Three Rules For Religious/lgbt Understanding

[Daniel2]

Yesterday my husband and I attended church services at the First Church Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Salt Lake City.

The minister, Reverend Harold Straughn, related an account of Bishop Krister Stendahl’s "Three Rules for Religious Understanding," which the bishop shared in a 1985 press conference in Sweden, by way of suggestion to non-LDS religious clergy members who originally opposed to the building of an LDS temple there.

Keeping these three rules in mind ultimately resulted in the diverse, non-religious clergy members to arrive at a shared mutual respect large enough to authorize the necessary permits for the construction of the LDS Stockholm temple.

They are:

• When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion, and not its enemies.
• Don't compare your best to their worst.
• Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

Our UU Minister Rev. Straugh applauded the actions of the Swedish Lutheran clergy who, by keeping the above in mind, arrived at enough shared understanding to overcome their strict objection to the construction of the LDS temple.

He then drew a correlation to the church’s recent policy change by saying, “I couldn’t help but wonder: if the LDS church would have chosen to apply those same three rules for religious understanding to how it dialogues with gay and lesbian parents, would we all be dealing with the same aftermath we’ve been facing now, in the wake of the policy and it’s affect on Utah’s religious landscape?”

That got me thinking about how both religion and LGBT issues are often approached here on the board. I think those rules are definitely a helpful starting point (although not the ending point, either) when beginning to understanding a religion.

I can’t help but think that some haven’t been giving gays and lesbians the same benefit of the doubt, when it comes to how those three rules could be applied:

• When you are trying to understand what it means to be gay or lesbian, you should ask gays or lesbians—not our enemies.
• Don’t compare “the best” heterosexuals with “the worst” homosexuals.
• Leave room for “holy envy”—be willing to recognize elements in gays and lesbians, and their relationships, that you admire and wish you could, in some way, reflect in your own self or relationships.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Daniel2

[stemelbow]

Yesterday my husband and I attended church services at the First Church Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Salt Lake City.

 

The minister, Reverend Harold Straughn, related an account of Bishop Krister Stendahl’s "Three Rules for Religious Understanding," which the bishop shared in a 1985 press conference in Sweden, by way of suggestion to non-LDS religious clergy members who originally opposed to the building of an LDS temple there. 

 

Keeping these three rules in mind ultimately resulted in the diverse, non-religious clergy members to arrive at a shared mutual respect large enough to authorize the necessary permits for the construction of the LDS Stockholm temple. 

 

They are:

• When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion, and not its enemies.
• Don't compare your best to their worst.
• Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

Our UU Minister Rev. Straugh applauded the actions of the Swedish Lutheran clergy who, by keeping the above in mind, arrived at enough shared understanding to overcome their strict objection to the construction of the LDS temple. 

 

He then drew a correlation to the church’s recent policy change by saying, “I couldn’t help but wonder: if the LDS church would have chosen to apply those same three rules for religious understanding to how it dialogues with gay and lesbian parents, would we all be dealing with the same aftermath we’ve been facing now, in the wake of the policy and it’s affect on Utah’s religious landscape?”

 

That got me thinking about how both religion and LGBT issues are often approached here on the board.  I think those rules are definitely a helpful starting point (although not the ending point, either) when beginning to understanding a religion.

 

I can’t help but think that some haven’t been giving gays and lesbians the same benefit of the doubt, when it comes to how those three rules could be applied:

• When you are trying to understand what it means to be gay or lesbian, you should ask gays or lesbians—not our enemies.
• Don’t compare “the best” heterosexuals with “the worst” homosexuals.
• Leave room for “holy envy”—be willing to recognize elements in gays and lesbians, and their relationships, that you admire and wish you could, in some way, reflect in your own self or relationships.

Good post. This is one reason I've opposed the policy change.

[Tacenda]

Yesterday my husband and I attended church services at the First Church Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Salt Lake City.

