Three Rules For Religious/lgbt Understanding

[Mystery Meat]

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 may include serious misalignment with the Lord's will/truth.

 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Indeed. It is important to remember that there are many paths to get to a degree of glory. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' stated mission, however, is to get the Lord's children to the Celestial Kingdom. 

[BlueDreams]

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.

 

Considering your clarification, I wanted to add to my previous thoughts. I think in general it's a good rule to apply to most circumstances because I think it fosters empathy and acknowledgment of the general good parts of humanity. That's usually better ground to work on when discussing things even when people at some point will have a fundamental disagreement.

 

With luv,

BD 

[Robert F. Smith]

.....................................

.....................................homosexuality obviously isn't a religion, ............................

..........................

Gay & Lesbian culture does, however, look very much like a religion, and it conducts a very trenchant assault on other religions.  It has strong views on the nature of reality, which specifically negates much of traditional Judeo-Christian-Muslim culture, and even directly attacks any religious group (or individual) which considers homosexuality immoral.  It is also a missionary religion, attempting to spread its culture into all areas of life.  As long as this is done with civility, I have no objection to these facts, but I don't see the need to deny that they exist in the free marketplace of ideas.

[Russell C McGregor]

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.

 

 

Three answers:

 

1. Those who choose to self-identify as "gays or lesbians" may or may not have enemies, but we're not among them. We just want to live the Gospel to the best of our ability, without having those who choose immorality insist that we have to enable them, or "celebrate" it with them.

2. I'm not aware that anyone has compared “the best” heterosexuals with “the worst” homosexuals. We let homosexuals tell us what you are "proud" of. Like the Stonewall riots, protesting police raids on a mob-run centre for boy prostitution. Or the widespread celebration of Harvey Milk, a known pederast.

3. There's nothing I admire about deviant relationships, and nothing I wish to emulate.

Vice is a monster of so frightful mien...

[BlueDreams]

Robert, that's very much a stretch to the point of making the definition of a religious basically useless. LGB culture isn't a religion because LGB people are not a monolithic group, have varying religious beliefs, and participate (or not) in several religious communities ....including of the judeo-christian traditions. These beliefs will likely also shape how they view the concept of "being gay" and what it means to express such. Some of these expressions may be cultural taboos within the community (such as LGB folk who purposely choose celibacy as a means to live authentically within their religious practices). By asserting that LGBT communities are a religion it would assume that just about any group of people that have one similar trait that can effect behavior is a religion.

 

Like curly hair. I have it and when I meet other curly headed folk we have a special language and discourse around talking about hair. Good hair stylists are the holy grail. Hair products are discussed religiously. Straightening your hair too much is a form of non-acceptance to the true way of free hair expression. It comes with "creeds" like healthy curls are beautiful, all natural baby, and the likes...  My hair and practices with it could even go against certain religious beliefs. I'm not about to cover it up for instance and think my hair should be apart of me and what people see....certain practitioners of Islam may disagree. But that's not because having curly hair is a religion.  

 

With luv,

BD

Edited November 30, 2015 by BlueDreams

[stemelbow]

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.

I'm not sure what more to say. I agree. I'm just saying it's possible we don't know what we're talking about. I'm reminded of times past in our history wherein Church authorities spoke presumptuously, causing them to say things like, "we spoke with limited understanding". No doubt it happens. That's not to condemn any leaders. It just seems clear we don't know as much about this topic as we let on. I've asked before about things like, do we know if sexuality is eternal? Life seems to teach us that there are always exceptions to consider, and it's often, as it turns out, the exceptions that we can't seem to comprehend.

[stemelbow]

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.

I just don't think we know much about this stuff. People can adopt children and create families. It happens.

[Russell C McGregor]

I just don't think we know much about this stuff. People can adopt children and create families. It happens.

 

It does. I myself am an adoptive parent.

 

When my wife and I adopted, we gave our sons a complete set of parents, namely a mother and a father. That's what they deserve, and what we owe them when we presume to put ourselves forward as adoptive parents. Two men or two women are not "two parents." That's not what families are.

 

The notion that a "same sex couple" could ever form an eternal family is an apostate doctrine, a doctrine of devils, and it is false.

 

And whoever teaches such a notion is out of harmony with the Lord's anointed servants.

[Scott Lloyd]

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 is indeed being sarcastic, echoing wording in a link that I shared in a thread he resents.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

A point of information:

 

The Krister Stendahl quote that Daniel2's minister shared is not particularly new or novel.

