To Help GLBT Members, Show an Increase in Love

[Meadowchik]

This was a wonderful Op-ed by John Gustav-Wrathall printed yesterday by the Deseret News.  The writer first describes experiences many have had as a result of the recent policy changes. 

One example:
 

Quote

 

"In the days after the news of the policy came out, I was contacted by a retirement-age man who has been married and who has lived the law of chastity his whole life. He is gay, and staying in the closet has been a heavy burden he has borne his entire life. Even though I have never met him in person, our conversations over the phone have been a tremendous solace to him. In the days after the announcement of the new policy, he was sent into a tailspin of depression and spent several days on the verge of suicide.

Why, many would ask, would a man who has been faithful his whole life, who certainly wouldn’t face any form of discipline under the new policy, be so deeply affected merely by the announcement of the policy that he would contemplate taking his own life? The answer is that being gay is not just about behavior; it is about deep yearnings for relationship, connection and intimacy. To this man, the new policy felt like an attack on his sense of who he was at his very core."

 

Brother Gustav-Wrathall continues,
 

Quote

 

"When I started attending church 10 years ago as an excommunicated gay man, my ward embraced me. Families and individuals in my ward have made sure I never felt alone, by sitting with me in church or inviting me to sit with them. My bishops have found informal “callings” for me, such as by giving me opportunities to help with genealogical extraction work. My husband, our son and I have had opportunities to participate in church-sponsored service projects, such as when the church organized relief efforts in North Dakota due to catastrophic flooding there years ago. My bishop has assigned me home teachers and meets regularly with me to counsel me in my efforts to learn and live the gospel.

With my permission, my bishop explained my situation to the ward council and told them that it was his hope that both I and my partner could attend church, and that they should make sure we were received hospitably. When my husband has attended church with me, he has been received by members of my ward with respect and generosity. When I have described the way my ward and local leaders have welcomed me to leaders of the church at the highest levels, their response has been that they wished every ward in the church could follow their example."

 

The essay makes other good points and is worth remembering. Please take a look: http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865646442/John-Gustav-Wrathall-Show-an-increase-of-love.html?pg=all%3Fref%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2F

I believe that God is allowing us to experience these trials and challenges, so that we can better learn the eternal principles of love and faith. All of us have the opportunity to reach out in love to our brothers and sisters. He will help us when we do.

Other thoughts?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

Other thoughts?

It is an opinion piece which is fine, but I disagree that “The answer is…” when I know that not all gay people are the same and that not everyone shares the same emotional triggers and negative self-talk. So there is no one answer.

The experience for those (both gay and straight) coming across the policy in an insufficiently sensitive or manipulated way may be reminiscent of powerful, unresolved, painful feelings and trauma from childhood or even later. When that happens, they certainly need love.

The trigger might not just be related to the subject of sexuality, either. It could entail previous experiences with apostasy, divorce, custody, abandonment, abuse in a Church setting or Gospel context, being told to wait, etc. Anyone suffering from being triggered by any of these needs our love.

I think this is one more reason to consider the inappropriateness of how the policy came to general public attention – very damaging to those vulnerable to this kind of news. It's not the policy that is damaging, it is how it is irresponsibly presented and used outside of the scope and intent of the ministry.

[Meadowchik]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

It is an opinion piece which is fine, but I disagree that “The answer is…” when I know that not all gay people are the same and that not everyone shares the same emotional triggers and negative self-talk. So there is no one answer.

The experience for those (both gay and straight) coming across the policy in an insufficiently sensitive or manipulated way may be reminiscent of powerful, unresolved, painful feelings and trauma from childhood or even later. When that happens, they certainly need love.

The trigger might not just be related to the subject of sexuality, either. It could entail previous experiences with apostasy, divorce, custody, abandonment, abuse in a Church setting or Gospel context, being told to wait, etc. Anyone suffering from being triggered by any of these needs our love.

I think this is one more reason to consider the inappropriateness of how the policy came to general public attention – very damaging to those vulnerable to this kind of news. It's not the policy that is damaging, it is how it is irresponsibly presented and used outside of the scope and intent of the ministry.

To be fair, he was asking a very specific question about a very specific situation.  And the answer was "The answer is that being gay is not just about behavior; it is about deep yearnings for relationship, connection and intimacy. To this man, the new policy felt like an attack on his sense of who he was at his very core."  The first sentence is a pretty reasonable generality, the second pertains only the the specific person in question.

Thanks for your thoughts, though.

I do agree that there are many aspects that can affect people differently.  Heck, I just start to tremble when I see my neighbor who has been verbally abusive and is a general nuisance.  I can't imagine what Church-related stresses can be like for people who've experienced trauma in relation to Church itself.

[CV75]

As far as "this man" goes, it's fine for his description of his personal situation, but the sharing of it came across to me as trying to articulate a general principle or fact. The more people we know who struggle with this, the more permutations we can acknowledge on a personal level.

The Church does use "homosexuality" to describe a behavior far as governance in the kingdom (policy, standards, etc.) is concerned. That is all she can expect to govern per D&C 134:10, and I think the leaders are careful  about loving all who struggle with this subject, and not judging their hearts, minds or conscience in their counseling and disciplining.

