Church Statement - LBGTQ concert - is this sincere?

[Johnnie Cake]

What many on this board seem to ignore is that the church is treating its hetro members differently then it is treating its LGBTQ members.  The result of this differentiation is toxic for LGBTQ youth which has led to a spike in suicides with these same youth...a concert will not fix this.

Until the church can offer a pathway to happiness on an equal basis for all of its members that embraces and celebrates families of all make ups and kinds and provides a marriage option for LGBTQ members (even if that option is just a recognition of same sex marriage as an approved option for LGBTQ members) ...this problem will not go away.

The church can talk all it wants on this macro level about how it supports concerts and values its youth...but lets not forget that as recently as a month ago...on the micro level the church is still excommunicating LGBTQ members for merely living honestly, living the law of chastity, remaining in a committed legal marriage...let us not forget the Stake President who was just excommunicated...her sin? Wearing a dress in public.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, Johnnie Cake said:

What many on this board seem to ignore is that the church is treating its hetro members differently then it is treating its LGBTQ members.  The result of this differentiation is toxic for LGBTQ youth which has led to a spike in suicides with these same youth...a concert will not fix this.

Until the church can offer a pathway to happiness on an equal basis for all of its members that embraces and celebrates families of all makes ups and kinds and provides a marriage option for LGBTQ members (even if that option is just a recognition of same sex marriage as an approved option for LGBTQ members ...this problem will not go away.

The church can talk all it wants on this macro level about how it supports concerts and values its youth...but lets not forget that as recently as a month ago...on the micro level the church is still excommunicating LGBTQ members for merely living honestly, living the law of chastity, remaining in a committed legal marriage...let us not forget the Stake President who was just excommunicated...her sin? Wearing a dress in public.

Given that the church sincerely believes they are doing what God commands, what do you want them to do?  What would make you and others happy, that would not be comprised of the church going against God (from their perspective)?

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

It seems like you're going to harp on this idea that I haven't clearly defined the mistreatment.  If I start to list all the examples, I predict that you will proceed to declare that these aren't technically mistreatments at all, but you'll have some other explanation for why mistreatment isn't the right word to describe what's happening and we could get into long semantics argument about the word mistreatment and take the thread down that road.  I really just don't want to go there with you.  

From reading through a bunch of your frantic replies to this entire thread, which is amazing to me that you'd jump right in and post such a flurry of responses in this way, seems like some kind of internet bot all the sudden tried to hijack the discussion (you aren't an internet bot are you?)   

If you are interested in discussing the merits/ethics of the treatment of LGBT individuals, that seems worthy of discussion, and I'll consider responding.  Otherwise, I find your tactics unworthy of dialogue.  

That you would characterize Smac97's well-reasoned arguments and rock-solid logic as "frantic replies" is extremely telling. 

Methinks your refusal to engage him is due more to your inability to rebut what he said than that his "tactics" are "unworthy of dialogue."

Edited August 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I have very mixed feeling regarding this press release.  I'm happy to see the church embrace this concert and that in and of itself will allow members of the church, having been given permission from the church, to show their support to attend and donate. Because we all know that if the church had not come out and made this statement, giving their permission, active believing members would not have felt that they could lend their support....yes they needed this permission. (which I find beyond bizarre but unfortunately true) But lets cut to the chase, this is a PR Stunt period and I'll explain why.  The only reason this concert is necessary is because of the environment that they, the church, have created in the first place in our culture.  The church is the one who has alienated and created a non-safe environment for the LGBTQ Youth.  It is the rhetoric of the church that is guilty of making LDS youth lose hope, self worth and loss of a fulfilling future and resort to suicide. it is the church that has fought against LGBTQ issues. It is their policies of exclusion, demoralization, failure of a path forward hopelessness and let's not forget he November policy and the message of further rejection of both these families and their children. It is this environment and failure on the part of the church to open up a  path way for a life of love and companionship. the churches solution is a life of loneness and celibacy...a choice that if offered to we heterosexuals would reject. 

Here's the problem as I see it...this quote taken from the press release is dishonest and disingenuous at the very least.  The LDS Church does not value families they value heterosexual families...they reject LGBTQ families...who do they think they are kidding with this statement?

Thanks Johnie, I wish I could give you a rep point, these comments are spot on.  I'm still shocked that so many people on this board seem oblivious to the harm being done on this topic.  

[Johnnie Cake]

4 minutes ago, bluebell said:

If the church was presenting a history on it's views of homosexuality, then I would agree with you.  When the church is releasing a statement like this, i think that point of view makes little sense.  It comes across as a lack or failure of perspective.