 

In fact, I first encountered years ago in an LDS video in which Stendahl himself appeared and gave those three rules. If I recall correctly, the title of the video was "Between Heaven and Earth." Produced by the Church, it was about Mormon temples and temple work.

 

In fact, if memory serves, it was within an LDS context that Stendahl first uttered those three rules. The Church's temple in Stockholm was nearing completion, and there was to be an open house and a meeting for the public in connection with it. There was some anti-Mormon publicity in the media. Stendahl, was a high-ranking clergyman in the Swedish state church (Lutheran) at the time. He was approached by the local news media regarding the anti-Mormon sentiment, and it was on that occasion he gave these three rules and declared his intention to apply them with respect to his Mormon neighbors.

 

So, not only is the Church very well acquainted with Stendahl's three rules, it has itself propounded them in a video of its own production.

 

Edited to add:

 

The video "Between Heaven and Earth" is still available at this link.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

It does. I myself am an adoptive parent.

 

When my wife and I adopted, we gave our sons a complete set of parents, namely a mother and a father. That's what they deserve, and what we owe them when we presume to put ourselves forward as adoptive parents. Two men or two women are not "two parents." That's not what families are.

 

The notion that a "same sex couple" could ever form an eternal family is an apostate doctrine, a doctrine of devils, and it is false.

 

And whoever teaches such a notion is out of harmony with the Lord's anointed servants.

I'm an adoptive parent too. ?High five?

Everyone's out of harmony, I suppose. The problem is not so much that someone may be out of harmony, but if that particular person or couple are doing God's will. Perhaps it's God's will that a particular gay couple adopts a child--maybe the Man upstairs actually knows what's best for an individual child. A gay couple can pray to God and learn His will just as you or I, no?

The pharisaical approach just hurts us each and every time, It seems to me.

[Daniel2]

A point of information:

 

The Krister Stendahl quote that Daniel2's minister shared is not particularly new or novel.

 

In fact, I first encountered years ago in an LDS video in which Stendahl himself appeared and gave those three rules. If I recall correctly, the title of the video was "Between Heaven and Earth." Produced by the Church, it was about Mormon temples and temple work.

 

In fact, if memory serves, it was within an LDS context that Stendahl first uttered those three rules. The Church's temple in Stockholm was nearing completion, and there was to be an open house and a meeting for the public in connection with it. There was some anti-Mormon publicity in the media. Stendahl, was a high-ranking clergyman in the Swedish state church (Lutheran) at the time. He was approached by the local news media regarding the anti-Mormon sentiment, and it was on that occasion he gave these three rules and declared his intention to apply them with respect to his Mormon neighbors.

 

So, not only is the Church very well acquainted with Stendahl's three rules, it has itself propounded them in a video of its own production.

 

Edited to add:

 

The video "Between Heaven and Earth" is still available at this link.

 

Correct.  That's the same story our UU minister also shared (as I related in less detail in my opening post).  It was nice to see how the Lutheran clergy (which, as the state religion, had controlled the edification of religious steeples across Sweden for four centuries) apply those same principles to the benefit of the LDS Faith.

[Meadowchik]

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.  

I did read that thread and got the reference, but was still not clear on sarcasm...that rewuires keeping track of everyone's views and I am not that familiar with Senator yet. Thanks, though.

[ERayR]

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.

 

 With the information we have it is more probable that it isn't.

[ERayR]

I'm an adoptive parent too. ?High five?

Everyone's out of harmony, I suppose. The problem is not so much that someone may be out of harmony, but if that particular person or couple are doing God's will. Perhaps it's God's will that a particular gay couple adopts a child--maybe the Man upstairs actually knows what's best for an individual child. A gay couple can pray to God and learn His will just as you or I, no?

The pharisaical approach just hurts us each and every time, It seems to me.

 

A lot of maybes.

[cinepro]

Gay & Lesbian culture does, however, look very much like a religion, and it conducts a very trenchant assault on other religions.  It has strong views on the nature of reality, which specifically negates much of traditional Judeo-Christian-Muslim culture, and even directly attacks any religious group (or individual) which considers homosexuality immoral.  It is also a missionary religion, attempting to spread its culture into all areas of life.  As long as this is done with civility, I have no objection to these facts, but I don't see the need to deny that they exist in the free marketplace of ideas.

 

That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.  That would be like someone who lived in Provo for a year thinking that all Mormons were white, middle class conservative Americans.  There is a certain subset of gay culture that acts a certain way (trust me, I managed an apartment building in West Hollywood so I've seen it up close), but to say that all homosexuals subscribe to certain attitudes or views is absurd.  