[Meadowchik]

I think John was trying to delegitimize the idea that homosexuality is merely about sex.  I think that, when speaking generally, it is fair to assume that it is not.

[CV75]

5 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I think John was trying to delegitimize the idea that homosexuality is merely about sex.  I think that, when speaking generally, it is fair to assume that it is not.

Sexuality, by definition, is about sex. i think we need to keep that a definition legitimate.

I believe we are children of God with gender, sexuality, deep yearnings for relationship, connection and intimacy, and a slate of other divine characteristics and attributes where, for the sake of this discussion, romantic and sexual attraction and sexual behavior have a divine place.

To say that sexuality (either homo- or hetero-) is not merely about sex denies its definition and emphasizes the notion that we are sexual beings with gender, deep yearnings for relationship, connection and intimacy and the slate of other divine characteristics and attributes.

I think people who have a core self-definition as children of God are better prepared to face emotional triggers on this subject than those who tend to view and define themselves as sexual beings, or by their sexuality. I think all of our divine attributes are better integrated at our core when we understand the true doctrine of being children of God. In this way we are better prepared to manage destructive feelings, attitudes and behaviors that might get triggered.

That is why the use of the phrase “The answer…” got my attention. “The answer is that being [homosexual] is not just about behavior; it is about deep yearnings for relationship, connection and intimacy. To this man, the new policy felt like an attack on his sense of who he was at his very core." Yes, sexuality is about attraction as well as behavior, but I do not believe that is not who we are at our very core.

I certainly empathize with the man’s pain and he should be loved and understood. Part of doing that entails nurturing and nourishing him by the good word of God so that his pain can be alleviated by understanding who he truly is and that he accesses the blessings of the Atonement through an awareness of other than his sexual identity.

[rockpond]

On 2/1/2016 at 6:23 AM, Meadowchik said:

This was a wonderful Op-ed by John Gustav-Wrathall printed yesterday by the Deseret News.  The writer first describes experiences many have had as a result of the recent policy changes. 

One example:
 

Brother Gustav-Wrathall continues,
 

The essay makes other good points and is worth remembering. Please take a look: http://m.deseretnews.com/article/865646442/John-Gustav-Wrathall-Show-an-increase-of-love.html?pg=all%3Fref%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fm.facebook.com%2F

I believe that God is allowing us to experience these trials and challenges, so that we can better learn the eternal principles of love and faith. All of us have the opportunity to reach out in love to our brothers and sisters. He will help us when we do.

Other thoughts?

Thanks for sharing this.  Stories like these are what led many of us to believe that the Church was headed in a positive direction (with respect to LGBT relations) prior to Nov 5.  While the new policy certainly represents a setback, it is good to be reminded that here at the local level we still have some room to fellowship and show that increase in love to our LGBT brothers and sisters.

[filovirus]

I would hope we show GLBT members the same love and respect we show non-GLBT members. If everyone did this it would be a non-issue. This differentiation between GLBT/non-GLBT members causes more harm.

Why treat subgroups differently at all? Aren't we all part of "one" fold and aren't we commanded to be "one"?

[The Nehor]

We are running out of people we are allowed to hate. Can I still hate Libertarians? Furries? Mimes?

[Calm]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

We are running out of people we are allowed to hate. Can I still hate Libertarians? Furries? Mimes?

Bronies.

[The Nehor]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

Bronies.

Wait, bronies are people?  

[Meadowchik]

23 hours ago, CV75 said:

Sexuality, by definition, is about sex. i think we need to keep that a definition legitimate.

I believe we are children of God with gender, sexuality, deep yearnings for relationship, connection and intimacy, and a slate of other divine characteristics and attributes where, for the sake of this discussion, romantic and sexual attraction and sexual behavior have a divine place.

To say that sexuality (either homo- or hetero-) is not merely about sex denies its definition and emphasizes the notion that we are sexual beings with gender, deep yearnings for relationship, connection and intimacy and the slate of other divine characteristics and attributes.

I think people who have a core self-definition as children of God are better prepared to face emotional triggers on this subject than those who tend to view and define themselves as sexual beings, or by their sexuality. I think all of our divine attributes are better integrated at our core when we understand the true doctrine of being children of God. In this way we are better prepared to manage destructive feelings, attitudes and behaviors that might get triggered.

That is why the use of the phrase “The answer…” got my attention. “The answer is that being [homosexual] is not just about behavior; it is about deep yearnings for relationship, connection and intimacy. To this man, the new policy felt like an attack on his sense of who he was at his very core." Yes, sexuality is about attraction as well as behavior, but I do not believe that is not who we are at our very core.

I certainly empathize with the man’s pain and he should be loved and understood. Part of doing that entails nurturing and nourishing him by the good word of God so that his pain can be alleviated by understanding who he truly is and that he accesses the blessings of the Atonement through an awareness of other than his sexual identity.

Yes, sexuality is about sex. Think about the ramifications of sex if you seek a monogamous sexual relationship with all the emotional and social intimacy that can be included as part of it.  The emotional/social intimacy can and do have a direct relationship with the health of the sexual relationship. The inverse is also true. 

However, I agree that the healthy, true core self-definition should be "I am a child of God."

