Healthy Approaches To Support Glbt Lds Is A Topic On Mormon Matters Podcast

[Tacenda]

Excellent podcast, featuring Mitch Mayne, an active gay mormon who serves as the Executive Secretary in the bishopric in an area ward in San Francisco. And Dr. Caitlin Ryan, co-director of the Family Acceptance Project (affiliated with San Francisco State University) and co-author of the booklet, "Supportive Families, Healthy Children".

http://familyproject...ersion_Last.pdf

One thing that struck me is the story of one young man that said he was given official church resources, I believe from his Stake President, that was outdated. The pamphlet was dated 2012, but the science in it was dated in the 1970's. Also, this same man's father chose the church over his son. But I know the church would think this is devastating and wouldn't approve. Thus I'm sure this podcast is a godsend for those families out there that are in need of a different mindset.

http://mormonmatters...family-members/

Also, this podcast featuring Bill Bradshaw, he discussed his son and his son's partner and the adoption of their child. I listened to this a long time ago, but I remember it was very good.

http://mormonstories...-homosexuality/

Edited July 25, 2012 by Tacenda

[why me]

Excellent podcast, featuring Mitch Mayne, an active gay mormon who serves as the Executive Secretary in the bishopric in an area ward in San Francisco. And Dr. Caitlin Ryan, co-director of the Family Acceptance Project (affiliated with San Francisco State University) and co-author of the booklet, "Supportive Families, Healthy Children".

http://familyproject...ersion_Last.pdf

One thing that struck me is the story of one young man that said he was given official church resources, I believe from his Stake President, that was outdated. The pamphlet was dated 2012, but the science in it was dated in the 1970's. Also, this same man's father chose the church over his son. But I know the church would think this is devastating and wouldn't approve. Thus I'm sure this podcast is a godsend for those families out there that are in need of a different mindset.

http://mormonmatters...family-members/

Also, this podcast featuring Bill Bradshaw, he discussed his son and his son's partner and the adoption of their child. I listened to this a long time ago, but I remember it was very good.

http://mormonstories...-homosexuality/

I sometimes just where the problem is: When I lived in Utah in the early 80's the gay scene was very much alive. In fact, in the lds house where I lived for young men there was a young gay man living there perfectly okay and normal. There were no problems. If one was gay, they still came to church. I saw no discrimination.

I think that the problem now comes from increasing demands: recognize same sex marriage or same sex union, allow gay adoption, okay to be in a sexual relationship when gay etc. All of these issues are being pressed upon the church. And yet, if one understands that the church is run by christ, it is really not up to the church to change its policy but to have revelation on the matter.

Many seem to have forgotten this aspect of the church, including the speaker in the podcast. it seems that many understand christ to be love and would give love and acceptance to gay rights. And the church should get with the new picture. But...where does revelation play a role?

[BCSpace]

Many seem to have forgotten this aspect of the church, including the speaker in the podcast. it seems that many understand christ to be love and would give love and acceptance to gay rights.

Gays shouldn't have additional or special rights. They already have the right in every state to marry. Having such marriages recognized by the state is merely a welfare and public health issue which means there are no reasons for the state to do so; or in other words, no need for the state to benefit the less than ideal as well as encourage additional risk factors in society.

And the church should get with the new picture. But...where does revelation play a role?

The Church should not "get with the new picture" unless revelation dictates. The Church already treats gays with love and respect and has so done with all people since it's inception. No change in doctrine is necessary.

[why me]

The Church should not "get with the new picture" unless revelation dictates. The Church already treats gays with love and respect and has so done with all people since it's inception.

I said the same thing in my post. People forget that Christ leads his church and only He can issue a change in doctrine. What is strange about the gay rights issue and many church members is that the 'men' in charge should get with the picture and acknowledge gay rights as if the church is run by men and not by Christ.

[Tacenda]

Gays shouldn't have additional or special rights. They already have the right in every state to marry. Having such marriages recognized by the state is merely a welfare and public health issue which means there are no reasons for the state to do so; or in other words, no need for the state to benefit the less than ideal as well as encourage additional risk factors in society.

