Human Rights Campaign handles LGBT outreach for the Church

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I was not dealing with them in any professional capacity, nor would I have any occasion to. I just happened to end up on their mailing list, probably because they spammed every news outlet or journalist they thought might have even remote relevance to what they were doing. As an individual and as a citizen, I am entitled to choose which political pressure groups I respect, which ones I don't, and which ones I wish would dissolve into oblivion. 

Add on: Note that the HRC head didn't even have the professionalism or diplomacy to use President Packer's correct title.

I hear active church members use the title of Elder for the FP counselors and the president of the Twelve all the time.  While it is correct to use the title of President, I don't find it disrespectful when someone refers to them as Elder (as the HRC did).

While I respect your right to wish that the HRC would "dissolve into oblivion" it seems that the HRC has taken the higher road in reaching out to LGBT Mormons and including pro-LDS options in their resources.

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

"This is not the first instance in which the church has spewed lies related to same-sex orientation"

Oh yeah, that is written to appeal for change.  I am certain this level of love and understanding from HRC just made the Church leadership eager to correct it.

http://www.hrc.org/press/hrc-to-mormon-apostle-your-statements-are-inaccurate-and-dangerous

And then when a partial change is made, instead of applauding it, they attack the Church for "rewriting history".

http://www.hrc.org/press/breaking-news-mormon-church-attempts-to-re-write-history-on-line-change-pro

Not impressed.

 

I know you feel that there are better ways to seek change, I'm just not convinced that the Church is all that responsive to them.

And it won't surprise you at all, but I agree with the HRC on both counts.

[kllindley]

17 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Wendy and Tom Montgomery, the same couple recently featured on LDS.org, discuss their Faith along with their welcoming their gay son, Jordan. 

I thought it was the Mackintosh family on LDS.org. I find it a significant difference because the the Montgomerys believe the church is wrong, while the Mackintosh family believe the official position on same-sex attraction and choose to love and and accept their son. He in turn respects the Church even though he has left it. 

17 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

"At the same time, the LGBTQ faithful are often misunderstood by the larger LGBTQ community, which struggles to recognize the benefits of remaining in an unwelcoming church. This short booklet delves into the complexities of this very issue, seeking clarity on church policies that exclude LGBTQ members and their families."

While I appreciate the acknowledgement that the later LGBT community mistreats LDS LGBT, there is a lot of loaded language here, and throughout the booklet. For example, they state without explanation or caveat that the church is unwelcoming. And they state that policies exclude LGBT members and their families. This is fundamentally not true. The policies do exclude certain LGBT individuals and some of their families. 

 

17 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

To me, that's impressive, given both the Church's and NorthStar's stance diametrically contradicts the HRC's views. 

I also was very surprised to see a reference to North Star. Overall, I disagree that the pamphlet is or makes any real effort to be balanced. It's definitely skewed toward the HRC's agenda.  I kinda think that to be balanced there would have been some content from individuals associated with North Star, or scholars who support the church.  There might also be some representation of the B. 😉 

At the same time, I admit the tone was not antagonistic and the inclusion of North Star was not expected.  

If I'm honest, I genuinely believe this was not an attempt to be respectful or conciliatory. It seems like it was meant to make the message seem less offensive to believing members while gently, if not especially subtly, pushing their own agenda, which is as you point out, is diametrically opposed to the church. 

[rockpond]

51 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I thought it was the Mackintosh family on LDS.org. I find it a significant difference because the the Montgomerys believe the church is wrong, while the Mackintosh family believe the official position on same-sex attraction and choose to love and and accept their son. He in turn respects the Church even though he has left it. 

While I appreciate the acknowledgement that the later LGBT community mistreats LDS LGBT, there is a lot of loaded language here, and throughout the booklet. For example, they state without explanation or caveat that the church is unwelcoming. And they state that policies exclude LGBT members and their families. This is fundamentally not true. The policies do exclude certain LGBT individuals and some of their families. 