 

The minister, Reverend Harold Straughn, related an account of Bishop Krister Stendahl’s "Three Rules for Religious Understanding," which the bishop shared in a 1985 press conference in Sweden, by way of suggestion to non-LDS religious clergy members who originally opposed to the building of an LDS temple there. 

 

Keeping these three rules in mind ultimately resulted in the diverse, non-religious clergy members to arrive at a shared mutual respect large enough to authorize the necessary permits for the construction of the LDS Stockholm temple. 

 

They are:

 

• When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion, and not its enemies.
• Don't compare your best to their worst.
• Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

Our UU Minister Rev. Straugh applauded the actions of the Swedish Lutheran clergy who, by keeping the above in mind, arrived at enough shared understanding to overcome their strict objection to the construction of the LDS temple. 

 

He then drew a correlation to the church’s recent policy change by saying, “I couldn’t help but wonder: if the LDS church would have chosen to apply those same three rules for religious understanding to how it dialogues with gay and lesbian parents, would we all be dealing with the same aftermath we’ve been facing now, in the wake of the policy and it’s affect on Utah’s religious landscape?”

 

That got me thinking about how both religion and LGBT issues are often approached here on the board.  I think those rules are definitely a helpful starting point (although not the ending point, either) when beginning to understanding a religion.

 

I can’t help but think that some haven’t been giving gays and lesbians the same benefit of the doubt, when it comes to how those three rules could be applied:

 

• When you are trying to understand what it means to be gay or lesbian, you should ask gays or lesbians—not our enemies.
• Don’t compare “the best” heterosexuals with “the worst” homosexuals.
• Leave room for “holy envy”—be willing to recognize elements in gays and lesbians, and their relationships, that you admire and wish you could, in some way, reflect in your own self or relationships.

Great post!

[Meadowchik]

I've seen these before and I agree that they are good.  I believe it was a Catholic friend in the religious forum of a conservative discussion group who shared the rules.

 

Personally, it is strange, but several months ago I felt very strongly that the Church needed to make sure there was space for LGBT families.  Part of this would require the Church culture to be totally acclimated to loving those who come to participate regardless of Church standing.  I know that this principle is alive and well already in many wards of the Church all over the world, but felt that in all likelihood, many could be better at it. In my mind, I envisioned excommunicated gay couples and individuals participating in Church, being part of the social circles and support systems.  I saw this as possible because it is already happening with some gay members, included excommunicated gays still attending church.

 

And this policy move is something that would allow the Church to move in that direction.  What it constitutes is a very clear line regarding gospel standards. Because the standard is known, it frees everyone from feeling like they must preach disagreement.  Because the disagreement is well-understood, because the Church is communicating clearly, and not worrying about implicitly promising some impending doctrinal change, it can go on with the work of welcoming everyone who wants to be there. Honestly, if we assume that the Brethren sincerely hold the current doctrine as the Lord's will, having verified it themselves, what else can we expect? How do expect a prophet to acquit himself with honor in his duty regarding doctrine?

 

The real work and mission of the Church transcends the borders of Church standing. As Church members, if we have not embraced this wider view as part of the command to love, we should start now.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Meadowchik

[BlueDreams]

I can’t help but think that some haven’t been giving gays and lesbians the same benefit of the doubt, when it comes to how those three rules could be applied:

• When you are trying to understand what it means to be gay or lesbian, you should ask gays or lesbians—not our enemies.
• Don’t compare “the best” heterosexuals with “the worst” homosexuals.
• Leave room for “holy envy”—be willing to recognize elements in gays and lesbians, and their relationships, that you admire and wish you could, in some way, reflect in your own self or relationships.

Interesting question. Personally I don't know if it would have made a difference. The reason is an assumption about why/where the policy is coming from. For example let's say one of those church's/group was more concerned due to zoning or they weren't a big fan of large white buildings. Discussing empathy/compassion points would likely not effect the fact that they don't like large white buildings in a small local community.