The Church should not "get with the new picture" unless revelation dictates. The Church already treats gays with love and respect and has so done with all people since it's inception. No change in doctrine is necessary.

Nowhere in this podcast does it discuss that church doctrines should change. It concentrated on the families of gay children. And the need for them to accept their children. Most families do, but is for those that don't. The booklet is there to help with that. Mitch mentioned it would be a wonderful tool (booklet) to give bishops and maybe introduce it in a 5th Sunday meeting.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Tacenda

[KevinG]

Gay or not. I hope that my children will accept me accepting them even if I don't accept all of their choices and decisions.

[ShawFanX]

There is no "science" of homosexual origins. Everything thus far regarding the "gay gene" and "born that way" theory have foundered on the rocks of political correctness and sunk with all hands.

What we term "same sex attraction" has its origins in a complex web of psychological, social, and biological factors and variables, each variable predisposing or encouraging such development in one more than another, if susceptible, and some factors, depending upon the individual, being more relevant to that development than others.

There is no "cause" of homosexual attraction. There are multiple influences and biases, but no "This determines that" dynamic.

Edited July 25, 2012 by ShawFanX

[why me]

Nowhere in this podcast does it discuss that church doctrines should change. It concentrated on the families of gay children. And the need for them to accept their children. Most families do, but is for those that don't. The booklet is there to help with that. Mitch mentioned it would be a wonderful tool (booklet) to give bishops and maybe introduce it in a 5th Sunday meeting.

But there is a community of GLBT that want the church to change its direction. And this can hamper the issue of gay acceptance among parents of gay children. For example, if the gay person wishes the church to change its doctrine the parents may not be so helpful. The issue in the podcast is hugely important but it can be overshadowed by other issues. Also the gay pride parade is not just about family acceptance.Rather is is about gay rights, gay marriage, gay adoption, gay liberation, transgender etc. There are so many issues that the church may not support that are supported in the gay pride parade.

[Tacenda]

But there is a community of GLBT that want the church to change its direction. And this can hamper the issue of gay acceptance among parents of gay children. For example, if the gay person wishes the church to change its doctrine the parents may not be so helpful. The issue in the podcast is hugely important but it can be overshadowed by other issues. Also the gay pride parade is not just about family acceptance.Rather is is about gay rights, gay marriage, gay adoption, gay liberation, transgender etc. There are so many issues that the church may not support that are supported in the gay pride parade.

Yes, I agree there is a very fine line that is present here. But I think the podcast, is mainly geared towards loving the child or adult no matter what. The church is making great strides to do this and wants it's members to do the same. Just the fact that Mitch Mayne is holding the calling he is, speaks that to me.

Yes, I remember the gays in my youth and as you mentioned, the 80's. People pretty much left them alone. And I get that, now that gays want rights, people are fighting that. Maybe it could be a similar scenario to blacks getting full rights also, I'm remembering the backlash against that, especially in the south.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Tacenda

[why me]

Yes, I remember the gays in my youth and as you mentioned, the 80's. People pretty much left them alone. And I get that, now that gays want rights, people are fighting that. Maybe it could be a similar scenario to blacks getting full rights also, I'm remembering the backlash against that, especially in the south.

Gay rights have been around for decades. Mormons are just now getting in on it. The gay community attacked the catholic church in the 70's because of the catholic church's stance on gays. And the gay community will do the same to the lds church. And members need to realize that there is a difference in getting members to love their gay children and the gay rights agenda. But I do think that some members confuse the two and advocate gay rights, ie, gay marriage etc.

[treehugger]

Gay rights have been around for decades. Mormons are just now getting in on it. The gay community attacked the catholic church in the 70's because of the catholic church's stance on gays. And the gay community will do the same to the lds church. And members need to realize that there is a difference in getting members to love their gay children and the gay rights agenda. But I do think that some members confuse the two and advocate gay rights, ie, gay marriage etc.

I will follow the LDS Church lead, which is support of gay rights.