 

The only thing we can say for certainty that they agree on is that they want to have sex with people of the same gender as themselves.  Other than that, the idea that most homosexuals belong to the culture espoused by "activist" homosexuals is hardly a given.

[stemelbow]

With the information we have it is more probable that it isn't.

That's a subjective opinion, it seems to me.

[Daniel2]

Gay & Lesbian culture does, however, look very much like a religion, and it conducts a very trenchant assault on other religions.  It has strong views on the nature of reality, which specifically negates much of traditional Judeo-Christian-Muslim culture, and even directly attacks any religious group (or individual) which considers homosexuality immoral.  It is also a missionary religion, attempting to spread its culture into all areas of life.  As long as this is done with civility, I have no objection to these facts, but I don't see the need to deny that they exist in the free marketplace of ideas.

 

I echo others who have said that there is no singular "LGBT culture," just as there is no singular "straight culture."

 

Gays and lesbians reflect many different religious values--including Judeo-Christian ones; some conservative, some liberal, some spiritual but not religious, some agnostic, some atheist.  Some are religious clergy men and women, others choose to follow no religious path at all.

 

Some gays and lesbians choose celibacy, some choose monogamy, some choose promiscuity, some choose polyamory, and some even choose polygamy.

 

Some gays and lesbians support conservative values (including advocating against same-sex marriage), some support liberal causes (such as fighting for same-sex marriage and other equal protections regarding anti-discrimination law), some are a-political and don't get involved in politics, period.

 

Some gays and lesbians are aggressive and vocal and biting in their criticism and activism, others try to find middle ground, reconciliation, and mutual respect.  MANY gays and lesbians I know support and are respectful of religion, even in the fact of constant categorizations as "sinners," "abominations," "whores," "disgusting," "gross," "abhorrent," "unnatural," "demonic," "satanic," etc. etc. etc.

 

What you have referenced are some sub-sets of gay and lesbian culture, and may accurately reflect some groups and individuals.  It would be a mistake to presume that what you say reflects all gays and lesbians.

Edited November 30, 2015 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

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?”

 

As far as "its effect on Utah's religious landscape," in my observation, unlike Bishop Stendahl, the harsh and strident critics of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have shown scarcely any good-faith effort to apply any sort of reasoned "religious understanding" for the new policy, even after clarifications had been issued following the premature leak of the new policy to social and mass media. Rather, they seem to be partakers of an intransigent group-think that started the minute Dehlin published the leak.

 

Edited to add: I don't know whether Rev. Straughn also applied Bishop Stendahl's principles to those who are castigating the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles right now over the new policy. If not, he should have.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Correcting a typo

[stemelbow]

As far as "its effect on Utah's religious landscape," in my observation, unlike Bishop Stendahl, the harsh and strident critics of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles have shown scarcely any good-faith effort to apply any sort of reasoned "religious understanding" for the new policy, even after clarifications had been issued following the premature leak of the new policy to social and mass media. Rather, they seem to be partakers of an intransigent group-think that started the minute Dehlin published the leak.

 

Edited to add: I don't know whether Rev. Straughn also applied Bishop Stendahl's principles to those who are castigating the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles right now over the new policy. If he, he should have.

Sure the "harsh and strident critics" but none of us here are in that camp. We're just people talking this out and letting our ideas see some light.

[The Nehor]

That's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.  That would be like someone who lived in Provo for a year thinking that all Mormons were white, middle class conservative Americans.  There is a certain subset of gay culture that acts a certain way (trust me, I managed an apartment building in West Hollywood so I've seen it up close), but to say that all homosexuals subscribe to certain attitudes or views is absurd.  

 

The only thing we can say for certainty that they agree on is that they want to have sex with people of the same gender as themselves.  Other than that, the idea that most homosexuals belong to the culture espoused by "activist" homosexuals is hardly a given.

This. I also expect what we have of gay culture to dissipate with time. Gay bars are already fading away. When you have to unify as a minority you form a culture and I have gay friends who are melancholy about their victory. While glad they won in the Supreme Court they see it as the end of an era and that some of the camaraderie will be lost.