Likewise I'm not necessarily convinced that the root of the problem with the policy was an area of compassion, but about upholding principles and setting religious boundaries around doctrinal concerns. That, compassion or getting to know and understand a community may not fix this.

For myself, on the list, 1&2 I've done readily and in many cases purposely sought out opportunity to do so. number 3 I can't say that I have...not because I wouldn't, but because I haven't had the opportunity to see a long term active relationship closely. Read of a few, heard of others after they ended, I gave one person advice about their current relationship (wouldn't call it the best relationship though) but my circle just doesn't include a solid number that would fit that. All I've got Is enough to say that dating in a lot of ways is similar to my straight friends though there can be some unique issues that come up. there are things that I can say I have "holy envy" for on an individual basis if I think about it.

Still, that hasn't given me enough to alter my beliefs about marriage, eternally. And I'm still on the fence about it on the civil level (don't want to get into that....my beliefs are the definition of ambiguity). My level of compassion, understanding, etc has in no way effected my belief about marriage because it's barking up the wrong tree. One's about tolerance, love of people, and acceptance of different paths. Another is about what I feel is truth and the governing principles that God wants.

It may be similar for the reasons for the policy.

With luv,

Bd

Edited November 30, 2015 by BlueDreams

[ERayR]

 

Yesterday my husband and I attended church services at the First Church Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Salt Lake City.

 

The minister, Reverend Harold Straughn, related an account of Bishop Krister Stendahl’s "Three Rules for Religious Understanding," which the bishop shared in a 1985 press conference in Sweden, by way of suggestion to non-LDS religious clergy members who originally opposed to the building of an LDS temple there. 

 

Keeping these three rules in mind ultimately resulted in the diverse, non-religious clergy members to arrive at a shared mutual respect large enough to authorize the necessary permits for the construction of the LDS Stockholm temple. 

 

They are:

 

1. When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion, and not its enemies.
2. Don't compare your best to their worst.
3. Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

Our UU Minister Rev. Straugh applauded the actions of the Swedish Lutheran clergy who, by keeping the above in mind, arrived at enough shared understanding to overcome their strict objection to the construction of the LDS temple. 

 

He then drew a correlation to the church’s recent policy change by saying, “I couldn’t help but wonder: if the LDS church would have chosen to apply those same three rules for religious understanding to how it dialogues with gay and lesbian parents, would we all be dealing with the same aftermath we’ve been facing now, in the wake of the policy and it’s affect on Utah’s religious landscape?”

 

That got me thinking about how both religion and LGBT issues are often approached here on the board.  I think those rules are definitely a helpful starting point (although not the ending point, either) when beginning to understanding a religion.

 

I can’t help but think that some haven’t been giving gays and lesbians the same benefit of the doubt, when it comes to how those three rules could be applied:

 

1. When you are trying to understand what it means to be gay or lesbian, you should ask gays or lesbians—not our enemies.
2. Don’t compare “the best” heterosexuals with “the worst” homosexuals.
3. Leave room for “holy envy”—be willing to recognize elements in gays and lesbians, and their relationships, that you admire and wish you could, in some way, reflect in your own self or relationships.

 

 

Aree you suggesting homo-sexuality is a religion.  Straw man.

[KevinG]

I like those three rules and have applied them to many situations.  I do see wonderful things in the relationships my gay friends have.  One of those partnerships in particular is more functional than many heterosexual couples I know.

 

Much prayer and pondering has brought me to the conclusion that I cannot judge homosexuality any more harshly than I do my favorite sins.  Some flak has come my way for supposing a gay couple could achieve celestial glory.  However, I cannot reject the Apostolic message that a man and a woman are required to be in partnership as an eternal condition that predicates the blessings of exaltation.

