant who can help them alleviate the emotional and spiritual effects of any cultural ostracism, while simultaneously staying in the closet among their family and church community, until they are old enough to become self-sufficient and move away from such negativity.

We should always be loving and welcoming for every sinner, no matter their sins, and hostile towards their sins (just as we should all be hostile towards our sins). The challenge arises here, when people don't view their clearly defined sins, as sins. The result is a feeling of being unwelcome or not accepting them for who they think they really are.

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Mystery Meat said:

Perhaps we can reach a compromise?

I will concede that wearing a ribbon is not the bad, terrible thing I have ascribed to it if it is only done to show love. If there are other motives in play by those who wear the ribbons, such as making a statement of opposition to, rejection of, or defiance to the policy, the Church's stance on SSM and the prophets and apostles themselves, then wearing them in Sacrament meeting is entirely inappropriate.

Can we agree to that much?

That might be considered the ideal way to take it; but how many members are really going to see it that way when they see someone wearing the ribbon? Whether they are right or wrong it is going to arouse feelings of contention in Sacrament meeting for some members who see it as a sign of protest; unless someone makes some kind of announcement in church that they accept the policy change and only mean it as a sign of love and support. 

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Well...you shouldn't be advertising your workplace!:P  Hopefully Kirby is wearing a Tribby tie to Sacrament Meeting.

I don't know that there is such an item; I haven't seen one.

But if so, I could hardly begrudge him wearing it to church when I'm inclined to do so with my Deseret News tie.

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, JAHS said:

That might be considered the ideal way to take it; but how many members are really going to see it that way when they see someone wearing the ribbon? Whether they are right or wrong it is going to arouse feelings of contention in Sacrament meeting for some members who see it as a sign of protest; unless someone makes some kind of announcement in church that they accept the policy change and only mean it as a sign of love and support. 

You are getting ahead of me, just a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, JAHS said:

That might be considered the ideal way to take it; but how many members are really going to see it that way when they see someone wearing the ribbon? Whether they are right or wrong it is going to arouse feelings of contention in Sacrament meeting for some members who see it as a sign of protest; unless someone makes some kind of announcement in church that they accept the policy change and only mean it as a sign of love and support. 

If it's a matter of having to stand up in meeting and make some kind of disclaimer or qualifer, it has already become an unwelcome distraction that has no place in a worship service of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Allowing a general announcement in a sacrament meeting or other Sabbath day meeting about some movement or campaign unavoidably and falsely implies Church endorsement of it, a thing that ought not happen.

Edited by Scott Lloyd

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, california boy said:

Rockpond, you seem to be looking for a church that is welcoming to all. I am not talking about a church that mouths those words but one that welcomes all that wish to come to Christ, even sinners

This church won't even baptize children of gay couples for heaven sakes. Why would you think members would be ok with wearing a rainbow ribbon?  Scott and Mystery  Mest are right. You shouldn't expect that wearing a ribbon would be ok. What kind of message would that send to a gay member struggling to find his place in the church?

It is the implied expression of opposition to the leaders of the Church that I object to. And don't try to pretend that such implied expression is not present.

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/31/2016 at 3:53 PM, rockpond said:

I think many of us believe that changing members' attitudes would help lead to changes in doctrine (through being open to further revelation) and policy.

 

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It is the implied expression of opposition to the leaders of the Church that I object to. And don't try to pretend that such implied expression is not present

Right. Even rockpond implied that such an expression of support might lead to a change. I am sure, in the back of their minds, other supporters are thinking the same.

Share this post


Link to post
On 6/2/2016 at 6:11 AM, rockpond said:

 

 

No, it's you and MM who are making this more complicated than it actually is. 

And your inability to defend your statements is noted. 

It's not a matter of inability to defend my statements, which I have done plentifully here already. It's a matter of your repetitious sophistry becoming tedious.

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I love this..you are not required to answer..but what church do you belong to now?p

Unitarian Universalism. An entirely different experience and approach to religion than Mormonism, to be sure. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Unitarian Universalism. An entirely different experience and approach to religion than Mormonism, to be sure. ;)

Thank you.  I remember now that you mentioned it before.  I have tried to find one close to home here.  From what I understand, it is basically set up for good will and doing good for ohers.  A golden rule approach that I love!

Share this post


Link to post
56 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

.... Based on their defense of their policy, it is safe to conclude that LDS leaders DO NOT WANT openly, self-accepting gays and lesbians, nor their children, to be an active, vocal, participating part of their congregations.

Based on the research I've found, in my opinion self-accepting LGBT LDS youth would be best served by finding a private confidant who can help them alleviate the emotional and spiritual effects of any cultural ostracism, while simultaneously staying in the closet among their family and church community, until they are old enough to become self-sufficient and move away from any negativity and rejection.

