Jump to content
Daniel2

New HBO News Segment focuses on LGBT issues, touches on Monson, Priesthood

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

I answer your question, I don't think so.  I think it is perfectly possible.  I can offer the feedback that based solely on my interactions with you on this board, you do a great job of the former and the latter is an after-thought.  My perspective is that you do genuinely want to validate and honor my personal choices and those who make similar choices.  However, as you do, many of the comments and perspectives you share do not make me feel celebrated or accepted.  I do appreciate that when I have pointed this out in the past you generally apologize and make an effort to express support and I do appreciate that.  

Would it be possible to recognize that even as you mean to be affirming of those within the Church, but often come across as invalidating, maybe others who seem to come across as invalidating to those who leave the church may be equally sincere in their effort to accept and love their LGB brothers and sisters, but do so imperfectly?

Yes.  I certainly have room for improvement and growth on this issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, kllindley said:

Thanks, Daniel.  I hope you know that I see us as being together in this effort to improve things.  I know the CFR isn't to me, but I would say that you have apologized and clarified whenever you have crossed the line. I appreciate your contributions.  I know that not everyone is in a place emotionally to handle it with the grace you do.  

Likewise, thanks to you, too.  I agree that this is often a challenging topic to discuss; and I think you'll agree that it's only challenging because it's touches on themes that are so important to all of us, no matter where we fall in terms of our beliefs.  I guess that's because the most challenging topics to get through are also the most worth it (in other words, those that matter most).

And yes, I absolutely agree that I also see you and I both "being together" in this effort to improve things. And even when we disagree, I likewise value your input, because I think both sides of our stories need to be heard as a means of increasing understanding all around--me included.  I hope and believe we all can and do learn from each other.

Edited by Daniel2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

And Daniel, I don't think it fruitful to quote homophobic changes against me.  Mormons are not monolithic. I am a libertarian and support gay rights in my libertarian way, meaning, leave me alone about your sexuality because I don't care.  Stop pestering me about it and in my Christian way I won't care.  I home teach a gay married couple and don't give a hoot.  Live and let live.  But Mormon doctrine is unequivocally against your teachings so give it up. 

Bob, I think you may have misunderstood my point in posting the quotes by Coretta Scott King.  In doing so, I was not trying to suggest that YOU are homophobic.  I posted Mrs. King's words in response to the suggestion/implication that it's inappropriate to suggest that there are clear parallels and similarities between Dr. King's efforts toward equality and justice of The Civil Rights movement and the efforts of those of us engaged in equality and justice in LGBT equality.  The criticism of the young black woman you mentioned, who objected to gays invoking the words of Dr. King in support of the struggle for LGBT equality, clearly doesn't stand up when contrasted with the numerous quotations from Dr. King's own wife and widow, who clearly drew the parallels and viewed the LGBT civil rights movement as an extension of her late husbands' own efforts.  You yourself advised me that I shouldn't invoke Dr. King, but should quote a gay leader.  My response in posting Mrs. Kings' words was to say, 'If Ms. King invoked her husband, his words, his beliefs, and his efforts to LGBT quality, then I feel it isn't inappropriate for me to note the same parallels.'  I hope it's clear I wasn't trying to suggest you are homophobic or bigoted, but was merely responding to the story about the young woman's objections and your suggestion that I shouldn't invoke Dr. King.

As always, thanks for the chance to learn from one another.

Best,

D

Edited by Daniel2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

I lobbed into this thread only to say that the story we hear from the most active gay-rights activists on this thread are, in my opinion, atypical of church members who are gay.   Daniel's story may be typical of those who leave the church.  Some guy who went to seminary, went on a mission and married in the temple is, in my opinion, if he is gay, much less likely to announce his gayness, leave his family and get into same-gender marriage than one who stays in the church and with his family.

 

Do I have statistics? No.  How could one know?   And when I was a bishop, likely I was dealing more with those who wanted to stay and continue with the struggle than those who deviated.  

Yes, I would think that many who are gay but want to stay in the church, serve a mission, marry in the temple, etc are unlikely to every announce their orientation.  I expect that there are some who silently fit this mold in each of our stakes. We used to have a group of them in our stake who met regularly together.  When needed the stake would create fake callings for them to facilitate their attendance at the meetings  

Likewise, there are many who are gay and leave for that reason and never announce why.

In my years of working with the young men, I knew of four YM who were gay.  None of them were ever very public about it until after they left home.  And they all left the church.  So, as church members go — they never would have made it into a Bishop’s Office to counsel with him and their stories would not have been known to most of their ward members.  But they were members of the church.  They are our children, grandchildren, brothers, nephews, uncles, and cousins.