 

 

[Tacenda]

This goes more with the thread that got locked, so I put it here.  Doug Frabezio has two active LDS gay men on the show and they are explaining their insight into the purported suicides.

http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/lgbt-suicide-and-lds-church

 

[CV75]

41 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

Yes, sexuality is about sex. Think about the ramifications of sex if you seek a monogamous sexual relationship with all the emotional and social intimacy that can be included as part of it.  The emotional/social intimacy can and do have a direct relationship with the health of the sexual relationship. The inverse is also true. 

However, I agree that the healthy, true core self-definition should be "I am a child of God."

I believe that for an LDS, all healthy relationships are built upon the fundamental belief that “I am a child of God [who keeps his covenants].” In the Gospel, a full sexual relationship (which follows an individual’s feelings, attitudes, and behaviors that lead to and become mutually cultivated within a marriage) is a subset of the marital relationship, which, it must be remembered to be successful, entails a covenant between more than just the couple. Interestingly to me, the marital relationship is a subset of the relationship with have with our Heavenly Parents, which is why I think that belief is so essential whether we are married or not.

All marriages have areas of strength and weakness, and some obviously dealing with sexuality, but through their united faith they can have every blessing the Lord intends for them. If one or both defines themselves and their happiness primarily in terms of sexuality (even in courtship and mating season!), problems inevitably arise. The man in the opinion piece doesn't seem to be rattled by the choice he made to marry a woman, so it seems that as a couple, they found an agreeable way to live, which to me says a lot!

[smac97]

Here's a sincere question, which I present for responses from any and all points of view: What things should faithful Latter-day Saints do or not do in order to show "an increase in love" toward people with homosexual orientations while not abandoning or disregarding or diminishing the importance of The Law of Chastity as taught by the leaders of the LDS Church?

I'm not looking for polemics.  Just insights and observations, if you please.

Thank you,

-Smac

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Here's a sincere question, which I present for responses from any and all points of view: What things should faithful Latter-day Saints do or not do in order to show "an increase in love" toward people with homosexual orientations while not abandoning or disregarding or diminishing the importance of The Law of Chastity as taught by the leaders of the LDS Church?

I'm not looking for polemics.  Just insights and observations, if you please.

Thank you,

-Smac

To me, "showing... an increase of love" means to display and offer reassurance to those who we think may think we have treated them too harshly. This requires knowing someone well, and humility and empathy. We develop this kind of disposition and relationship with them when we serve them charitably. I think it is something that begins in our personal dealings with people but is also is part of the design of councils and Church organizations and their proper use.

[filovirus]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here's a sincere question, which I present for responses from any and all points of view: What things should faithful Latter-day Saints do or not do in order to show "an increase in love" toward people with homosexual orientations while not abandoning or disregarding or diminishing the importance of The Law of Chastity as taught by the leaders of the LDS Church?

I'm not looking for polemics.  Just insights and observations, if you please.

Thank you,

-Smac

Whatever you would do to show an increase in love to heterosexual members, do the same for LGBT members.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, filovirus said:

Whatever you would do to show an increase in love to heterosexual members, do the same for LGBT members.

This is a thoughtful approach.  Thanks!  It clearly works in the abstract.  And fortunately it clearly works in the vast majority of situations.  But I already knew that.  The question I have pertains to particular circumstances where Latter-day Saints are being put in an either/or position.  Where they are asked to either A) advocate and endorse adhere to the teachings of the LDS Church, or B) advocate and endorse the violation of the teachings of the LDS Church.  

When I was in Army I had many good friends who drank and/or smoked.  On occasion I was offered a chance to join in, but I quietly and respectfully declined.  On a few occasions I was pressed further to taking a drink or a smoke.  When that happened I again declined and explained that such things went against my religious beliefs.  At that point my friends, having respect for my position, would drop the issue.  

At no point did any of my friends insist that I join them in smoking or drinking, or that I publicly declare my approval of their smoking or drinking.  

At no point did any of my friends condition our continuing friendship on me approving and endorsing such things.  

At no point did any of my friends accuse me of bigotry or hatred against them because I declined to participate in drinking or smoking or to endorse/approve of such things.

At no point did any of my friends, having learned about my faith's position on smoking and drinking, proceed to attack my character, or my ethics, or my sincerity as a Christian, or my religious beliefs, or my religious leaders, despite knowing that these leaders and these beliefs speak against drinking and smoking.

I hope you see where I'm going with this.  The Latter-day Saints are being threatened.  Not physically, no.  But socially.  We are being maligned.  We are being slurred.  We are being falsely accused of harboring malice and hatred and bigotry.  We are being accused of these things because we adhere to doctrines that disagree with prevailing social trends.  And rather than allowing for reasonable minds to disagree, we are being pressured to capitulate on our beliefs.  To reject what we believe to be from God in favor of . . . something else.  We are being extorted.  We are being told what to do and how to do it.  We are being threatened with an ultimatum to either join in and celebrate conduct which our religious beliefs declare to be sinful, or we will be accused of the most hateful and hurtful things.

I think it is fortunate that the actual circumstances in which Latter-day Saints are put into a conundrum are fairly rare.  Here are a few hypothetical analogies:

A) If a heterosexual member asked a bishop to officiate at his wedding, the bishop could do so.  But the bishop could not likewise officiate at a same-sex wedding (or, for that matter, at a polygamous marriage).  Can the bishop decline to do so without being maligned and his religion smeared and condemned?