[Meadowchik]

I came across this article several months ago and it resonated with me so much and with ideas that were already churning within me, as I described in my first post in this thread. I believe that "holding space" is literal but it is also spiritual. It can mean saving a seat for a friend or being their when they grieve:

Here's an excerpt from the article:

Quote

What does it mean to hold space for someone else? It means that we are willing to walk alongside another person in whatever journey they’re on without judging them, making them feel inadequate, trying to fix them, or trying to impact the outcome. When we hold space for other people, we open our hearts, offer unconditional support, and let go of judgement and control.

http://heatherplett.com/2015/03/hold-space/

Also, I think it can be expanded to mean that we allow space for ideas and personal conviction. I believe that the Latter-Day Saint doctrine of revelation requires this allowance of personal, spiritual space for individual testimony.

Yet, this is hard work. There will be those who seem to have diametrically opposed testimonies. They disagree in their heart of hearts about what is real and true.

How to relate? How to love? How to be one and be a community?

We give the space. For example, I have to give it to myself, too. I don't have to win over anyone else for me to feel my convictions are valid. When I feel this sphere of my own personal dignity, I more easily see the spheres of others, and that they are precious.

Those spheres, including my own, will most definitely need to mature, grow, and change over time. How do they grow? First, we allow them to BE.

So, we can grow as a Church when we respect individual growth and personal revelation, when each person is cherished and valued beyond measure. Holding space, the respect for each person's convictions, is essential to loving them.

Daniel, thanks again for this OP.  I love it.

 

[Maedros]

On 11/30/2015, 7:25:15, Daniel2 said:

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.

Personally: I believe that homosexuality and all forms of sexual perversion are satanic practices like pedophilia and rape; like you I know people who are gay and I'm friendly to them but I don't go out of my way to be a part of their lives or understand their motivations because I don't want to associate with homosexuals; I want to keep my children away from that kind of thing because I believe that it is wrong and unnatural and sinful and that its founder is the devil.  The way I see it, good must stand against evil and as I believe that sexual perversion is evil (comes from the devil): I must therefore stand against it in all its forms and I must not entertain such ideologies in the least degree; I don't need to understand it, I just need to keep clear from the danger and I strongly believe that it is dangerous. However, I believe in being kind to people that I meet and tolerant of their varying beliefs while holding onto my own. This is the challenge: to stand in opposition to these practices without infringing on the human rights of its adherents.  

Those who are denigrating others need to stop immediately. Mods are learning the new system and if the most available option in the meantime is banning that is what will happen. 

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Maedros said:

Personally: I believe that homosexuality and all forms of sexual perversion are satanic practices like pedophilia and rape; like you I know people who are gay and I'm friendly to them but I don't go out of my way to be a part of their lives or understand their motivations because I don't want to associate with homosexuals; I want to keep my children away from that kind of thing because I believe that it is wrong and unnatural and sinful and that its founder is the devil.  The way I see it, good must stand against evil and as I believe that sexual perversion is evil (comes from the devil): I must therefore stand against it in all its forms and I must not entertain such ideologies in the least degree; I don't need to understand it, I just need to keep clear from the danger and I strongly believe that it is dangerous. However, I believe in being kind to people that I meet and tolerant of their varying beliefs while holding onto my own. This is the challenge: to stand in opposition to these practices without infringing on the human rights of its adherents. 

I don't know how you go about being kind to people and tolerant of their diversity if you don't want to associate with them.  I feel like your position here is going to or has put you in a pretty conflicted place. 

[Maedros]

On 12/4/2015 at 7:12 AM, stemelbow said:

I don't know how you go about being kind to people and tolerant of their diversity if you don't want to associate with them.  I feel like your position here is going to or has put you in a pretty conflicted place. 

Would you associate with a pedophile? Would you entrust your children into the care of a known sex offender? Do you keep company with homosexuals and join-in their rallies and marches? Do you watch television programmes where homosexuality is normalized? I do not! I sever ties with negative influences because it is negative. What might be normal in your part of the world is not normal in mine; in my world: good is good and evil is evil. The Lord has commanded us to stand firm in the faith and protect our families against the evils out there in the world and to disassociate ourselves from bad influences. I will never think or teach of homosexuality as anything other than sinful; the behaviour is bad not the person. My children don't have to understand why people choose to be homosexual, they just have to stay clear of it; its the safest path.

To paraphrase Pres Benson from his talk about communism, I think the same warning applies: [Same-sex marriage] is Satan's counterfeit for the gospel plan, and....it is an avowed enemy of the God of the land. [Homosexuality] is the greatest anti-Christ power in the world today and therefore the greatest menace not only to our peace but to our preservation as a free people. By the extent to which we tolerate it, accommodate ourselves to it, permit ourselves to be encircled by its tentacles and drawn to it, to that extent we forfeit the protection of the God of this land.

 

You are now on the queue.Your posts will have to approved.