Handbook Update, Gay Marriage, Apostasy, Resignations... (Merged Thread)

[KevinG]

There is probably no place more prone to silencing disagreement than at Church.

 

The Danite bands have a world of distance to make up on the diversity enforcers at most public universities.  

[stemelbow]

He/she who apologized should be commended.

Anyone who doesn't want opposing views and sees he who offers them as evil often causes big problems when it comes to conversation. It happens here as people jump to conclusions about others. We all probably view others with some suspicion. We should be quick to admit error, as he/she did in this case, and move on with hope and joy.

[stemelbow]

I think everyone can know the opposing other side of any issue by simple deduction, without needing it to be told. What one side is for the other side is against, for example, and the opposite of yes is always no.

Those sitting on the fence, in the middle, not really sure which side to agree with may be persuaded, but those on one side or the other have already made up their mind about which side they are on and know that the opposing side has the opposite view.

You may still want to stand up and share your thoughts with everyone, though. Those who agree with you will consider you to be a voice in their favor, while those on the opposing side will still know that you haven't changed sides.

People's views and the variety of thought are far more complex than that.

[stemelbow]

The Danite bands have a world of distance to make up on the diversity enforcers at most public universities.

Really? In college I remember some effort, by professors mostly, to bully people into agreement. But the diversity of thought in public universities is actually quite robust. Particularly when compared to the diversity of thought in Church's and quite specifically the LDS Church. Not even a little bit close.

[ERayR]

In another thread, a member on this board accused me of calling members of the church and it's leaders bigots and haters against gays.  I have never said anything remotely like that nor have I ever thought that..  I asked for a CFR and he graciously apologized and withdrew the accusation.  What was perhaps most disturbing about his post was that he got 7 rep points for the post.  When that many people think I view the church and its leaders that way, then something is wrong.

 

As most of you know, I was a former member for most of my life.  I am also gay.  I am no longer a member of the church.  Most of my family are members of the church.  And if you have ever read any of my posts, I have consistently been supportive of my children and other members of my family in supporting them in their church activity.  There are many good and honorable things about the church.  It is just not a place I can be personally.

 

The reason I am on this board is to try and understand the church's attitudes and issues mostly on the issue that has come to define my relationship with the church.  I feel like I can offer a different perspective on many of the questions asked on this issue.  I understand the church and it's teachings.  But I am also gay  It seems like gay relations and the church come up more than any other issue on this board.  It also seems like this issue is becoming more and more polarized.  Each side having more difficulty with seeing the other sides position. I find myself posting less and less.  

 

The question is, have we gotten to the point where we really don't want to know how the other side feels about the questions that come up?  Do we only want to defend our own position?  Would this board be better off without posters like me who point out the view of the other side of the question?  Is that view always considered just an attack on the church and it's leaders?  With 7 rep points, I am beginning to think that is how opposing views are thought of.  If that is the case, I personally want no part of it.  That is not my intention, I would rather quit posting the other sides view on these issues that come up on a regular basis.  

 

Love to hear your thoughts.  Do you always see an opposing view of church policies and doctrine as an attack on the church and your beliefs that you hold so dearly?  Or are you interested in trying to understand how others view those policies and doctrines.

 

I just want to add.  I am not trying to portray myself as being without fault.  While I try to be civil in all of my responses, I am not always successful.  And I apologize for those times.

 

What do you call it when someone tells you your life style is wrong.  Most of know what the opposing view is but each for their own reason support the Church and its leadership and most of us know that we can't always know what went into the decisions that are made.  Your pronouncement that the Church leaders are in error come from a non-believing view point and that is ok but it weakens your argument and causes it to chafe.

[ksfisher]

Doesn't this chain get weaker with every link.

 

Otterson's words = Prophet's words = God's word- so Otterson speaks for God.

 

I stand by my position. If the church really accepts Otterson's approach to CH1 then they'd better become very comfortable with just about any variation of policy imaginable because there will be a bishop or SP that moves that direction.

 

We may start seeing women ordained to the priesthood, gay couples married at church's, infant baptisms, etc. These are extreme examples but if we take Otterson at his word that CH1 is open to interpretation and direction from the spirit to local leaders, then everything is on the table. I'm simply stating that I don't think these things are on the table. The church will not accept variations to these policies.

 

I would think that the interview was scripted enough, especially Brother Otterson's questions, that what he said had been approved by the First Presidency. 

[Gray]

It could be what you are observing is many members feel bullied into silence or agreement with the policy, but individually we might learn that many in these wards disagree with the policy. There is probably no place more prone to silencing disagreement than at Church.

On the other hand I don't see people feeling bullied into silence around here.