I imagine there were other gay YM among those I worked with who stayed and never “came out”.  

I think and hope that all of these young men have found true joy.  And I wish they could all still be on the pews with me. 

Edited by rockpond

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, california boy said:

And you are a valued voice concerning these issues on this board.  I always appreciate your perspective and fully support the choices you have made in your life.

Thank you, CB. I have honestly been struggling for the last four hours because I had to step away from the computer after posting that comment and I started thinking about how that probably came across to you. I'm sorry for the potential implicit jab. I also value your perspective even as I find we disagree often and sometimes adamantly. Thanks for the compliment and kindness. I hope to do better at returning the support.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  I certainly have room for improvement and growth on this issue. 

As do I.

I freely admit that at times, especially when I struggle with faith and confidence in my decisions, I am extra sensitive to comments from others in my faith community that seem to add to my doubt and challenges. Even innocent comments have the potential to trigger feelings of discouragement. I own that as my own problem. In response, I tend to react with indignation.  

All in all, I really am grateful for these discussions and even the "attacks" I perceive because they do lead me to return to the source of my strength and purpose in life. My family and my Savior. As I feel the need to defend myself, I am reminded of the spiritual experiences I've had and the love I have for my wife and my children. 

Which is to say, thank you for being willing to engage even when we don't see things the same way. 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

The reason for my post is to respond to your many many posts pretending to speak for all homosexuals who are former members of the church.  Your story is not typical.  Homosexuals don't all leave the church.  Some do, some don't.  Some do, and some come back.  I mentioned the story of the general authority's history I know; I also know of a current living former general authority.  I have a friend who was a bishop and now is on a high council.  I have another friend in his 60s who left the church after his mission.  He met me to sell me a rare church book.  He told me he wanted to return to the church but didn't know if he could withstand the temptation. 

So, when you go on and on about how the Church is not responsive, is cruel and thoughtless, keep in mind that there are plenty of us who have served in leadership roles who have agonized over this issue, trying to keep a father or mother in the home, and some of us have been successful.  And that defines the Christian's struggle.  I have read Augustine.  We are Christians here to conquer hedonism, and not to give into it.

Regarding your signature line, I once addressed a UCLA law school seminar on the issue of gay rights.   A black student said she found it offensive to compare the struggle for racial equality and against slavery to the right to engage in homosexual relations.   A gay student spoke up and said that it was her experience that blacks typically were over-the-top bigoted against gays.  So, I don't buy your signature line in the least.  It is a corruption of Dr. King. Gays have their struggles, so quote Noel Coward and not Dr. King.

You seem very poorly informed on this issue.

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice. But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King Jr. said, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brother- and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."  - Coretta Scott King

 

Edit: never mind, I see you've been corrected already.

Edited by Gray

Share this post


Link to post
41 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Thank you, CB. I have honestly been struggling for the last four hours because I had to step away from the computer after posting that comment and I started thinking about how that probably came across to you. I'm sorry for the potential implicit jab. I also value your perspective even as I find we disagree often and sometimes adamantly. Thanks for the compliment and kindness. I hope to do better at returning the support.

I am very sincere in thanking you for giving this board your perspective.  The strength of this board is in listening to the perspective and views of others.  I also appreciate the comments of Bob Crockett.  He reminds me of other viewpoints on this sensitive issue.  And I can thank him for prompting me to ask Calm's help in finding actual data on this issue.  

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Calm said:

Are you thinking of someone on this panel?  The obvious choice if working at BYU at one time is Bill Bradshaw.  Ron Rees is a therapist who graduated from BYU.

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/the-persistence-of-same-sex-attraction-in-latter-day-saints-who-undergo-counseling-or-change-therapy/

The problem with such studies is there may be numerous or just a few married mixed orientation couples who do not seek out counseling and therefore no one would ever be aware of them.  Those who seek out counseling generally have problems, so of course the rate of divorce would be larger.  It should be compared to heterosexual couples who get counseling, not the general public, if compared.

 

3 hours ago, Calm said:

"Approximately half of these clients left counseling after one or two sessions; the other half, who were in therapy for one to three years, include roughly two hundred single men and two hundred married men. Among the two hundred single men, only 10 percent were able to marry. Almost all of them (nineteen of twenty) identified themselves as bisexual. Of the two hundred married males (a large portion of whom, it is probably safe to speculate, were likely bisexual), only half were able to stay in their marriages, although there is no information as to what kinds of accommodations they had to make to do so, nor how many of these marriages will ultimately endure."

