Inspiring Video of LGBTQ Latter-day Saints

[kllindley]

56 minutes ago, rockpond said:

 

Then you might want to reconsider what you wrote above.

Really? How is stating how he or she perceived many on the board acting and then expressing appreciation for the thoughtful response that honored Church teaching offensive? 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Really? How is stating how he or she perceived many on the board acting and then expressing appreciation for the thoughtful response that honored Church teaching offensive? 

@Anonymous Mormon indicated that he/she wanted to choose their words carefully so as to not accidentally cause offense.  That is a great goal.  I am trying to do the same.

You'll note that I quoted two particular phrases.  I think those are mis-characterizations of the individuals on this board who disagree with the Church's position/teachings on marriage. 

If we're seeking to not cause offense (and this is advice for myself as well), I think it is important to seek to understand the positions of those with whom we are talking and to not misrepresent their beliefs and statements.  I don't come here thinking that I'm going to change opinions but I do hold to the hope that those who dialogue with me here will seek to understand me as I try to do the same.

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

To be clear, you're asking me how I might recommend rewording the following:

We want our voice to be heard against all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established. We also want our voice to be heard in sustaining the joy and fulfillment that traditional families bring.

To which I'd respond something along the lines of...

”Since the fall of Adam and Eve into the worlds' current telestial state, the family has taken diverse forms throughout history and in various places throughout the world, sometimes by necessity due to loss, death, or other means... sometimes by misguided but well-intended cultural or civic designs... sometimes because of a variety of sins...  But we want our voices to be heard that the Lord, through his ordained prophets, has made it clear that today, only marriage between one man and one woman is authorized to be sealed in His Holy Temples for both time and all eternity.   This is the family organization which God Himself established.  We also want our voices to be heard in sustaining the joy and fulfillment that the Lord’s pattern for families bring.”

 

 

I really respect and honor this effort. This is one of the best examples I have seen in a long time of engaging in dialogue by demonstrating a willingness to understand an alternative viewpoint and state it in a way that the other person agrees with. 

While I did not personally find the use of counterfeit offensive in this context, most attempts to "rewrite" the talk that I remember seeing followed @Rockpond 's approach which essentially required abandoning or at least refraining from teaching a core tenet.  I came to the same conclusion as Anonymous Mormon that the truly offensive part was the doctrine regarding marriage.  So, I felt no real motivation to condemn the word counterfeit. While I understand how it does communicate a specific view about marriage, I can also see how it creates unnecessary division and pain.  So, thank you again. 

[kllindley]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

@Anonymous Mormon indicated that he/she wanted to choose their words carefully so as to not accidentally cause offense.  That is a great goal.  I am trying to do the same.

You'll note that I quoted two particular phrases.  I think those are mis-characterizations of the individuals on this board who disagree with the Church's position/teachings on marriage. 

If we're seeking to not cause offense (and this is advice for myself as well), I think it is important to seek to understand the positions of those with whom we are talking and to not misrepresent their beliefs and statements.  I don't come here thinking that I'm going to change opinions but I do hold to the hope that those who dialogue with me here will seek to understand me as I try to do the same.

So, if I'm understanding you, you believe that the two statements mischaracterize the individuals on the board who disagree with the Church's position on marriage. Is that correct?

Specifically that 1) some people pounce on the word counterfeit when they really find the position itself offensive and immoral. And 2) that some insist that the Church isn't really showing love to LGBT individuals because the teachings are inherently harmful.  You don't think anyone who comments on this board meets either of those criteria?

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I really respect and honor this effort. This is one of the best examples I have seen in a long time of engaging in dialogue by demonstrating a willingness to understand an alternative viewpoint and state it in a way that the other person agrees with. 

While I did not personally find the use of counterfeit offensive in this context, most attempts to "rewrite" the talk that I remember seeing followed @Rockpond 's approach which essentially required abandoning or at least refraining from teaching a core tenet.  I came to the same conclusion as Anonymous Mormon that the truly offensive part was the doctrine regarding marriage.  So, I felt no real motivation to condemn the word counterfeit. While I understand how it does communicate a specific view about marriage, I can also see how it creates unnecessary division and pain.  So, thank you again. 