As luck would have it, my EQP announced yesterday we are going to have the Bishop in to correct any who disagree with the policy this next week. Says he, "we need to learn to agree with Church policy, no matter what. If we are inclined to disagree, just know doing so is disagreeing with God and could have eternal consequences." He looked at me, knowing I'm one who has disagreed with the brethren in the past. Sounded manipulative to me. But I'm looking forward to the conversation if it ever really becomes a conversation.

 

 

That's unfortunate. Unchallenged groupthink is not healthy for any institution, spiritual or otherwise. 

[KevinG]

Really? In college I remember some effort, by professors mostly, to bully people into agreement. But the diversity of thought in public universities is actually quite robust. Particularly when compared to the diversity of thought in Church's and quite specifically the LDS Church. Not even a little bit close.

 

I am much more free to share my opinions in the LDS church than I am in my university job.

 

You haven't been keeping up with the news:

 

Professor Fired for Mentioning God In Letter To Students

 

University of Missouri President and Chancellor Fired for Failing to Follow up on Allegations of Racism

 

Liberal Professor Says He is Afraid of His Liberal Students

 

...and on and on and on...

 

Find me a single example of a Latter-day Saints excommunicated for a personal opinion.  Not actions, not presenting false doctrine, not apostasy... but a personally held and shared opinion.

[Gray]

We would convert people who listen to God when He tells them to join.

 

I'm a convert who joined despite a lack of societal support.  So you are barking up the wrong tree if you are trying to concern me with what the residents of the great and spacious building are thinking about me.

 

Your projection about people with awful attitudes about blacks being the only one's to join the church is insulting.  Especially to those black and brown Saints who were members before the ban was done away with.  A couple of which have told me to my face that we need to get over the white guilt and move on with the restored gospel.

 

Every church converts people who hear the voice of God telling them to join. But the question is what kind of people would join a church that drifts so far outside of mainstream values? Who would even consider it?

 

Regarding people who joined before the ban was rescinded, the cultural taboo against racism in the 1970s wasn't nearly as strong then as it is today. That's kind of the point.

[stemelbow]

That's unfortunate. Unchallenged groupthink is not healthy for any institution, spiritual or otherwise.

Indeed. That's a message I'd like to express in a thoughtful way to my EQ, if the conversation really comes that is.

[california boy]

He/she who apologized should be commended.

Anyone who doesn't want opposing views and sees he who offers them as evil often causes big problems when it comes to conversation. It happens here as people jump to conclusions about others. We all probably view others with some suspicion. We should be quick to admit error, as he/she did in this case, and move on with hope and joy.

I agree it was very commendable.  We should all be more willing to apologize without hesitation when we are wrong. His quick response reminded me that I should be more quick to admit error.

[KevinG]

Indeed. That's a message I'd like to express in a thoughtful way to my EQ, if the conversation really comes that is.

 

Yet people know of your opinions and you are in the Bishopric.  Why couldn't you speak to that Elder's quorum president?

[Ahab]

People's views and the variety of thought are far more complex than that.

Pick a view, any view, and I can easily already tell you that the opposite view will be to the contrary.

Your first reply proved what I was saying by simply showing that you don't agree with my view, but you can use another example if you think it might help.

[Gray]

Your voice is extremely valuable, for me. Of course I'm probably more in agreement with you than not, as I read your posts.

 

Agreed.

 

If there were a forum called "Progressive pantheist Mormons who favor gay rights" I probably wouldn't post there. It would be boring. I post here because people will challenge my views, and that helps me refine them. 

[Jeanne]

I've lost jobs over being Mormon.  The recruiters verified it.

 

I'm not sure it changed my life for the worse.

 

To flip the sentiment, would you leave Christ because you feared persecution?  What will you say when the **** crows thrice?

I am sorry you have lost jobs.  I know what that is like.  In 2008, when I moved, I was searching and had many interviews.  I  became aware of the fact that visible Temple Garments made a difference.  Return missionaries seemed to override any experience I had.  It was a very trying experience so I feel for you.

[jaberwocky]

I've never met a homosexual who wouldn't be heterosexual if given the choice.  That said, we need to remember that however a person is, that person was created by God.  The issue I have is that so many people, gay and straight, devote a huge portion of their lives to sex.  Maybe I was born with less testosterone than other men, but I am 100% sure that if I woke up one day and realized I was gay, and that on that same day I also understood that God said homosexual sex is a sin, I would have the willpower to abstain.  The same would be true if I suddenly found myself single.  I wouldn't be out having sex until I got remarried.

[KevinG]

Agreed.

 

If there were a forum called "Progressive pantheist Mormons who favor gay rights" I probably wouldn't post there. It would be boring. I post here because people will challenge my views, and that helps me refine them. 

 

How long do you think I'd last on that forum expressing my support for the new handbook policy?

[california boy]

What do you call it when someone tells you your life style is wrong.  Most of know what the opposing view is but each for their own reason support the Church and its leadership and most of us know that we can't always know what went into the decisions that are made.  Your pronouncement that the Church leaders are in error come from a non-believing view point and that is ok but it weakens your argument and causes it to chafe.