 

I respect my friends agency, and the great love and respect in their relationship.  Of course he has no desire to become a Mormon and I have no desire to change my own belief system, so we can be quite comfortable supporting each other as friends, in following our own beliefs.  Even if we disagree about some of those beliefs.

[BlueDreams]

Aree you suggesting homo-sexuality is a religion.  Straw man.

ummm....I'm pretty sure that's not at all what he was suggesting. You can apply these principles to any community, religious, ethnic, or situationally derived.

[Meadowchik]

Aree you suggesting homo-sexuality is a religion.  Straw man.

 

I would say that, when they say so, we should take a person at their word when they say they believe they feel God's inspiration and approval in their same-sex relationship.  Even if you think this may be impossible, respect means that you acknowledge their sincerity, their good faith in the matter.  This works quite while using the 3 rules because we should be used to taking believers of other religions at their word, even if we believe it to be impossible, when they say they believe they've found the truth.

[Senator]

Daniel, quit wasting your time with all this diplomacy.

 

Just create some really good, biting satire about the church. It works wonders!

[Meadowchik]

Daniel, quit wasting your time with all this diplomacy.

Just create some really good, biting satire about the church. It works wonders!

I wish there was more diplomacy like this in the bloggernacle, both in addressing individuals and Church leadership.

[Senator]

I wish there was more diplomacy like this in the bloggernacle, both in addressing individuals and Church leadership.

Don't be fooled.

 

Daniel's post is an example of one of "those trendy new rants that poorly veil their murmuring under the guise of being diplomatically disappointed."

[Mystery Meat]

Yesterday my husband and I attended church services at the First Church Unitarian Universalist Congregation in Salt Lake City.

The minister, Reverend Harold Straughn, related an account of Bishop Krister Stendahl’s "Three Rules for Religious Understanding," which the bishop shared in a 1985 press conference in Sweden, by way of suggestion to non-LDS religious clergy members who originally opposed to the building of an LDS temple there.

Keeping these three rules in mind ultimately resulted in the diverse, non-religious clergy members to arrive at a shared mutual respect large enough to authorize the necessary permits for the construction of the LDS Stockholm temple.

They are:

 

• When you are trying to understand another religion, you should ask the adherents of that religion, and not its enemies.
• Don't compare your best to their worst.
• Leave room for "holy envy." (By this Stendahl meant that you should be willing to recognize elements in the other religious tradition or faith that you admire and wish could, in some way, be reflected in your own religious tradition or faith.)

Our UU Minister Rev. Straugh applauded the actions of the Swedish Lutheran clergy who, by keeping the above in mind, arrived at enough shared understanding to overcome their strict objection to the construction of the LDS temple.

He then drew a correlation to the church’s recent policy change by saying, “I couldn’t help but wonder: if the LDS church would have chosen to apply those same three rules for religious understanding to how it dialogues with gay and lesbian parents, would we all be dealing with the same aftermath we’ve been facing now, in the wake of the policy and it’s affect on Utah’s religious landscape?”

That got me thinking about how both religion and LGBT issues are often approached here on the board. I think those rules are definitely a helpful starting point (although not the ending point, either) when beginning to understanding a religion.

I can’t help but think that some haven’t been giving gays and lesbians the same benefit of the doubt, when it comes to how those three rules could be applied:

• When you are trying to understand what it means to be gay or lesbian, you should ask gays or lesbians—not our enemies.
• Don’t compare “the best” heterosexuals with “the worst” homosexuals.
• Leave room for “holy envy”—be willing to recognize elements in gays and lesbians, and their relationships, that you admire and wish you could, in some way, reflect in your own self or relationships.

 

 

I think the issue you and the pastor have is that you assume the Church (and many of its members) do not already do this. I know I do. I have gay friends and family members who I let define what a gay relationship looks like, not the internet or random people I do not trust. Many of my gay friends are great, kind and wonderful people. I think they would compare favorably in many ways to my heterosexual friends and family. And I think they do much good that is to be admired and respected. 