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V38N03_145.pdf

"According to some research, approximately a quarter of couples who receive marriage therapy report that their relationship is worse two years after ending therapy, and up to 38 percent of couples who receive marriage therapy get divorced within four years of completing therapy."

Too lazy to look for actual research...but thought this might give a ballpark:

https://guidedoc.com/does-marriage-counseling-work-statistics-facts

I am forever in your debt.  While these are not the article that I remember, they certainly provide enough statistical data that at the very least  gives us a good idea of the failure of marriage as a way to loose the attraction to the same sex.  I wish that everyone that have an interest in this issue and would like to actually know what studies have been done within the Mormon community would take the time to at least listen to the symposium you linked in your post.  

This is why you are so respected on this board.  You search for truth and report what you find no matter if it supports your beliefs or preconceived notions or not.  We could all learn a valuable lesson from your example.

Edited by california boy

Share this post


Link to post

The first two links are what you were looking for or at least similar, the third, last link is about couples in general, just in case I did not make that clear.  My mind after finding something for you had wandered into wondering about the comparison between divorce rates of counseling couples in general and same sex in specific; on another day I might be more serious and get more than an unsourced claim.

we often think of people not going to ongoing counseling as a failure due to comparison tomedical treatments and scientific research that people need to see through to the end.  But with counseling, success might just occur in one or two sessions or life improves enough the person believes he no longer needs counseling.  How often that happens as opposed to people who just dismiss counseling as useless or too uncomfortable to go through, I have no idea if there are numbers for that.  Someone undoubtedly did a study on that sometime, but digging it up might be hard.

Edited by Calm

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

 

And Daniel, I don't think it fruitful to quote homophobic changes against me.  Mormons are not monolithic. I am a libertarian and support gay rights in my libertarian way, meaning, leave me alone about your sexuality because I don't care.  Stop pestering me about it and in my Christian way I won't care.  I home teach a gay married couple and don't give a hoot.  Live and let live.  But Mormon doctrine is unequivocally against your teachings so give it up. 

I always find it interesting to hear LDS member say things like this when Mormons (used generally and not at you directly) have literally taken the fight to homosexuals trying to prevent them from obtaining the basic right to marry another consenting adult.  I would suggest the "pestering" has been quite one sided.  I think it is great that as a libertarian you don't really care what someone else is doing but the actions of the Mormon church as a whole are quite different.

Edited by sjdawg

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Likewise, there are many who are gay and leave for that reason and never announce why.

My brother, who is gay, told me once that "he didn't leave the church.  The church left him behind."

Is that unfair?  Maybe, but the church of today has moderated its actions quite a bit since he was coming out in the late 80's/early 90's.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Gray said:

You seem very poorly informed on this issue.

 

One could always be better informed, but I am published on the issue at Rutgers Law. 

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Did the Church ever have such a policy?

You can call it what you want, but there very definitely was a time where church leaders instructed local leaders that being gay could be cured and instructed them to advise gay members to date and marry the opposite sex.  That's undeniable since it's in writing and two apostles are named as being over that issue for the church at that time (Mark E. Petersen and Spencer W. Kimball).

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

You can call it what you want, but there very definitely was a time where church leaders instructed local leaders that being gay could be cured and instructed them to advise gay members to date and marry the opposite sex.  That's undeniable since it's in writing and two apostles are named as being over that issue for the church at that time (Mark E. Petersen and Spencer W. Kimball).

Yes, there’s that document.  Also, there is the clear inference when the Brethren taught that homosexuality could be cured and that the only acceptable path was temple marriage.  

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

One could always be better informed, but I am published on the issue at Rutgers Law. 

 

That kind of makes it worse, don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

One could always be better informed, but I am published on the issue at Rutgers Law. 

Could you clarify, Bob, what issue you've published something about at Rutgers...?  Is the topic you wrote about a demonstration of some kind that the LGBT Rights movement shouldn't be compared to the Civil Rights movement...?  Because from what I understand, that's the issue that I (and possibly others) are suggesting you seem misinformed about, when you suggested I shouldn't compare the two or invoke Dr. King and his words/legacy in my discussion of LGBT equality.

Even if that isn't the issue you published about, I'd love to read your work at Rutgers--is there a link?

Thanks,

D

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Gray said:

That kind of makes it worse, don't you think?