Well, DUH!  Where in your wildest dreams have you ever thought the gospel of Jesus Christ would promote and accept such a sinful behavior?  Gads, Daniel, have you been living under a rock or do you have the unrealistic perception that God, Jesus, and his Church will just set aside some five thousand years of interacting with God's children, commandments, teaching concepts of sin, etc. in favor of a social movement that is decades old?  

Absolutely not - identifying as a sinner is a fundamental step in Christianity.  Rejecting that sinful nature is just as fundamental.  What you are proposing is rather than acknowledging we are sinners we should wallow in our sin for no other reason that it makes us feel good for short period of time.  

There is a reason that Jesus did not teach a Unitarian doctrine - it is gibberish at its best.  To quote from Wikipedia, "Unitarian Universalists believe that each person is free to search for his or her own personal truth on issues, such as the existence, nature, and meaning of life, deities, creation, and afterlife."  This is better said as "we" their church does not know what truth is; we do not know god; we don't know anything.  What we want is for you to create your own belief systems and we will then instruct you that you are right because you say you are.  This is the type of man-made religion that demonstrates our excessive ability to create the inane and call it good while enrolling others in calling it good.  Why?  for no other reason than there is a tacit agreement that there are no lies, no untruths, no wrong way, no right way, no truth.  

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you.  I remember now that you mentioned it before.  I have tried to find one close to home here.  From what I understand, it is basically set up for good will and doing good for ohers.  A golden rule approach that I love!

"Unitarian Universalists believe that each person is free to search for his or her own personal truth on issues, such as the existence, nature, and meaning of life, deities, creation, and afterlife. UUs can come from any religious background, and hold beliefs and adhere to morals from a variety of cultures or religions."

I would hope that most everyone already believes this; why give it a name?

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

"Unitarian Universalists believe that each person is free to search for his or her own personal truth on issues, such as the existence, nature, and meaning of life, deities, creation, and afterlife. UUs can come from any religious background, and hold beliefs and adhere to morals from a variety of cultures or religions."

I would hope that most everyone already believes this; why give it a name?

I don't know the answer...but whatever you call it.  I live it and I like it.

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

This is better said as "we" their church does not know what truth is; we do not know god; we don't know anything.  What we want is for you to create your own belief systems and we will then instruct you that you are right because you say you are.  This is the type of man-made religion that demonstrates our excessive ability to create the inane and call it good while enrolling others in calling it good.  Why?  for no other reason than there is a tacit agreement that there are no lies, no untruths, no wrong way, no right way, no truth.  

Your characterization of Unitarian Universalism doesn't match my experiences therein.  To say that "we don't know what truth is, we don't know god, we don't know anything" or assert that we believe there are "no lies, no untruths, no wrong way, no right way, no truth" aren't reflective of our practices and beliefs.  Even so, our congregations are very much shaped by shared values, rather than any dogmatic or creedal religious statements.

As with any religion, if you'd like to know what Unitarian Universalism is like, I would encourage you to go experience it's expression and people for yourself.  Find a congregation.  Participate in some worship services and activities.  Ask questions of UUs and don't rely solely on the words of non- and never-members to understand them.

Edited by Daniel2

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Well, DUH!  Where in your wildest dreams have you ever thought the gospel of Jesus Christ would promote and accept such a sinful behavior?  Gads, Daniel, have you been living under a rock or do you have the unrealistic perception that God, Jesus, and his Church will just set aside some five thousand years of interacting with God's children, commandments, teaching concepts of sin, etc. in favor of a social movement that is decades old?

Although you are free to meet my comments with incredulity and denigrate them as naïve in the face of LDS doctrine and culture, I made them in the context that in certain areas of the country, many local leaders were making welcoming attempts and overtures by holding firesides and special meetings to welcome gays and lesbians, even those in relationships, rather than reject them, excommunicate them, or silence their participation.  Groups within Mormonism were organizing campaigns like 'Mormons Building Bridges" and "Sit by Me Sundays."

The institutional church leadership has squelched the net effect of those locally-led actions by drawing a stark, unequivocal line of exclusion, excommunication, and ostracism. Which is, of course, entirely within the realm of Mormonism's totalitarian, top-down approach to leadership.

Given the above context, my comments were directed at LDS individuals like those who are organizing this campaign to wear rainbows.  Many of us hoped to build bridges with our LDS family and friends, where we could find middle ground.  Since the policy, my relationship with my family has all but evaporated and I never hear back from them anymore.  Perhaps it's time to simply give up hope on my family and the LDS church that holds them in it's grips.  History will move on, and the church will either survive by holding its ground, fail by holding its ground, or ultimately change if it does begin to relevance.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Your characterization of Unitarian Universalism doesn't match my experiences therein.  To say that "we don't know what truth is, we don't know god, we don't know anything" or assert that we believe there are "no lies, no untruths, no wrong way, no right way, no truth" aren't reflective of our practices and beliefs.  Even so, our congregations are very much shaped by shared values, rather than any dogmatic or creedal religious statements.