I found the use of "pretend" in ostensibly describing a mixed orientation marriage to be offensive (the statement that I believe started this subthread).

I also found Elder Perry's use of "counterfeit", to presumably refer to same gender marriage (but possibly not, it's unclear), to also be offensive.  It does create unnecessary division and pain, it also diminishes many loving, committed relationships regardless of one's religious beliefs about marriage.

I've read and re-read President Oaks' words from the 4-April-2019 press release many times as I take great comfort in this being a guiding principle for all of us, myself included, as we move forward:

"We want to reduce the hate and contention so common today. We are optimistic that a majority of people — whatever their beliefs and orientations — long for better understanding and less contentious communications. That is surely our desire, and we seek the help of our members and others to attain it."

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, kllindley said:

So, if I'm understanding you, you believe that the two statements mischaracterize the individuals on the board who disagree with the Church's position on marriage. Is that correct?

Yes.

15 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Specifically that 1) some people pounce on the word counterfeit when they really find the position itself offensive and immoral. And 2) that some insist that the Church isn't really showing love to LGBT individuals because the teachings are inherently harmful.  You don't think anyone who comments on this board meets either of those criteria?

1)  I think the word "counterfeit" was offensive regardless of one's position on marriage.  I don't consider church members' and leaders' spiritual beliefs about marriage to be offensive and immoral.  And yet, I still find describing other loving and committed relationships as "counterfeit" to be just as offensive as describing a mixed orientation marriage as "pretend".  And it was painful for me to hear that from an apostle.

2)  I think that there are board members who may feel that the church isn't showing love to LGBT individuals.  But that isn't entirely what I quoted.  Here is what I quoted from @Anonymous Mormon:

Quote

... they just jump on words like 'counterfeit' and 'offensive' as a means to have a chance to call the church or its leaders bigots.

This is much better than just yelling over and over that the church and its members are hypocrites and unloving because of its teachings. When people take that tack (and I feel lots of people on this board do this)...

While there may be a couple who have done this, I don't think it is productive or considerate to use blanket statements and state that "lots of people on this board" do it and that they are "yelling over and over".  I certainly haven't seen it on this thread.

Edited May 24, 2019 by rockpond

[CV75]

27 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes.

1)  I think the word "counterfeit" was offensive regardless of one's position on marriage.  I don't consider church members' and leaders' spiritual beliefs about marriage to be offensive and immoral.  And yet, I still find describing other loving and committed relationships as "counterfeit" to be just as offensive as describing a mixed orientation marriage as "pretend".  And it was painful for me to hear that from an apostle.

2)  I think that there are board members who may feel that the church isn't showing love to LGBT individuals.  But that isn't entirely what I quoted.  Here is what I quoted from @Anonymous Mormon:

While there may be a couple who have done this, I don't think it is productive or considerate to use blanket statements and state that "lots of people on this board" do it and that they are "yelling over and over".  I certainly haven't seen it on this thread.

I wonder whether, back in 2015, there were any threads bringing up Elder Perry's use of the word "counterfeit" as offensive at the time.

[Anonymous Mormon]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Then you might want to reconsider what you wrote above.

I am happy to reconsider what I wrote above. However, I think what I said is pretty accurate and that it's a fair assessment of what goes on with this message board:

3 hours ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

This is much better than just yelling over and over that the church and its members are hypocrites and unloving because of its teachings. When people take that tack (and I feel lots of people on this board do this), then I assume that nothing I can say will ever be non-offensive, so I don't try to change the words that I use.

I honestly think that this is what happens on this board. Let's take the "Oaks talk doesn’t explain the scripture on remarriage" thread. This thread has a good question about marriage/divorce and lots of people chime in with great responses. However a small minority of posters ignore, twist, and muddle the responses, then turn the thread into a discussion on same-sex marriage, and then make statements about the church and its members such as: "hypocrisy in being compassionate," and "I am only pointing out the hypocrisy the Church has."

I honestly feel that this happens on too many  threads. I don't think my statement in my previous post is incorrect or wrong. Sadly I choose to limit my time on this board because I find it brings the spirit of contention to my thinking, which is too bad because I really just want to have some good discussions about Church theology and culture.