 

I also was very surprised to see a reference to North Star. Overall, I disagree that the pamphlet is or makes any real effort to be balanced. It's definitely skewed toward the HRC's agenda.  I kinda think that to be balanced there would have been some content from individuals associated with North Star, or scholars who support the church.  There might also be some representation of the B. 😉 

At the same time, I admit the tone was not antagonistic and the inclusion of North Star was not expected.  

If I'm honest, I genuinely believe this was not an attempt to be respectful or conciliatory. It seems like it was meant to make the message seem less offensive to believing members while gently, if not especially subtly, pushing their own agenda, which is as you point out, is diametrically opposed to the church. 

Is it "diametrically opposed to the church"?  Isn't it the position of the Church that if you are gay and going to enter into a committed relationship with someone of the same gender, that this church isn't really the place for you?

Edited April 13, 2017 by rockpond

[Daniel2]

10 hours ago, kllindley said:

I thought it was the Mackintosh family on LDS.org. I find it a significant difference because the the Montgomerys believe the church is wrong, while the Mackintosh family believe the official position on same-sex attraction and choose to love and and accept their son. He in turn respects the Church even though he has left it. 

Good catch.  I have seen and remembered both the Mackintosh's and the Montgomery's stories played out on my social media feed, and mistakenly confused the two without checking LDS.org.  Thanks for the correction.  And I agree that your characterization of the two families is accurate (even if I would have said "while the Mackintosh family believe the official position of the church on homosexuality."  )

Edited April 14, 2017 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

9 hours ago, rockpond said:

Is it "diametrically opposed to the church"?  Isn't it the position of the Church that if you are gay and going to enter into a committed relationship with someone of the same gender, that this church isn't really the place for you?

That's a good observation and seems like it's accurate, rockpond.

[Scott Lloyd]

18 hours ago, rockpond said:

I know you feel that there are better ways to seek change, I'm just not convinced that the Church is all that responsive to them.

And it won't surprise you at all, but I agree with the HRC on both counts.

So you assent to the HRC's public abuse and vilification of President Packer and, at the same time, you expect us to look to them as a guide for "outreach to LGBTQ persons and their families"? Not gonna happen where I'm concerned.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

19 hours ago, rockpond said:

I hear active church members use the title of Elder for the FP counselors and the president of the Twelve all the time.  While it is correct to use the title of President, I don't find it disrespectful when someone refers to them as Elder (as the HRC did).

 

This is not a major point, and I hesitate to carry forward an argument about it. But I suspect the "active Church members" to whom you refer are not professional CEO's who head up pressure groups engaged in putting out news releases to media outlets that they expect those outlets to quote.

It is not a difficult thing when writing about someone to ascertain and use his correct title; I do it all the time. And it's not too much to expect that, when you are publicly lambasting a high-level leader of a Church that you be accurate in using his correct ecclesiastical title. It's a simple matter of courtesy and civility. And, as I said before, professionalism.

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

17 hours ago, rockpond said:

Is it "diametrically opposed to the church"?  Isn't it the position of the Church that if you are gay and going to enter into a committed relationship with someone of the same gender, that this church isn't really the place for you?

 

8 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

That's a good observation and seems like it's accurate, rockpond.

It's not accurate.

The Church of Jesus Christ reaches out to and welcomes all people while expecting and encouraging them to conform their lives to the behavior required of all members. Even those who will not are welcomed at worship services and Church members are expected to treat them warmly and cordially.

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

59 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

 

It's not accurate.

The Church of Jesus Christ reaches out to and welcomes all people while expecting and encouraging them to conform their lives to the behavior required of all members. Even those who will not are welcomed at worship services and Church members are expected to treat them warmly and cordially.