Edited July 25, 2012 by treehugger

[Tacenda]

Gay rights have been around for decades. Mormons are just now getting in on it. The gay community attacked the catholic church in the 70's because of the catholic church's stance on gays. And the gay community will do the same to the lds church. And members need to realize that there is a difference in getting members to love their gay children and the gay rights agenda. But I do think that some members confuse the two and advocate gay rights, ie, gay marriage etc.

I think you're right about confusing the two. I want the gays to have the right to marry. But I also see the other side of the coin. So, like my feelings about the church, I'm a middle wayer once again. No clear cut answers yet. I'm afraid though, what if this could be a test for us as humans, to accept the gays in every facet. What if God wants that for them? So many "what ifs" to think about here. Just like before with the blacks, I guess we have to wait for revelation to know, just as you said in one of your posts above.

Edited July 25, 2012 by Tacenda

[oremites]

I haven't listened to the podcasts and probably won't have time, so I apologize for not doing the research myself.

I'm curious about this statement: "Also, this same man's father chose the church over his son."

What did the father do that was considered choosing the church over his son?

Thanks.

[Judd]

Gay or not. I hope that my children will accept me accepting them even if I don't accept all of their choices and decisions.

A different perspective that, unfortunately, will be ignored.

[Tacenda]

I haven't listened to the podcasts and probably won't have time, so I apologize for not doing the research myself.

I'm curious about this statement: "Also, this same man's father chose the church over his son."

What did the father do that was considered choosing the church over his son?

Thanks.

There weren't alot of details in the podcast. But here is what I heard while listening. Apparently this was a young man, no age given. He had a discussion with his dad about a week before marching in the recent gay pride parade in Salt Lake City. This dad told his son he couldn't support him over the church, and told his son he needed to move out. I'm sure this all took place in a "heat of passion". I also told one of my daughter's (she was over 18) in a "heat of passion" to move out because she would come home at all hours of the night. So who know's. I'm sure his dad still accepts him. They probably used this example as a way to show that families have problems with their lgbt children.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Tacenda

[Rivers]

Gays shouldn't have additional or special rights. They already have the right in every state to marry. Having such marriages recognized by the state is merely a welfare and public health issue which means there are no reasons for the state to do so; or in other words, no need for the state to benefit the less than ideal as well as encourage additional risk factors in society.

The Church should not "get with the new picture" unless revelation dictates. The Church already treats gays with love and respect and has so done with all people since it's inception. No change in doctrine is necessary.

I don't don't doubt that the church loves and respects gay people but as this podcast pointed out, a lot of damage is being done by family members of gay mormons. More members of the church need training on how to deal with these difficult issues.

[treehugger]

I don't don't doubt that the church loves and respects gay people but as this podcast pointed out, a lot of damage is being done by family members of gay mormons. More members of the church need training on how to deal with these difficult issues.

Elder Oaks spoke on the issue of how to live the gospel and when ones children are wayward. Yes the membership needs to adjust.

Edited July 25, 2012 by treehugger

[Rivers]

I think you're right about confusing the two. I want the gays to have the right to marry. But I also see the other side of the coin. So, like my feelings about the church, I'm a middle wayer once again. No clear cut answers yet. I'm afraid though, what if this could be a test for us as humans, to accept the gays in every facet. What if God wants that for them? So many "what ifs" to think about here. Just like before with the blacks, I guess we have to wait for revelation to know, just as you said in one of your posts above.

Until a new revelation comes concerning the matter, all we can do is love our gay brothers and sisters while still standing firm on our stance concerning the Law of Chastity. I can't imagine how difficult it must be to be a gay member of the church. As someone in the podcast pointed out, it is not fair to compare alcoholism to being gay. Gay members have the dilemma of choosing either celibacy or excommunication. I'm just glad that we have a loving father in heaven that will be the ultimate judge.

[ERayR]

Gays shouldn't have additional or special rights. They already have the right in every state to marry. Having such marriages recognized by the state is merely a welfare and public health issue which means there are no reasons for the state to do so; or in other words, no need for the state to benefit the less than ideal as well as encourage additional risk factors in society.