Polling data indicated that the single most significant factor in the defeat of Prop 8 was the black vote.  Almost 80% opposed.  Polling data supports my being informed.  See my Rutgers article, citing the data.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Polling data indicated that the single most significant factor in the defeat of Prop 8 was the black vote.  Almost 80% opposed.  Polling data supports my being informed.  See my Rutgers article, citing the data.

I'm not sure what at all that would have to do with your interpretation of Martin Luther King Jr.'s message, which is contradicted at every turn by his late widow.

Share this post


Link to post
26 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Polling data indicated that the single most significant factor in the defeat of Prop 8 was the black vote.  Almost 80% opposed.  Polling data supports my being informed.  See my Rutgers article, citing the data.

Prop 8 won... it wasn't defeated and a majority of Blacks were in favor.  I assume your language here is referring to "opposing/defeating gay marriage" not opposing/defeating Prop 8.  That said, I disagree with your conclusion...

Using the number from your article (718,997 "yes on Prop 8" votes from Blacks) and assuming that they voted 80% in favor (even though exit polls showed 70%), Prop 8 still would have passed without the Black vote: 6,282,087 "yes" vs 6,221,733 "no".  But I am open to corrections on my math or assumptions.  (I'm using vote totals from the Wikipedia page on Prop 8.)

Share this post


Link to post
11 hours ago, sjdawg said:

My brother, who is gay, told me once that "he didn't leave the church.  The church left him behind."

Is that unfair?  Maybe, but the church of today has moderated its actions quite a bit since he was coming out in the late 80's/early 90's.

To me,, in light of the 2015 policy, your brother is right.

Share this post


Link to post

Interesting Rockpond would argue the single most important factor in the success of Prop 8 can be disregarded because the vote was so overwhelming.  Not too logical, but interesting.  

The single most important reason Hillary lost is that she didn't campaign in Wisconson. but we can disregard that nettlesome statistic, I suppose.

Edited by Bob Crockett

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Gray said:

I'm not sure what at all that would have to do with your interpretation of Martin Luther King Jr.'s message, which is contradicted at every turn by his late widow.

Let's focus on the truth and not an argument over who said what.  What Mrs. King may have said on the subject isn't determinative. Being a black voter was the most important factor in support of Prop 8.  It wasn't the Mormons, who didn't even register in the statistics.  It wasn't the evangelical vote, which came in third.  Blacks, as a group, don't agree that racial equality can be compared to the rights of gays.

Edited by Bob Crockett

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Interesting Rockpond would argue the single most important factor in the success of Prop 8 can be disregarded because the vote was so overwhelming.  Not too logical, but interesting.  

The single most important reason Hillary lost is that she didn't campaign in Wisconson. but we can disregard that nettlesome statistic, I suppose.

Bob, Prop 8 wasn't being discussed at all, so I'm not sure how you see that as being relevant to what was being discussed previously,  You've since been side-stepping the issue,

GIven Corretta King's numerous comparisons between her husband's efforts, views, and life work, I hope you can see that it isn't at all inappropriate to draw parallels between and invoke much of the same verbiage of Dr. King.

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Let's focus on the truth and not an argument over who said what.  Being a black voter was the most important factor in support of Prop 8.  It wasn't the Mormons, who didn't even register in the statistics.  It wasn't the evangelical vote, which came in third. 

Hm.  It's disappointing to see that you were the one that called me out for invoking the words of Dr. King, both personally and your account of the  young African-American woman 's objections, and then when we've shown through numerous quotes by his late widow that that's entirely acceptable, your response is 'let's not argue over who said what' and to then talk about Prop 8--which wasn't the topic at all.

Edited by Daniel2

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Similar Content

    • By kiwi57
      All communication depends upon a level of shared understanding and commonly accepted assumptions. If the communication is verbal, then much of the shared understanding and commonly accepted assumptions has to do with the meanings of words, their semantic ranges and how context influences those meanings. For example, when in the context of a Temple Recommend interview, the interviewer uses such words as "Testimony," "Saviour," "Word of Wisdom," "Law of Chastity" and suchlike, it is mutually understood that these terms take on specifically Mormon meanings, and that short "yes" or "no" answers convey the same information to the hearer as they do to the speaker.
      If a person is not familiar with Mormon terminology, those meanings will not be obvious. But if an interviewee is indeed familiar with them, but chooses instead to interpret those terms in alternative ways without informing the interviewer, - as advocated by Mister John Dehlin, Ph.D. - then s/he has deliberately set out to deceive the interviewer, and is engaging in what I call "lexical duplicity."
      None if this would be particularly controversial, were it not for the fact that there are in this forum one or two ideological friends of Mister Dr Dehlin who see nothing wrong with such behaviour, and flatly deny that any duplicity is involved.
      This raises a serious question, however. If those posters cannot see any problem with such behaviour in a Temple Recommend interview, in which the overriding principle is one of uberrimae fedei, then how can they balk at such things in this forum, where caveat lector so clearly applies? How are we to know, when such a poster uses any well-known Mormon term, that they are using it in its expected Mormon sense, and not in some private sense that is kindly withheld from us, perhaps to avoid distressing us?
      To embrace lexical duplicity of the Dehlin kind is to undermine, if not outright destroy, the trust without which any effective communication must fail. This is in no sense a "personal insult," but a serious problem that needs a serious resolution. If anyone tries to pretend that this is a "personal insult," then they are merely sweeping the problem under the rug.
    • By Daniel2
       