B) Let us hypothesize that a member of the Church (John) approaches an active Latter-day Saint (Sarah) and asks her to help him plan, and to then attend and participate in, a birthday party for his mistress, Jane.  I think Sarah would be understandably reluctant to participate in such an endeavor, as it would seem to be inappropriate for a Latter-day Saint to help "celebrate" a relationship that amounts to an adulterous affair in violation of The Law of Chastity.  Can Sarah decline to participate in such a party and not be maligned?

C) Say that a Latter-day Saint, Joe, has an acquaintance ("Kelly") who drinks and uses marijuana.  Joe has great concern for Kelly.  Joe has spoken with Kelly many times, who has turned to Joe for counsel regarding using alcohol and marijuana, and Joe's counsel has been that Kelly work on breaking these addictions and abstaining from consuming those substances.  But what if Kelly asks Joe to endorse the consumption of alcohol and marijuana?  To go out and buy some booze and joints for Kelly to use at a party?  To join Kelly at this party?  To sit with Kelly as he smokes joints and while friends take photographs of the two of them together, which Kelly will put on Facebook?  What if Kelly conditions his continued friendship on Joe not only refraining from encouraging him to avoid alcohol and marijuana, but also that Joe start encouraging Kelly to continue using such substances?  What should Joe do?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

Edited February 3, 2016 by smac97

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

This is a thoughtful approach.  Thanks!  It clearly works in the abstract.  And fortunately it clearly works in the vast majority of situations.  But I already knew that.  The question I have pertains to particular circumstances where Latter-day Saints are being put in an either/or position.  Where they are asked to either A) advocate and endorse adhere to the teachings of the LDS Church, or B) advocate and endorse the violation of the teachings of the LDS Church.  

When I was in Army I had many good friends who drank and/or smoked.  On occasion I was offered a chance to join in, but I quietly and respectfully declined.  On a few occasions I was pressed further to taking a drink or a smoke.  When that happened I again declined and explained that such things went against my religious beliefs.  At that point my friends, having respect for my position, would drop the issue.  

At no point did any of my friends insist that I join them in smoking or drinking, or that I publicly declare my approval of their smoking or drinking.  

At no point did any of my friends condition our continuing friendship on me approving and endorsing such things.  

At no point did any of my friends accuse me of bigotry or hatred against them because I declined to participate in drinking or smoking or to endorse/approve of such things.

At no point did any of my friends, having learned about my faith's position on smoking and drinking, proceed to attack my character, or my ethics, or my sincerity as a Christian, or my religious beliefs, or my religious leaders, despite knowing that these leaders and these beliefs speak against drinking and smoking.

I hope you see where I'm going with this.  The Latter-day Saints are being threatened.  Not physically, no.  But socially.  We are being maligned.  We are being slurred.  We are being falsely accused of harboring malice and hatred and bigotry.  We are being accused of these things because we adhere to doctrines that disagree with prevailing social trends.  And rather than allowing for reasonable minds to disagree, we are being pressured to capitulate on our beliefs.  To reject what we believe to be from God in favor of . . . something else.  We are being extorted.  We are being told what to do and how to do it.  We are being threatened with an ultimatum to either join in and celebrate conduct which our religious beliefs declare to be sinful, or we will be accused of the most hateful and hurtful things.

I think it is fortunate that the actual circumstances in which Latter-day Saints are put into a conundrum are fairly rare.  Here are a few hypothetical analogies:

A) If a heterosexual member asked a bishop to officiate at his wedding, the bishop could do so.  But the bishop could not likewise officiate at a same-sex wedding (or, for that matter, at a polygamous marriage).  Can the bishop decline to do so without being maligned and his religion smeared and condemned?

B) Let us hypothesize that a member of the Church (John) approaches an active Latter-day Saint (Sarah) and asks her to help him plan, and to then attend and participate in, a birthday party for his mistress, Jane.  I think Sarah would be understandably reluctant to participate in such an endeavor, as it would seem to be inappropriate for a Latter-day Saint to help "celebrate" a relationship that amounts to an adulterous affair in violation of The Law of Chastity.  Can Sarah decline to participate in such a party and not be maligned?

C) Say that a Latter-day Saint, Joe, has an acquaintance ("Kelly") who drinks and uses marijuana.  Joe has great concern for Kelly.  Joe has spoken with Kelly many times, who has turned to Joe for counsel regarding using alcohol and marijuana, and Joe's counsel has been that Kelly work on breaking these addictions and abstaining from consuming those substances.  But what if Kelly asks Joe to endorse the consumption of alcohol and marijuana?  To go out and buy some booze and joints for Kelly to use at a party?  To join Kelly at this party?  To sit with Kelly as he smokes joints and while friends take photographs of the two of them together, which Kelly will put on Facebook?  What if Kelly conditions his continued friendship on Joe not only refraining from encouraging him to avoid alcohol and marijuana, but also that Joe start encouraging Kelly to continue using such substances?  What should Joe do?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

A) Can he? Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean nobody will malign or smear him or his religion.

B) Can she? Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean nobody will malign her for declining. 

C) Joe should again, increasingly as often as he is asked,  restate his beliefs and decline to do anything he doesn't want to do. 