 

This is so laughable that I can hardly believe you could write something with a straight face.  You have expressed offense that the HRC used the wrong title for President Packard, yet you think that the church treats gay couples and their families with respect by calling them apostates and not allowing their children to be baptized.  Gays should feel welcome in a church that fought and continues to fight against their civil rights?  Unbelievable.   In what universe do you think the church has welcomed gay couples and  their families into the church.  If the church called every person who did not conform their lives to the behavior required of all members apostates and refuse to baptize their children, how many others would feel like they were treated warmly and cordially?

 

You seriously have a warped view on how the church treats gays, while at the same time feeling slighted because HRC used the title Elder instead of President.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

This is so laughable that I can hardly believe you could write something with a straight face.  You have expressed offense that the HRC used the wrong title for President Packard, yet you think that the church treats gay couples and their families with respect by calling them apostates and not allowing their children to be baptized.  Gays should feel welcome in a church that fought and continues to fight against their civil rights?  Unbelievable.   In what universe do you think the church has welcomed gay couples and  their families into the church.  If the church called every person who did not conform their lives to the behavior required of all members apostates and refuse to baptize their children, how many others would feel like they were treated warmly and cordially?

 

You seriously have a warped view on how the church treats gays, while at the same time feeling slighted because HRC used the title Elder instead of President.  

I said the gaffe in the title used was not a major point with me, not one that I want to continue arguing about. I've made my point, and I'll let it stand without further elaboration.

My main problem with HRC is the public abuse and attempted humiliation of a venerable and beloved Church leader. And now rockpond (and apparently you) want us to look to HRC for guidelines in our relationships with others? Too much audacity for me to tolerate.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I said the gaffe in the title used was not a major point with me, not one that I want to continue arguing about. I've made my point, and I'll let it stand without further elaboration.

My main problem with HRC is the public abuse and attempted humiliation of a venerable and beloved Church leader. And now rockpond (and apparently you) want us to look to HRC for guidelines in our relationships with others? Too much audacity for me to tolerate.

I'm guessing President Packer has forgiven and forgotten, Scott.  Probably time for you to do the same.  We really should be adept at working with people and groups in this world and not prone to hold many year's long grudges because of perceived slights. 

In my mind this is a huge step forward. 

Edited April 14, 2017 by stemelbow

[Scott Lloyd]

27 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I'm guessing President Packer has forgiven and forgotten, Scott.  Probably time for you to do the same.  We really should be adept at working with people and groups in this world and not prone to hold many year's long grudges because of perceived slights. 

In my mind this is a huge step forward. 

You make your individual determination as to what entities you will trust; allow me to make mine.

I think I have good reason, for example, not to trust ISIS or the American Nazi Party or the Ku Klux Klan or the Westboro Baptist Church.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You make your individual determination as to what entities you will trust; allow me to make mine.

I am.  I would just caution repentance at times.  Feel free to disregard if you feel justified. 

[stemelbow]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You make your individual determination as to what entities you will trust; allow me to make mine.

I think I have good reason, for example, not to trust ISIS or the American Nazi Party or the Ku Klux Klan or the Westboro Baptist Church.

HRC is not akin to any of those, Scott.  And you know it.  It an org with many members.  It grows evolves and moves on.  I'd say time for you to do that same, but again, if you don't want to, be my guest. 

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

So you assent to the HRC's public abuse and vilification of President Packer and, at the same time, you expect us to look to them as a guide for "outreach to LGBTQ persons and their families"? Not gonna happen where I'm concerned.

 

No, I don't believe that what they did was "public abuse and vilification".

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

No, I don't believe that what they did was "public abuse and vilification".

Gotta say that's quite a convenient double standard. 

[rockpond]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is not a major point, and I hesitate to carry forward an argument about it. But I suspect the "active Church members" to whom you refer are not professional CEO's who head up pressure groups engaged in putting out news releases to media outlets that they expect those outlets to quote.

It is not a difficult thing when writing about someone to ascertain and use his correct title; I do it all the time. And it's not too much to expect that, when you are publicly lambasting a high-level leader of a Church that you be accurate in using his correct ecclesiastical title. It's a simple matter of courtesy and civility. And, as I said before, professionalism.