      In the video above, The University of Utah hosted noted LDS scientific (peer-reviewed-published) researcher, founder of the SARS vaccine, and biographer of David O. McKay, Gregory A. Prince.  He's introduced here:


    • By Maidservant
      Elder Quentin L. Cook opens Black Church Leadership Summit
      Mormon Newsroom YouTube bit
      Transcript of Elder Cook's remarks
      Highlights for me:  Mentions meeting Bernice King while (both) attending the Pope (sweet); affirming LGBT rights in the society (nice); that (unlike many churches of the day) blacks (the few) and whites worshiped together in the same early Mormon Church (let's not forget that; beautiful); 'battle' and 'attack' imagery (I really challenge that, not how I see the world, but I find it fascinating that our religious, in fact human, struggle continues to be encapsulized that way); his challenge to the challenge to the colonial narrative (cool, it's time; although let's not overdo it, colonial narrative, not to mention colonialism, is alive and well and still doing damage); continued affirmation of the Church's very specific stance on religious freedom (what it means and what it looks like) (ok); reiterating the Church's persecution foundation (what?! sigh; let's DO forget that).
      And this spectacular quote from the Prophet Joseph.
      ///A few months before he was killed by a mob in 1844, our prophet, Joseph Smith, taught that moral agency was essential for each individual: “God cannot save or damn a man only on the principle that every man acts, chooses and worships for himself; hence the importance of thrusting from us every spirit of bigotry and intolerance towards a man’s religious sentiments, that spirit which has drenched the earth with blood.” ///
      My hero.  (The Prophet, not Elder Cook )
      Lots more in the talk . . .
       
    • By HappyJackWagon
      Last year the Annual United Methodist convention agreed to disagree about the possibility of accepting gays in their congregations and leadership which seemed intended to quell talks of division within the church.
      A new story describes how an Episcopal Bishop who was voted in to lead a Denver area region of the United Methodist Church is now subject to church discipline for violating church law by living in a SSM. It appears to me that the UMC group that voted this Bishop into leadership knew very well that it would restart the conversation and controversy of this topic within the UMC.
      I find this fascinating for many reasons and feel it relates to the familiar struggle we feel within Mormonism for greater inclusion. The issue of SSM and how to welcome/accommodate/accept the LGBT community within the church community has shifted dramatically over such a short period of time that many organizations and churches are either scrambling to figure things out or clenching tightly to their traditions. Change is hard and often takes time. The UMC may not be quite ready for this shift yet and the LDS church is no where near making this kind of dramatic shift, but I'm confident that one day UMC will change. I don't know about the LDS and find myself wondering if there will eventually be a purposeful division within both churches on this issue.
      http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/methodist-court-ruling-blow-first-openly-lesbian-bishop-n752831
    • By EntropyJustKillUsNow
      I was really questioning something... Is the Mormon Church really supporting the LGBT?? The gays and lesbians aren't going to stay married or still be "in love" in the afterlife. You guys know this, right? I'm guessing this is just a way to attract more members, and it's a pretty effective way to do it. But please, we aren't seriously condoning this, are we? Must I remind you people the deadly disease epidemic these people have brought on themselves, and many other innocent individuals? Not to mention that at least a 1/3rd of the people who are gay or lesbian are only that way because of traumatic experiences of sexual abuse, which alters people's minds and bodies in extremely dysfunctional ways, including sexual confusion. The other 2/3rds is composed of people who are just born that way. So we are supporting the biproduct of sexual abuse and mental illness, we are supporting the abominable results of sexually transmitted diseases that come with it, and now the foundation of our church is finally hanging by a thread, JUST like our own prophecy said!! This is what I hate about entropy...
×