To me showing an "increase" of love simply means to show more and more love, and we can all continue to show love for someone even when we continue to decline to do something that we don't want to do.

Try it.  It's fairly easy.

[Daniel2]

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Here's a sincere question, which I present for responses from any and all points of view: What things should faithful Latter-day Saints do or not do in order to show "an increase in love" toward people with homosexual orientations while not abandoning or disregarding or diminishing the importance of The Law of Chastity as taught by the leaders of the LDS Church?

I'm not looking for polemics.  Just insights and observations, if you please.

Thank you,

-Smac

In answer to your question, I think The Deseret News article last week recapped some great ideas on what things faithful Latter-day Saints should do in order to "show an increase in love" towards members of the LGBT community, none of which requires them to abandon, disregard, or diminish the importance of The Law of Chastity as taught by the leaders of the LDS Church:

Do's and don'ts for helping LGBT youth

By Lois M. Collins, Deseret News

Published: Thursday, Jan. 28 2016 4:20 p.m. MST

Updated: Monday, Feb. 1 2016 10:11 a.m. MST

 

The Family Acceptance Project offers some best-practice advice for things parents and families can do — or avoid — to help their children who are LGBT be safe and feel loved. It’s also available in a version specifically for LDS families.

Among the do’s:

— Express your love when you learn the child is gay or transgender

— Support your child, even if it makes you feel uncomfortable

— If your child is mistreated, be your child’s advocate

— Require other family members to respect your child

— Help your faith community welcome your child

— Expect a good adult future for your child

Things to avoid include:

— Don't physically express disapproval because of LGBT identity

— Don't verbally harass

— Don't leave your child out of family activities

— Don't block access to LGBT friends or resources

— Don't blame your child if he or she is discriminated against because of LGBT identity

— Don't threaten God’s punishment

— Don't make an LGBT child hide that identity and treat it as a secret

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is a thoughtful approach.  Thanks!  It clearly works in the abstract.  And fortunately it clearly works in the vast majority of situations.  But I already knew that.  The question I have pertains to particular circumstances where Latter-day Saints are being put in an either/or position.  Where they are asked to either A) advocate and endorse adhere to the teachings of the LDS Church, or B) advocate and endorse the violation of the teachings of the LDS Church.  

When I was in Army I had many good friends who drank and/or smoked.  On occasion I was offered a chance to join in, but I quietly and respectfully declined.  On a few occasions I was pressed further to taking a drink or a smoke.  When that happened I again declined and explained that such things went against my religious beliefs.  At that point my friends, having respect for my position, would drop the issue.  

At no point did any of my friends insist that I join them in smoking or drinking, or that I publicly declare my approval of their smoking or drinking.

In the same spirit of sincerity that you’ve offered, I think it might help us understand, specifically, how you feel this example applies to gays and lesbians. 

Can you give us a specific example of how a gay acquaintance, friend, or family member of yours has asked you, personally, to “publically declare your approval” of their gayness or their gay relationship?  

 

Quote

At no point did any of my friends condition our continuing friendship on me approving and endorsing such things.

Again, I think clarify would help us understand where you’re coming from.  Can you help me understand what gay acquaintance, friend, or family member of yours has “conditioned your continuing friendship of you approving and endorsing” same-sex behavior?  

 

Quote

At no point did any of my friends accuse me of bigotry or hatred against them because I declined to participate in drinking or smoking or to endorse/approve of such things.

Same question… which of your gay acquaintances, friends, or family members “accused you of bigotry or hatred against them because you declined to participate in same-sex activity, or to endorse or approve of such things…?

 

Quote

At no point did any of my friends, having learned about my faith's position on smoking and drinking, proceed to attack my character, or my ethics, or my sincerity as a Christian, or my religious beliefs, or my religious leaders, despite knowing that these leaders and these beliefs speak against drinking and smoking.

I think the above portion may be a little easier to address than some of the previous comments, but even so, I think more clarity may be helpful so I don’t make incorrect assumptions.

Can you give some context as to which of your gay and lesbian acquaintances, friends, or family members attacked your character, your ethics, your sincerity as a Christian, your religious beliefs or leaders based on learning about your faith’s position as it relates to homosexuality?  Can you be a little more specific about what aspect of your faith’s position on homosexuality such gay and lesbian individuals felt the need to ‘attack’?

 

Quote

I hope you see where I'm going with this.  The Latter-day Saints are being threatened.  Not physically, no.  But socially.  We are being maligned.  We are being slurred.  We are being falsely accused of harboring malice and hatred and bigotry.

I’m trying to understand the circumstances you’re describing… How do you feel that Latter-day Saints are being maligned, slurred, and falsely accused of harboring malice and hatred and bigotry…?  You may believe I’m being obtuse here—but I actually ask it with sincerity.

Let me try to explain, with the greatest of intent of being as open and honest and with as much good will as I believe you are attempting to approach the subject.

I believe most gays and lesbians have the most difficulty with LDS policies and practices when LDS policy and practice directly affects gays’ and lesbians’ lives, especially our civil rights, privileges, and responsibilities, as well as social harm that may affect us, our spouses, and our children. 