 

Fascinating that you can be so critical of the HRC for using the important and respected title of "Elder" for President Packer when you've stated repeatedly that you feel it is appropriate to use the term "SSA" to describe gay people when gay people have told you that it is offensive to them.  Seems like a double-standard.  But then again, you just put the Human Rights Campaign in a list of groups that includes ISIS and the KKK.

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Gotta say that's quite a convenient double standard. 

How is it a double standard?

[kllindley]

7 minutes ago, rockpond said:

But then again, you just put the Human Rights Campaign in a list of groups that includes ISIS and the KKK.

I might not go that far, though I really don't think he was comparing them in severity, but as untrustworthy groups. In that I fully agree. The HRC has a long history of engaging in bullying campaigns against those they disagree with. If it was just a few individuals, I wouldn't worry, but it's at an official level. 

 

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

How is it a double standard?

President Packer saying that children of God are not powerless to overcome urges contrary to the plan of salvation is abusive and cruel, but calling that comment spewing lies, blaming him for suicide, accusing him of ignoring "science," and celebrating his death is just appropriate advocacy. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

I might not go that far, though I really don't think he was comparing them in severity, but as untrustworthy groups. In that I fully agree. The HRC has a long history of engaging in bullying campaigns against those they disagree with. If it was just a few individuals, I wouldn't worry, but it's at an official level. 

 

President Packer saying that children of God are not powerless to overcome urges contrary to the plan of salvation is abusive and cruel, but calling that comment spewing lies, blaming him for suicide, accusing him of ignoring "science," and celebrating his death is just appropriate advocacy. 

kllindley correctly grasps my meaning. I wasn't equating the groups in terms of severity*. I was using them as examples of groups that, like the HRC, I see no good reason to trust or respect.

And what President Packer said, even if one views it as inherently offensive, which I don't, is not even in the same ballpark as what the HRC has done. The very notion is absurd.

 

*Edited to add: I will own up to one thing though: I would not be more delighted to hear that the American Nazi Party had ceased to exist than I would be to hear that the HRC had vanished.

 

Edited April 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

19 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I might not go that far, though I really don't think he was comparing them in severity, but as untrustworthy groups. In that I fully agree. The HRC has a long history of engaging in bullying campaigns against those they disagree with. If it was just a few individuals, I wouldn't worry, but it's at an official level. 

 

President Packer saying that children of God are not powerless to overcome urges contrary to the plan of salvation is abusive and cruel, but calling that comment spewing lies, blaming him for suicide, accusing him of ignoring "science," and celebrating his death is just appropriate advocacy. 

They celebrated his death?

[stemelbow]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

kllindley correctly grasps my meaning. I wasn't equating the groups in terms of severity. I was using them as examples of groups that, like the HRC, I see no good reason to trust or respect.

And what President Packer said, even if one views it as inherently offensive, which I don't, is not even in the same ballpark as what the HRC has done. The very notion is absurd.

 

Woe, Scott.  I hate to beat a dead horse, but it's odd that you would compare HRC to these other extreme examples to make your point, but then object when people make comparisons between President Packer's and the HRC's on the grounds that the severity isn't comparable.  As for me, I'm not seeing any possible comparison in the context you used these other orgs and HRC or how some mockery from years ago suggests you can't trust them for something else.  Ah well...My advice is unwanted, I realize.  Have fun. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I am.  I would just caution repentance at times.  Feel free to disregard if you feel justified. 

Oh, I feel very justified. Thanks for asking.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

HRC is not akin to any of those, Scott.  And you know it.  It an org with many members.  It grows evolves and moves on.  I'd say time for you to do that same, but again, if you don't want to, be my guest. 

I would very much like for it to "grow and evolve" out of existence with its "many members" repudiating it or at least losing interest in it.

Probably won't happen any time soon, but I can dream, can't I?