I think I am now derailing this nice thread on the video, so I am happy to move on with my complaints elsewhere.

[Anonymous Mormon]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

While there may be a couple who have done this, I don't think it is productive or considerate to use blanket statements and state that "lots of people on this board" do it and that they are "yelling over and over".  I certainly haven't seen it on this thread.

Maybe the term 'lots' is too broad. I honestly feel like it's only ~6 people in any given thread who are always attacking and negative about everything the church does. Their primary repeating theme is that 1) the church is hypocrites (receive tithing but not help the poor, do not show enough love to those who sin, etc) and 2) the church leaders are not receiving guidance from God / the prophet is not the Lord's mouthpiece. I usually think of them as The SSA (the same-six attackers)

[CV75]

I think this is a good time to replay the video:

  

[rockpond]

6 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

Maybe the term 'lots' is too broad. I honestly feel like it's only ~6 people in any given thread who are always attacking and negative about everything the church does. Their primary repeating theme is that 1) the church is hypocrites (receive tithing but not help the poor, do not show enough love to those who sin, etc) and 2) the church leaders are not receiving guidance from God / the prophet is not the Lord's mouthpiece. I usually think of them as The SSA (the same-six attackers)

A few thoughts in response:

1)  I don't want these boards to just be an echo chamber for any one point of view so I expect that there will be those who see things differently than I do.  That's actually why I don't participate in discussions elsewhere -- I think this board tends to be more balanced than anywhere I've visited.

2)  I think we should differentiate between when someone believes that the church should, for example, be doing more to help the poor or showing more love to those who sin vs. specifically saying that "the church is hypocrites".  I think we see the entire spectrum here, certainly, but need to be careful not to paint with a broad brush and assume that anyone questioning the church's use of sacred funds is concluding that the church is guilty of hypocrisy.  For example, I desperately wish that the church would return to its practice of disclosing its financial reports to members (and have argued for that here) but I don't believe the church is guilty of fraud or hypocrisy.

3)  If you come across someone you find is consistently contentious, I'd encourage you do use the block function so that you won't even see their posts.  I try to do this sparingly so that I don't create an echo chamber effect (by blocking everyone with differing viewpoints) while also avoiding people who I feel tend to lead me toward feelings of contention (possibly by no fault of their own but just because of where the two of us stand on things).

 

[Anonymous Mormon]

24 minutes ago, rockpond said:

A few thoughts in response:

1)  I don't want these boards to just be an echo chamber for any one point of view so I expect that there will be those who see things differently than I do.  That's actually why I don't participate in discussions elsewhere -- I think this board tends to be more balanced than anywhere I've visited.

2)  I think we should differentiate between when someone believes that the church should, for example, be doing more to help the poor or showing more love to those who sin vs. specifically saying that "the church is hypocrites".  I think we see the entire spectrum here, certainly, but need to be careful not to paint with a broad brush and assume that anyone questioning the church's use of sacred funds is concluding that the church is guilty of hypocrisy.  For example, I desperately wish that the church would return to its practice of disclosing its financial reports to members (and have argued for that here) but I don't believe the church is guilty of fraud or hypocrisy.

3)  If you come across someone you find is consistently contentious, I'd encourage you do use the block function so that you won't even see their posts.  I try to do this sparingly so that I don't create an echo chamber effect (by blocking everyone with differing viewpoints) while also avoiding people who I feel tend to lead me toward feelings of contention (possibly by no fault of their own but just because of where the two of us stand on things).

 

Your thoughts and suggestion were noted and appreciated.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I wonder whether, back in 2015, there were any threads bringing up Elder Perry's use of the word "counterfeit" as offensive at the time.

I remember a lot of commentary on the use of "counterfeit" when it came out or at least shortly afterwards.

I personally find it offensive when discussing people who are actually trying to work together to make a family.  It is in the same class, imo, as "pretend".

You can find examples of posters commenting on the term by using google's site:mormondialogue.org with terms "counterfeit" and "family" going back to 2016 at least.