 

But none of this changes nor can it ever change divine law. That is the problem. We can do all of the three points you mentioned above (and I believe many members and the Church itself does), but it won't be enough for many because it does not mean and it cannot mean that somehow it makes SSM okay. Nor does it make the worldly trends that are seeping into the Church membership more tolerable. Nor does it diminish the importance of what has been come to be defined as the traditional family. 

[Deborah]

Likewise I'm not necessarily convinced that the root of the problem with the policy was an area of compassion, but about upholding principles and setting religious boundaries around doctrinal concerns. That, compassion or getting to know and understand a community may not fix this.

 

I think this as well, as it appears from some of the comments I've seen from the gay community on FB, they actually thought the church was on the way to fully embracing the LGBT lifestyle and even accepting gay marriage. As hard as it may seem I think it is important to make clear that the stand on this issue will not be altered because of what you say has to do with eternal marriage. This to me is the crux of the matter.

 

I heard years ago that the definition of sin is anything that keeps one from attaining exaltation. If that is the case than promoting a gay lifestyle by definition is sin because by it's nature it will prevent exaltation. Keep in mind sin need not be a heinous act but more often consists of those little things that keep us from progressing as we should.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Deborah

[bluebell]

I love those rules, and think the world would be a much better place if we all followed them.  However, in regards to the recent policy changes in the church, i'm with BD.  I don't think these rules have an impact on what the church does internally.

 

I think the church is already applying these rules and trying very hard to be as kind and respectful as possible, while also following the doctrine that they believe to be from God. 

[provoman]

We do not know the why of the policy. We do not have direction why one sin of parents postpones 8 year old baptism and why another sin of a parent does not postpone 8 year old baptism. I do not see that the 3 rules are very applicable to internal operations of a private organization.

Otherwise, the 3 rules are excellent for every day dialogue.

[Meadowchik]

Don't be fooled.

Daniel's post is an example of one of "those trendy new rants that poorly veil their murmuring under the guise of being diplomatically disappointed."

I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not.

I say we take Daniel at his word, especially since I've only noticed him speak quite calmly on this board.

[Daniel2]

To be clear: I have no way of knowing whether the church applied these three rules to gay and lesbian parents in this instance prior to the policy, and I'm not sure whether such actions would have resulted in changing the policy, either... that's not particularly the point I intended to address in starting this thread.

I really meant to focus more on how effective those three rules are likely to be, both when approaching religions, issues regarding sexual orientation, and suggest the 'rules' would be good for us to keep in mind right here on the board.

And, ERayR, while homosexuality obviously isn't a religion, I think the suggested rules are probably effective in a variety of circumstances, as BlueDreams and others have said.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Daniel2

[bluebell]

I can't tell whether you're being sarcastic or not.

I say we take Daniel at his word, especially since I've only noticed him speak quite calmly on this board.

 

He's being sarcastic and referencing a piece of satire that was recently discussed on a now locked thread.  The satire was a form letter for disgruntled progressive mormons to make it easier to complain about how sad they were at something the church had done.

 

Since the letter was for members though, and Daniel isn't a member any more, poor senator missed the mark.  

[stemelbow]

I think the issue you and the pastor have is that you assume the Church (and many of its members) do not already do this. I know I do. I have gay friends and family members who I let define what a gay relationship looks like, not the internet or random people I do not trust. Many of my gay friends are great, kind and wonderful people. I think they would compare favorably in many ways to my heterosexual friends and family. And I think they do much good that is to be admired and respected. 

 

But none of this changes nor can it ever change divine law. That is the problem. We can do all of the three points you mentioned above (and I believe many members and the Church itself does), but it won't be enough for many because it does not mean and it cannot mean that somehow it makes SSM okay. Nor does it make the worldly trends that are seeping into the Church membership more tolerable. Nor does it diminish the importance of what has been come to be defined as the traditional family.