 

I clearly know that the church thinks my lifestyle is wrong.  Quite honestly I have no idea how God feels about me having a boyfriend.  I don't know whether the church leaders got it right or not.  You are right about most people not knowing what led me to the choices I made.  But a large part of that decision weighed the eternal nature of my choice.

[california boy]

I've never met a homosexual who wouldn't be heterosexual if given the choice.  That said, we need to remember that however a person is, that person was created by God.  The issue I have is that so many people, gay and straight, devote a huge portion of their lives to sex.  Maybe I was born with less testosterone than other men, but I am 100% sure that if I woke up one day and realized I was gay, and that on that same day I also understood that God said homosexual sex is a sin, I would have the willpower to abstain.  The same would be true if I suddenly found myself single.  I wouldn't be out having sex until I got remarried.

 

While I would miss the sex, what I would miss far more is the close companionship of sharing this life with someone I truely loved and connected with emotionally.

[KevinG]

I am sorry you have lost jobs.  I know what that is like.  In 2008, when I moved, I was searching and had many interviews.  I  became aware of the fact that visible Temple Garments made a difference.  Return missionaries seemed to override any experience I had.  It was a very trying experience so I feel for you.

 

Are you saying you were discriminated against because you were up against Missionaries for interviews?

 

What kind of job?

 

I lost a professional position (Masters and 15 years experience) because the employer with Kennecott in Wyoming didn't like his bosses in Utah.

 

If I were hiring for a sales position or an entry level customer service position return Missionaries would get a second look because of their practice serving and working with a variety of cultures.

 

The same goes for Veterans, Eagle Scouts, and Gold Star Girl Scouts...

[KevinG]

While I would miss the sex, what I would miss far more is the close companionship of sharing this life with someone I truely loved and connected with emotionally.

 

You can have a close, emotional, supportive, partnership with anyone and still be a member of the LDS Church in good standing.

[jaberwocky]

While I would miss the sex, what I would miss far more is the close companionship of sharing this life with someone I truely loved and connected with emotionally.

 

So why not have the companionship without the sex?  It's not an impossible combination.  Personally, I like to err on the side of caution.  If you believe there is a good chance God considers having sex outside of marriage - gay or straight - a sin, why risk it?

[HappyJackWagon]

I would think that the interview was scripted enough, especially Brother Otterson's questions, that what he said had been approved by the First Presidency. 

So we assume the prophet is always speaking for God, whether or not the claim is made and now we further assume that Otterson always speaks for the brethren, therefore we assume that Otterson speaks directly for God. From PR to prophet. Nice promotion.

[stemelbow]

I am much more free to share my opinions in the LDS church than I am in my university job.

 

You haven't been keeping up with the news:

 

Professor Fired for Mentioning God In Letter To Students

It sounds to me like there is more to the story then he was fired for mention God. But the article you linked can't identify what happened exactly. Sounds pretty fishy. A small backward college compared to the diversity of thought and opinion at the vast Universities across the nation doesn't say much.

 

University of Missouri President and Chancellor Fired for Failing to Follow up on Allegations of Racism

He apologized and took the blame for the failures.  "I take full responsibility for this frustration, and I take full responsibility for the inaction that has occurred"

Liberal Professor Says He is Afraid of His Liberal Students

I will say the amount of protesting and such on college campuses gets out of hand. The amount of objecting to comedians and stupid things people say it out of hand. No doubt.

 

...and on and on and on...

 

Find me a single example of a Latter-day Saints excommunicated for a personal opinion.  Not actions, not presenting false doctrine, not apostasy... but a personally held and shared opinion.

That's not really the point, though. I'm saying the amount of diversity of thought at public Universities is far more expansive than the diversity of thought at the LDS Church. Whether legal action is taken or not, matters not--although I'd wager there are plenty who feel like they were excommunication because of their personal opinions. But we don't know because excommunication proceedings are not made public.

[Deborah]

 

 

How hard would it be to be a Mormon in 2015 if we still banned black people from priesthood and temple ordinances? It's not hard to extrapolate what will happen if we don't open our eyes on the gay marriage issue. 

 

If the church doesn't change, it might not disappear, but it will certainly shrink down dramatically. The social cost for being Mormon would become too great for most to bear. 

 

 

In case you didn't know most of the world's religions do not support gay marriage. Because the church doesn't ban gays, and it never banned blacks, and because the church believes in being kind and fair to those it disagrees with this is not an issue. The religious restriction is not meant to be unfair but to establish parameters to protect religious beliefs and avoid conflict in families.

 

I know some would like acceptance of their lifestyle but given all they have won in the laws of the land I don't know why they have to continue to pursue and persecute religious people for wanting to adhere to their beliefs.