Edited May 24, 2019 by Calm

[Calm]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

3)  If you come across someone you find is consistently contentious, I'd encourage you do use the block function so that you won't even see their posts.  I try to do this sparingly so that I don't create an echo chamber effect (by blocking everyone with differing viewpoints) while also avoiding people who I feel tend to lead me toward feelings of contention (possibly by no fault of their own but just because of where the two of us stand on things).

I do this for those I know tend to push my buttons.  I will usually go ahead and read their posts, but having to actively choose to read posts (by choosing the "show this post" option under options), I am shifting from casual reading to more analytical so I don't get emotional reactions as much or at least as strong as when I might be surprised by a post if I am not paying attention to who says it as I usually don't until after I read it.  Also since it is my choice to read, it takes it to very consciously my choice to react as well...not that I don't view every post that way, but it reminds me I am in control of myself, not others.

[rockpond]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

I do this for those I know tend to push my buttons.  I will usually go ahead and read their posts, but having to actively choose to read posts (by choosing the "show this post" option under options), I am shifting from casual reading to more analytical so I don't get emotional reactions as much or at least as strong as when I might be surprised by a post if I am not paying attention to who says it as I usually don't until after I read it.  Also since it is my choice to read, it takes it to very consciously my choice to react as well...not that I don't view every post that way, but it reminds me I am in control of myself, not others.

Great points.  And yes, when I have to click on “show this post” it’s like a reminder to me to think twice before I respond since past interaction with that individual has brought out a side of me that I don’t like. 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I wonder whether, back in 2015, there were any threads bringing up Elder Perry's use of the word "counterfeit" as offensive at the time.

I don't remember specific threads, but I do remember several straight days of public and vicious harassment against Elder Perry by the Human Rights Campaign culminating with a protest near Temple Square.

I have never had any respect or regard for the Human Rights Campaign since then. 

Edited May 24, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

33 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't remember specific threads, but I do remember several straight days of public and vicious harassment against Elder Perry by the Human Rights Campaign culminating with a protest near Temple Square.

I have never had any respect or regard for the Human Rights Campaign since then. 

So do you support Elder Perry’s use of the word counterfeit in that context? 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So do you support Elder Perry’s use of the word counterfeit in that context? 

 

It didn’t bother me at the time in that context — and still doesn’t. 

But I understand Daniel2’s viewpoint, which is why I said I found his response reasonable after I invited him to suggest how Elder Perry’s words might be revised. 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I remember a lot of commentary on the use of "counterfeit" when it came out or at least shortly afterwards.

I personally find it offensive when discussing people who are actually trying to work together to make a family.  It is in the same class, imo, as "pretend".

You can find examples of posters commenting on the term by using google's site:mormondialogue.org with terms "counterfeit" and "family" going back to 2016 at least.

Thank you for the tip. I Googled it earlier and saw the Utah area newspapers reporting some negative reaction, but not as much as I would expect to see today had it been, for example, said in last conference.

I Googled as you recommended and found a lot of comments about "counterfeit" this-and-that (LOL we can all guess what those are), but only the extremely rare comment attached to Elder Perry' talk, and no threads dedicated to it. 

I'm glad the General Conference talks are not assigned, "correlated" or run through PR first, and that very few get edited after the fact. I think some authenticity is thereby preserved, warts and all, by the leaders using language they are comfortable with. I think it helps people see our leaders for who they are, at their personal public best, even if it raises and eyebrow or two. For example, I was a little surprised (in a good way) by President Nelson's joke at the cornerstone ceremony in Rome. I'm sure most of our top leaders are receptive to constructive critical feedback, though, so I would expect to see more sensitive wording going forward from 2015.

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don't remember specific threads, but I do remember several straight days of public and vicious harassment against Elder Perry by the Human Rights Campaign culminating with a protest near Temple Square.

I have never had any respect or regard for the Human Rights Campaign since then. 

This is the sort of thing I found when I first Googled, limited to Utah and surprisingly few search results, which i take to be an indicator of the volume of sites and a function of time that has passed and the number of people looking up this topic.

Edited May 24, 2019 by CV75

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It didn’t bother me at the time in that context — and still doesn’t. 

Okay.  Makes sense.