The Church should not "get with the new picture" unless revelation dictates. The Church already treats gays with love and respect and has so done with all people since it's inception. No change in doctrine is necessary.

It's not just the same sex marriage that is the problem in the church. It is the homosexual attitude that the church should approve full church benefits (including temple privileges) for practicing homosexuals. That is like handing temple recommends to known fornicators and adulterers.

Non-practice LDS homosexuals already can and do enjoy full church fellowship including temple blessings.

[CASteinman]

I have no homosexual children. I do not have friends who have homosexual children that I know of. And I am not homosexual. So this is not really very useful to me personally. I have never seen anyone in the Church who was homosexual get rejected by the Church, excommunicated or even disfellowshipped. And I have seen quite a bit of the Church.

Homosexuality is a big deal to those affected but the number affected is very small relative to the rest of us. And, homosexuals are not discriminated against generally, in fact they have all kinds of protected status and so on.

To me, this issue gets talked about in a general public way -- out of proportion to the fraction of the population involved.

Edited July 25, 2012 by CASteinman

[Garden Girl]

Until a new revelation comes concerning the matter, all we can do is love our gay brothers and sisters while still standing firm on our stance concerning the Law of Chastity. I can't imagine how difficult it must be to be a gay member of the church. Gay members have the dilemma of choosing either celibacy or excommunication.

No more difficult than for me... widowed at a relatively early, for me, age (as I was always mistaken for years younger than my real age). Unless I remarried, I had to choose celibacy if I was to retain my temple worship and good standing in the faith... Why is it any more difficult for a gay person than for me... full of life, a loving heart, sense of humor, much to give... I had to walk away from a wonderful gentleman I met and came to care deeply about because he was a confirmed bachelor and I would not break my covenants. It was either break my covenants or walk away... I walked... and I'm alone. Age now has caught up with me...

GG

[selek1]

I'm afraid though, what if this could be a test for us as humans, to accept the gays in every facet. What if God wants that for them?

And what if the test is not about "gay rights" but about standing our ground in the face of rampant and in-your-face immorality?

We have several thousand years of theological precedent and direct statements from Prophets and Apostles indicating that this conduct is wrong.

Do you really think God will change his mind just to accomodate post-70's entitlement mentality?

Or do you think he might have actually meant all that "thou shalt not" and "the natural man is an enemy to God" stuff?

[treehugger]

As we know, something.g is only wrong as God says. Though I find it unlikely the Church will fully accept homosexuals in their sins, just as anyone else ie not fully accepted in their sins.

[Tacenda]

As we know, something.g is only wrong as God says. Though I find it unlikely the Church will fully accept homosexuals in their sins, just as anyone else ie not fully accepted in their sins.

No I don't accept the sin of fornication also. So I see their need to get married. But yeah, it's a tough situation for them. They are definitely in a catch 22.

[Damien the Leper]

I would really like for both sides to stop playing the role of victim.

In the words of my facetious Mother, "The gays have all the right to marry and be miserable like the rest of us". Like I said...she is facetious.

The flaunting that the LGBT community demonstrates can be found in gay pride festivals, bars, etc. Nasty business that it can be! What I don't see the need for is recognition by society seems to fill some narcissistic need. Personally, I recognize the gay marriages that exist about as much as I do straight marriages...which, honestly, doesn't say much.

The agendas of both the radically conservative and the radically liberal are evident and telling.

As for the OP, it is unfortunate that any family would turn away their child under such circumstances. The air of understanding that is demonstrated in the form of "Okay...we get that you have SSA. We get that you probably can't help it. [insert testimony bearing nonsense]." is of little relevance and hardly substantial.

I made the mistake of taking the 'hard line' over the last couple of weeks in previous threads. I am currently of the opinion that I should take a more moderate approach.

Just as an addition: there is no need to glorify any kind of marriage. To do so would be the epitomy of 'in-your-face'.

Edited July 26, 2012 by Valentinus