I think it’s understandable and reasonable that any class of people, especially of a minority status (be it by race, religious or political affiliation, national heritage, etc), would probably be very concerned about the actions of other majority groups of people whose actions would promote or maintain inequality—that is, actions which would promote or maintain an unequal system which unjustly (and especially unconstitutionally) gives advantages, benefits, preferences, or otherwise privileges majority classes of people, while asserting or maintaining a status quo of inequality for the class of people being discriminated against by refusing to give them the same advantages, benefits, preferences, and privileges. 

Would you agree that it’s reasonable that members of such minority classes would be understandably concerned about the majority groups’ actions designed to continue to discriminate…?

Now, specifically, I’m ONLY referring to involvement in political initiatives designed to remove or revoke equal CIVIL marital benefits for same-sex couples, or measures designed to strengthen the status quo in areas where such benefits were already historically denied as a matter of record.

If your experience matches mine, the Church and it’s members faced accusations of “bigotry” specifically because of the Church’s and it’s members’ active involvement and support to promote and enact political initiatives designed to maintain civil recognition of opposite-gender marriages while simultaneously block civil recognition of same-gender marriages.

Regardless of the religious principles and beliefs, the accusations of bigotry apply to the political actions of the Church and it’s membership.

Could “active involvement and support to promote and enact political initiatives designed to maintain civil recognition of opposite-gender marriages while simultaneously block civil recognition of same-gender marriages” be accurately classified as “bigotry”?

According to www.dictionary.com:

 

 

Quote

bigotry [big-uh-tree] /ˈbɪg ə tri/

1.stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.

2.the actions, beliefs, prejudices, etc., of a bigot.

 

 

If we look at the definitions of bigotry, I think it’s understandable that the political actions that the Church and its’ membership supported were viewed by most of the LGBT community and their allies to be “bigoted.”

It wasn’t JUST that the church teaches that same-sex relationships are sinful.  It’s the actions of the church, designed to maintain the status quo of recognizing the civil marriages of straight couples (which matched Mormonism’s current worldview), and refuse to recognize the civil marriages of gay and lesbian couples which demonstrated actions which were “complete intolerance of beliefs or opinions,” and were “prejudiced.”

So, again, even if you disagree the Church’s and Church members’ political actions exemplified “bigotry,” I hope you can at least understand why others characterized them as such.

Quote

 We are being accused of these things because we adhere to doctrines that disagree with prevailing social trends.

I disagree—I think you’re underplaying the fact that the Church’s political actions against civil marriage recognition for gay and lesbian couples played what I believe is THE major reason why the Church and it’s members are accused of bigotry.

Take, for example, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, or a number of other religious groups who’s doctrines about the sinfulness of homosexual relationships is very similar to Mormonism’s.  Such churches aren’t facing as much public outcry and accusations of bigotry, mostly because they weren’t as vocal and involved in the political fray. 

I have friends of a variety of religious affiliations who I know personally believe that same-sex relationships are sinful—including Latter-day Saints—whom I don’t consider and would never call bigoted.  It’s not their BELIEFS that “homosexual activity or relationships are sinful” that are intolerant.  We live peacefully and affably as neighbors; we work peacefully and affably alongside one another at work… 

Despite their personal feelings and beliefs about the sinfulness of same-sex behaviors and relationships, they came to me and expressed that they supported my equal rights, even though their religious values prohibit such relationships.  Just as they demonstrate respect and civility when I mention my husband, despite their divergent beliefs to the contrary, I demonstrate respect and civility when they mention their Faith (i.e. mention they’re going home-teaching, or tell a mission story about their son or daughter, or discuss something they heard at church, etc), despite my divergent beliefs to the contrary.  They face NO accusations of bigotry or hatred or malice—because their actions demonstrate mutual respect and civility, without either of us having to disavow our personal or religious beliefs about social trends.

We all live and work together, but we don’t demand or impose our beliefs upon one another.  And miraculously, we all get along.  No accusations of hatred.  No bigotry.  Because none of us is seeking to promote an agenda that aggrandizes ourselves and minimizes those who are different from us.

 

Quote

And rather than allowing for reasonable minds to disagree, we are being pressured to capitulate on our beliefs.

Again, I would ask you for examples of which acquaintances, friends, or family members of yours are asking you to capitulate, and what beliefs, specifically, are you being asked to capitulate?  In my experience, the only thing promoters of marriage equality for gays and lesbians asked of Latter-day Saints was to leave us alone and let us have the same civil rights you already have---and STILL have, now that we share them equally with you.  You remain free to believe and teach what you like about same-sex relationships.

 

Quote

 To reject what we believe to be from God in favor of . . . something else.

Again, I don’t believe the above to be the case.  Unless you’re saying that God told you to enshrine your religious beliefs about marriage into law, and that your God told you to fight against the principle of equality, as applied to civil marriage (especially as mandated by the U.S. Constitution as it is now understood to be the law of the land—not to mention many other countries with similar legal recognition).

 

Quote

 We are being extorted.

Extortion is a serious claim.  What examples do you have of this?

 

Quote

 We are being told what to do and how to do it.

Well… people are always telling others what to do and how to do it—that’s called Freedom of Speech.  Are you saying you’ve been unjustly told what to do and how to do it by someone in authority…?  To whom are you referring here…?