As with any religion, if you'd like to know what Unitarian Universalism is like, I would encourage you to go experience it's expression and people for yourself.  Find a congregation.  Participate in some worship services and activities.  Ask questions of UUs and don't rely solely on the words of non- and never-members to understand them.

Not surprisingly I have studied Unitarian Universalism.  I don't think it is advisable to get cute with reality at this point on what UU believe and what they don't believe.  

There is not truth because all teachings are equal and acceptable.  There are no untruths - no lies - for the same reason.  Everything is the accepted at face value as valid.  All gods are acceptable - Jesus is but one of many that can be acknowledge and not a single one of them has any more allegiance than any other.  Are you saying this is not accurate - that UU is actually a Christian Church with an acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world and the only way to return to heaven? 

There is strong difference between doctrine and a having a creed.  The LDS Church does not have a creed, but it certainly has doctrine and understands the difference between truth and not truth.  

Let's be careful with how we present things and be honest.  I have not said there is no value in UU and their congregations - however, above all things UU is focused on truth being a personal experience and is relative to whatever the individual thinks is true.  Thus, an atheist is just as comfortable "worshiping" in a UU church as anyone else.  

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Not surprisingly I have studied Unitarian Universalism.  I don't think it is advisable to get cute with reality at this point on what UU believe and what they don't believe.  

There is not truth because all teachings are equal and acceptable.  There are no untruths - no lies - for the same reason.  Everything is the accepted at face value as valid.  All gods are acceptable - Jesus is but one of many that can be acknowledge and not a single one of them has any more allegiance than any other.  Are you saying this is not accurate - that UU is actually a Christian Church with an acknowledgement of Jesus Christ as the Savior of the world and the only way to return to heaven? 

There is strong difference between doctrine and a having a creed.  The LDS Church does not have a creed, but it certainly has doctrine and understands the difference between truth and not truth.  

Let's be careful with how we present things and be honest.  I have not said there is no value in UU and their congregations - however, above all things UU is focused on truth being a personal experience and is relative to whatever the individual thinks is true.  Thus, an atheist is just as comfortable "worshiping" in a UU church as anyone else.  

Yes, let's be careful with how we present things and be honest.  I'm all for that, and honesty and clarity are at the core of my previous responses to you, as well.

I hope you would agree that "studying" something is different than "experiencing" it for one's self.

And while I can see that some of your comments reflect UU values and demonstrate familiarity with Unitarian Universalism.  However, I believe some of your wording is inaccurate, which is why--in that spirit of clarify and honesty--I've attended to encourage personal experience, even over my own comments, for those who want to best understand.  I would presume you would encourage the same personal experience for anyone who wanted to truly and fully understand Mormonism, rather than rely solely on "studying" it.  Having been raised by the church, I often heard the mantra that "if you want to know what Mormons believe, best ask a Mormon!" rather than rely on non-LDS sources or external study. 

In that vein...

UUs do NOT believe that "all teachings are equal and acceptable." 

UUs do NOT believe that "there are no untruths, no lies."

UUs do NOT believe that "everything is the accepted at face value as valid."

UUs do NOT believe that "all gods are acceptable."

SOME UUs are Christians, and acknowledge Jesus Christ as the savior of the world and a belief in heaven.  Some UUs are agnostics and atheists with no belief in a personal deity or afterlife. 

If anyone wants to understand more or better, I would encourage speaking with UUs and experiencing UU services for themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Yes, let's be careful with how we present things and be honest.  I'm all for that, and honesty and clarity are at the core of my previous responses to you, as well.

I hope you would agree that "studying" something is different than "experiencing" it for one's self.

And while I can see that some of your comments reflect UU values and demonstrate familiarity with Unitarian Universalism.  However, I believe some of your wording is inaccurate, which is why--in that spirit of clarify and honesty--I've attended to encourage personal experience, even over my own comments, for those who want to best understand.  I would presume you would encourage the same personal experience for anyone who wanted to truly and fully understand Mormonism, rather than rely solely on "studying" it.  Having been raised by the church, I often heard the mantra that "if you want to know what Mormons believe, best ask a Mormon!" rather than rely on non-LDS sources or external study. 

In that vein...

UUs do NOT believe that "all teachings are equal and acceptable." 

UUs do NOT believe that "there are no untruths, no lies."

UUs do NOT believe that "everything is the accepted at face value as valid."

UUs do NOT believe that "all gods are acceptable."

SOME UUs are Christians, and acknowledge Jesus Christ as the savior of the world and a belief in heaven.  Some UUs are agnostics and atheists with no belief in a personal deity or afterlife. 

If anyone wants to understand more or better, I would encourage speaking with UUs and experiencing UU services for themselves.

Which god is not acceptable for a member to believe in?  

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Which god is not acceptable for a member to believe in?  

Any concept of god that would include advocating or condoning violence or hatred or ill-will towards others, for starters...

Edited by Daniel2

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...