Yeah I hear this, but I think, if good fruit is produced, as you suggest, then why are we so quick to suggest we know what we're talking about when it comes to divine law? Perhaps it's possible our perception of gay sex being opposed to divine law is off. Perhaps, as with everything else, it seems, we dont' know as much as we think we do. There is more about these things we simple need to learn.

I just can't be so quick to condemn.

[Senator]

He's being sarcastic and referencing a piece of satire that was recently discussed on a now locked thread.  The satire was a form letter for disgruntled progressive mormons to make it easier to complain about how sad they were at something the church had done.

 

Since the letter was for members though, and Daniel isn't a member any more, poor senator missed the mark.  

Missed the mark and hit the bullseye.

[bluebell]

Yeah I hear this, but I think, if good fruit is produced, as you suggest, then why are we so quick to suggest we know what we're talking about when it comes to divine law? Perhaps it's possible our perception of gay sex being opposed to divine law is off. Perhaps, as with everything else, it seems, we dont' know as much as we think we do. There is more about these things we simple need to learn.

I just can't be so quick to condemn.

 

I've seen good fruit follow decisions to break the law of chastity, adultery, and polygamy.  I don't believe that means that all of those things are condoned of God though.  I think that sometimes we have a hard time figuring out which seeds actually produced the good fruit to begin with, and that sometimes we assign good fruit to trees that they didn't actually come from.

[bluebell]

Missed the mark and hit the bullseye.

 

We probably just disagree on which bullseye you were aiming for.  

[BlueDreams]

Yeah I hear this, but I think, if good fruit is produced, as you suggest, then why are we so quick to suggest we know what we're talking about when it comes to divine law? Perhaps it's possible our perception of gay sex being opposed to divine law is off. Perhaps, as with everything else, it seems, we dont' know as much as we think we do. There is more about these things we simple need to learn.

I just can't be so quick to condemn.

 

Producing good fruit doesn't mean the whole batch is good (and vice versa). There are several stories in the BoM that point to this, including the analogy of the olive trees. One of my favorites is a short story of Morianton in Ether 10. It states "he did do justice unto the people, but not unto himself because of his many whoredoms; wherefore he was cut off from the presence of the Lord"...he also received blessing attributed to righteousness such as a long life and prosperity being restored to the people. Jacob stated that the Lamanites were doing better raising their families rightly outside of the covenants  than the nephites at one point. The middle folk are plenty when you look for them. But even the people that were overtly wicked and nigh unto destruction had points that were considered good and justified themselves to avoid repentance. The people in Noah's day stated they were doing just well, marrying, living, and raising kids like "men of old, men of great renown." There are several points that indicate in our doctrine that there is variations of goodness based on the amount of truth and light one chooses to live by.

 

Asserting that eternal marriages between men and women is the ultimate desire of God to bring to pass exaltation, etc, isn't an overt condemnation of the goodness found in other people's lives who do not wish to do so for whatever reason. It doesn't mean they won't receive truth, blessings, and even guidance by the Lord within their parameters of acceptance. But it doesn't mean their lives won't include serious misalignment with the Lord's will/truth.

 

 

With luv,

BD

Edited November 30, 2015 by BlueDreams

[Mystery Meat]

Yeah I hear this, but I think, if good fruit is produced, as you suggest, then why are we so quick to suggest we know what we're talking about when it comes to divine law? Perhaps it's possible our perception of gay sex being opposed to divine law is off. Perhaps, as with everything else, it seems, we dont' know as much as we think we do. There is more about these things we simple need to learn.

I just can't be so quick to condemn.

 

We are so quick, because we have prophets who have been commissioned by God himself to reveal and declare divine law on His behalf.

 

Sinners can still produce good fruit. A porn addict can still be an otherwise good person. So too can a actively gay man. But a gay man who is "married" to another gay many cannot, by divine law, create an eternal family. That in and of itself is bad fruit.