 

Quote

 We are being threatened with an ultimatum to either join in and celebrate conduct which our religious beliefs declare to be sinful, or we will be accused of the most hateful and hurtful things.

Examples, please…  Who is being threatened?  What ultimatums are you referring to?  What conduct are you being commanded to join in and celebrate?

Once again, you’re right about having to face accusations of hateful and hurtful things.  Again, that’s freedom of speech.  We gays and lesbians have been facing hateful and hurtful things for a long time, and Freedom of Religion and Speech continue to allow many religious folk to continue to say hateful and hurtful things about us, our loved ones, our families, and our children, even today, regardless of civil marriage equality or anti-discrimination laws.  Again, that’s the Freedom of Speech.

 

Quote

I think it is fortunate that the actual circumstances in which Latter-day Saints are put into a conundrum are fairly rare.  Here are a few hypothetical analogies:

A)    If a heterosexual member asked a bishop to officiate at his wedding, the bishop could do so.  But the bishop could not likewise officiate at a same-sex wedding (or, for that matter, at a polygamous marriage).  Can the bishop decline to do so without being maligned and his religion smeared and condemned?

Well… that’s technically untrue, at least, legally speaking.  ANYONE in America of legal age can register to officiate over a wedding under the authority of the State.  Say, for example, an LDS bishop has a gay son that asks his father to marry him.  The bishop COULD officiate at his son’s same-sex wedding, but not in an LDS church, and not while acting under the authority of the LDS Priesthood and in his role as an LDS bishop.  He could choose to marry them, but that would be his personal choice.  I understand he would likely face church discipline, including losing his calling as a bishop… but a bishop COULD make that choice, if he wanted to.

He could decline, of course. And some people my criticize him and his beliefs because of it, and others might not. Freedom of speech allows everyone to express their views, regardless of what it is.

Quote

B) Let us hypothesize that a member of the Church (John) approaches an active Latter-day Saint (Sarah) and asks her to help him plan, and to then attend and participate in, a birthday party for his mistress, Jane.  I think Sarah would be understandably reluctant to participate in such an endeavor, as it would seem to be inappropriate for a Latter-day Saint to help "celebrate" a relationship that amounts to an adulterous affair in violation of The Law of Chastity.  Can Sarah decline to participate in such a party and not be maligned?

Interesting.  Your experience as a Latter-day Saint doesn’t seem to match the attitudes of the Latter-day Saints I know.  Specifically, we have had baby showers for unmarried coworkers and birthday celebrations both at my work and outside of work in which many of my LDS coworkers and friends not only have participated, but have spearheaded and planned for the entire group.  My husband and I have hosted a bachelorette party for an LDS friend and her friends at our home, as well as some Halloween parties.  None of them felt the need to refrain from participating because the babies were born out of wedlock; or because the birthdays included unmarried girlfriends or boyfriends; or because the bachelorette party was at the house of a gay couple… 

Additionally, I have lots of LDS friends who don't go to bars when my other friends, coworkers, & I go out to drink. They don't participate in activities that would make him uncomfortable. No one called them bigoted, hateful, or full of malice just because they do different activities than we do.

Quote

C) Say that a Latter-day Saint, Joe, has an acquaintance ("Kelly") who drinks and uses marijuana.  Joe has great concern for Kelly.  Joe has spoken with Kelly many times, who has turned to Joe for counsel regarding using alcohol and marijuana, and Joe's counsel has been that Kelly work on breaking these addictions and abstaining from consuming those substances.  But what if Kelly asks Joe to endorse the consumption of alcohol and marijuana?  To go out and buy some booze and joints for Kelly to use at a party?  To join Kelly at this party?  To sit with Kelly as he smokes joints and while friends take photographs of the two of them together, which Kelly will put on Facebook?  What if Kelly conditions his continued friendship on Joe not only refraining from encouraging him to avoid alcohol and marijuana, but also that Joe start encouraging Kelly to continue using such substances?  What should Joe do?

This one seems fairly straightforward (no pun intended... ha!) and easy to answer to me.  If Kelly is participating in activities that Joe doesn’t like to be around, he doesn’t have to hang around her.  He certainly isn’t obligated to go buy her things he doesn’t support.  None of that makes him bigoted. I don't know of anyone who would read this example and think that he was ... 

In similar fashion, when my LDS friends go hometeaching, I don’t go hometeaching with them.  When they go to church, I don’t go to church with them (unless it’s a special occasion, like attending a farewell or a baby blessing).  When they go inside a temple to get married, I don’t go inside—I wait outside and cheer and clap for them.  But I’m not a bigot for not participating in any of those activities which I don’t agree with.

I do think it’s interesting, though, Smac, that only one of your four examples above dealt with a same-sex relationship, and none really dealt with how LDS members would struggle to show love and support for LGBT members…  How do you see them being related…?

Edited February 4, 2016 by Daniel2

[cinepro]

But not too much or you might get punched.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

But not too much or you might get punched.

Depends on if you like it I suppose.

[filovirus]

19 hours ago, smac97 said:

This is a thoughtful approach.  Thanks!  It clearly works in the abstract.  And fortunately it clearly works in the vast majority of situations.  But I already knew that.  The question I have pertains to particular circumstances where Latter-day Saints are being put in an either/or position.  Where they are asked to either A) advocate and endorse adhere to the teachings of the LDS Church, or B) advocate and endorse the violation of the teachings of the LDS Church.  