Does it bother you to have someone refer to a mixed orientation marriage (SSA man married to OSA woman, using your terms) as "pretend"?  (This is what started this subthread in case you weren't following back then.)

I'm guessing that bothers you.  It certainly bothers me!

I see all of this (what each of us find bothersome) as having to do with our personal belief systems.  But then that makes me wonder, do we have a responsibility to temper our words when speaking in public since those words may hurt others even if they fit perfectly within our personal belief system?

Was it wrong for @kllindley to speak up against @phaedrus ut for the hurtful "pretend" comment?  Was it wrong for HRC to speak up against Elder Perry for the hurtful "counterfeit" comment?

Just seeking to understand how this all works... or maybe how it should work.

 

 

[CV75]

10 hours ago, rockpond said:

Okay.  Makes sense.

Does it bother you to have someone refer to a mixed orientation marriage (SSA man married to OSA woman, using your terms) as "pretend"?  (This is what started this subthread in case you weren't following back then.)

I'm guessing that bothers you.  It certainly bothers me!

I see all of this (what each of us find bothersome) as having to do with our personal belief systems.  But then that makes me wonder, do we have a responsibility to temper our words when speaking in public since those words may hurt others even if they fit perfectly within our personal belief system?

Was it wrong for @kllindley to speak up against @phaedrus ut for the hurtful "pretend" comment?  Was it wrong for HRC to speak up against Elder Perry for the hurtful "counterfeit" comment?

Just seeking to understand how this all works... or maybe how it should work.

I think how all this should work boils down to charity. D&C 121:45 is a wonderful formula. If we pray in faith for charity and virtue, the Lord will give them to us. Faith will become confidence, which I take to be the united faith in ourselves and the Lord and to include "all men". The doctrine of the priesthood, or the doctrine of the power of God, will be pure and purifying in every aspect of our lives (per the OP hymn).

So, in bringing up feeling offended, bothered or hurt, the Gospel is working when we use charity. That is an example of applying charity after the offending word is spoken; applying it beforehand might even prevent feeling offended. Yet, even not being offended but having empathy for others, one can still bring it up and lessons can still be taught. The charitable offender will listen and learn for future reference.

[CV75]

In the spirit of being a day late and a dollar short: "We want our voice to be heard against all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles substitute and alternative family structures, some well-intended and some not, that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established."

[california boy]

50 minutes ago, CV75 said:

In the spirit of being a day late and a dollar short: "We want our voice to be heard against all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles substitute and alternative family structures, some well-intended and some not, that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established."

How about just "Our marriages are better than yours because God likes ours,  and could not possibly approve of yours."

Edited May 25, 2019 by california boy

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, california boy said:

How about just "Our marriages are better than yours because God likes ours,  and could not possibly approve of yours."

This is a perfect example of communication meant to silence and marginalize any belief that you disagree with.  

@rockpond, this is exactly what I think @Anonymous Mormon was referring to. 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

In the spirit of being a day late and a dollar short: "We want our voice to be heard against all of the counterfeit and alternative lifestyles substitute and alternative family structures, some well-intended and some not, that try to replace the family organization that God Himself established."

Which family structures do you believe are not "well-intended"?  

I have to believe that nearly everyone who enters into a marriage with the person they love is "well-intended", but I'd like to hear what you mean by stating what you did.   Thanks....just curious....

I think the way Daniel worded his statement is the best I've seen....did you read it?   If so, what are your thoughts regarding it?  Here it is again:

Quote

”Since the fall of Adam and Eve into the worlds' current telestial state, the family has taken diverse forms throughout history and in various places throughout the world, sometimes by necessity due to loss, death, or other means... sometimes by misguided but well-intended cultural or civic designs... sometimes because of a variety of sins...  But we want our voices to be heard that the Lord, through his ordained prophets, has made it clear that today, only marriage between one man and one woman is authorized to be sealed in His Holy Temples for both time and all eternity.   This is the family organization which God Himself established.  We also want our voices to be heard in sustaining the joy and fulfillment that the Lord’s pattern for families bring.”

This is respectful to all involved (and to our current teachings), IMO.

Edited May 25, 2019 by ALarson