When I was in Army I had many good friends who drank and/or smoked.  On occasion I was offered a chance to join in, but I quietly and respectfully declined.  On a few occasions I was pressed further to taking a drink or a smoke.  When that happened I again declined and explained that such things went against my religious beliefs.  At that point my friends, having respect for my position, would drop the issue.  

At no point did any of my friends insist that I join them in smoking or drinking, or that I publicly declare my approval of their smoking or drinking.  

At no point did any of my friends condition our continuing friendship on me approving and endorsing such things.  

At no point did any of my friends accuse me of bigotry or hatred against them because I declined to participate in drinking or smoking or to endorse/approve of such things.

At no point did any of my friends, having learned about my faith's position on smoking and drinking, proceed to attack my character, or my ethics, or my sincerity as a Christian, or my religious beliefs, or my religious leaders, despite knowing that these leaders and these beliefs speak against drinking and smoking.

I hope you see where I'm going with this.  The Latter-day Saints are being threatened.  Not physically, no.  But socially.  We are being maligned.  We are being slurred.  We are being falsely accused of harboring malice and hatred and bigotry.  We are being accused of these things because we adhere to doctrines that disagree with prevailing social trends.  And rather than allowing for reasonable minds to disagree, we are being pressured to capitulate on our beliefs.  To reject what we believe to be from God in favor of . . . something else.  We are being extorted.  We are being told what to do and how to do it.  We are being threatened with an ultimatum to either join in and celebrate conduct which our religious beliefs declare to be sinful, or we will be accused of the most hateful and hurtful things.

I think it is fortunate that the actual circumstances in which Latter-day Saints are put into a conundrum are fairly rare.  Here are a few hypothetical analogies:

A) If a heterosexual member asked a bishop to officiate at his wedding, the bishop could do so.  But the bishop could not likewise officiate at a same-sex wedding (or, for that matter, at a polygamous marriage).  Can the bishop decline to do so without being maligned and his religion smeared and condemned?

B) Let us hypothesize that a member of the Church (John) approaches an active Latter-day Saint (Sarah) and asks her to help him plan, and to then attend and participate in, a birthday party for his mistress, Jane.  I think Sarah would be understandably reluctant to participate in such an endeavor, as it would seem to be inappropriate for a Latter-day Saint to help "celebrate" a relationship that amounts to an adulterous affair in violation of The Law of Chastity.  Can Sarah decline to participate in such a party and not be maligned?

C) Say that a Latter-day Saint, Joe, has an acquaintance ("Kelly") who drinks and uses marijuana.  Joe has great concern for Kelly.  Joe has spoken with Kelly many times, who has turned to Joe for counsel regarding using alcohol and marijuana, and Joe's counsel has been that Kelly work on breaking these addictions and abstaining from consuming those substances.  But what if Kelly asks Joe to endorse the consumption of alcohol and marijuana?  To go out and buy some booze and joints for Kelly to use at a party?  To join Kelly at this party?  To sit with Kelly as he smokes joints and while friends take photographs of the two of them together, which Kelly will put on Facebook?  What if Kelly conditions his continued friendship on Joe not only refraining from encouraging him to avoid alcohol and marijuana, but also that Joe start encouraging Kelly to continue using such substances?  What should Joe do?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

 

You bring up some very good points. Let's go to the scriptures to see what we have covenanted with God in regards to how we should treat our fellow members of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Mosiah 18:8-10
8 And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;
9 Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life
10 Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

First, we are asked to support one another in Christ. Second, we must continue to witness against those things that God commanded us not to do. Thus we can still show love, comfort, and help to bear one another's burdens without condoning all actions. I find the idea that we need to treat subgroups in the church differently both devisive and silly. We all could use an increase of love. We need to help all members come unto Christ by putting off the natural man.

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, filovirus said:

You bring up some very good points. Let's go to the scriptures to see what we have covenanted with God in regards to how we should treat our fellow members of the Church of Jesus Christ.

Mosiah 18:8-10
8 And it came to pass that he said unto them: Behold, here are the waters of Mormon (for thus were they called) and now, as ye are desirous to come into the fold of God, and to be called his people, and are willing to bear one another’s burdens, that they may be light;
9 Yea, and are willing to mourn with those that mourn; yea, and comfort those that stand in need of comfort, and to stand as witnesses of God at all times and in all things, and in all places that ye may be in, even until death, that ye may be redeemed of God, and be numbered with those of the first resurrection, that ye may have eternal life
10 Now I say unto you, if this be the desire of your hearts, what have you against being baptized in the name of the Lord, as a witness before him that ye have entered into a covenant with him, that ye will serve him and keep his commandments, that he may pour out his Spirit more abundantly upon you?

First, we are asked to support one another in Christ. Second, we must continue to witness against those things that God commanded us not to do. Thus we can still show love, comfort, and help to bear one another's burdens without condoning all actions. I find the idea that we need to treat subgroups in the church differently both devisive and silly. We all could use an increase of love. We need to help all members come unto Christ by putting off the natural man.

Sound counsel.  Thank you for it.

Thanks,

-Smac