Think about the times on this board that you have posted from the perspective of trying to 'get along' with church members, or find common ground, or you focused on a more important cause than the differences you have with the church and it's members.  Now, imagine if every time you posted something like that, one of us came back with-

"Johnnycakes, you don't get to make this statement in a vacuum, you have a history of fighting against the church, it's policies and doctrines.... This PR stunt doesn't let you escape your posting history."

Would you be o.k. with that?  More importantly, would you think that was fair or reasonable? 

I wouldn't.  I think it would be unreasonable not to recognize that people can completely disagree with the doctrines and policies of the church and still be sincere if or when they express feelings of wanting to support or get along with the church and it's members to accomplish a greater good.

And I gave them credit for making the statement...but it doesn't go far enough and it won't fix the real issue that is leading to these suicides of LDS LGBTQ youth.  Do you not understand that the church IS the problem.  It is the institution that has created the no win toxic environment for LGBTQ youth. Do you not understand that by the church making all of these mixed signals they are only giving a false hope to these youth?  Until they disavow their hateful stance against a fulfilling pathway to a full life of family for these youth the problem will continue.

The church is speaking out of both sides of their mouth...with this press release they are sending out a message of "qualified" love and support and out of the other side of their mouth they continue to fight against the ONLY solution that leads to health, happiness and fulfillment in the lives of these LGBTQ youth.

And I'm sorry your argument of moral equivalence between my posting history and that of the churches history of fighting against the LGBTQ community might work here among your posting peers...but it does not excuse the church for its history and failure to embrace equality for all of its members.

[california boy]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Given that the church sincerely believes they are doing what God commands, what do you want them to do?  What would make you and others happy, that would not be comprised of the church going against God (from their perspective)?

Ponder how important and central marriage and family is to the Plan of Happiness  And think about whether some should be excluded from that plan simply because they are gay.  Look to God for an answer to that dilemma and realize that a vote by committee does not necessarlly represent the will of God. Whatever that answer is, they better be pretty darn well sure it is the will of God and not their own prejudice and belief.

[Johnnie Cake]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Given that the church sincerely believes they are doing what God commands, what do you want them to do?  What would make you and others happy, that would not be comprised of the church going against God (from their perspective)?

Their God needs to send a revelation like he did in 1978...but that won't happen until the societal pressure is great enough and the financial cost to the institution is great enough for them to act out of self preservation to make the necessary changes...the church has historically been 20-30 years behind societal changes and I suspect that with this issue it  will be no different...but it will happen.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Scott Lloyd]

14 hours ago, ALarson said:

Well, I expressed no "ideas" other than correctly posting the Law of Chastity.  And it matters "who said what to whom" because you were attributing words to me that I had not posted.

I'm truly done now (and you might want to try in the future to not assume "intended meaning" as you have here....just a suggestion).

What you did was post the law of chastity in the context of a false frame of reference. The term marriage in the law of chastity cannot apply to same sex relationships, because neither the Lord nor his church regards them in an ecclesiastical sense as marriage. 

Applying something to a false frame of reference is the very essence of what Bobbieaware characterized as twisting words and manipulating facts. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

The church "obsesses" over the sex part because that's what the church believes God has taught.

It's a simple as that.  

What has God told you about premarital sex?

When the church talks about marriage, I don't think they obsess with the sex part of marriage.  I think that the church sees marriage as much more than just sexual relations.  

I know this is going to shock you, but the most important thing about my relationship with my boyfriend is NOT the sex.  In fact that is way down the list of what is important in our relationship.  Who had though?  Someone who is gay whose relationship is more than just sex.  

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

Can you see where the first part of your statement "The boundaries are the same for both groups" and your last statement "homosexuals have much more difficult choices to make" are in contradiction?

The boundaries are not the same at all.  There is no chance for a homosexual to have a fulfilling same sex relationship in this life or in the eternities according to the teachings of the church.  Since this is core to their identity, and its not just about sexual activity, its about a relationship which includes non sexual intimacy that is also not condoned in the church these days, as evidenced by the BYU honor code or those recent statements leaked by one of the Apostles at a leadership conference that encouraged more manly influences and Bishops to pull people into their office when they see same sex affection happening in meetings.  

The whole sexual activity argument really doesn't fit for so many reasons.  

My first statement said it all.  Homosexual members and heterosexual members are expected to stay within the same boundaries, but what they get out of staying within those boundaries is different because of differences in romantic/sexual desires.

Same boundaries, different outcomes.  That's not a contradiction.

 

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

When the church talks about marriage, I don't think they obsess with the sex part of marriage.  I think that the church sees marriage as much more than just sexual relations.  

I know this is going to shock you, but the most important thing about my relationship with my boyfriend is NOT the sex.  In fact that is way down the list of what is important in our relationship.  Who had though?  Someone who is gay whose relationship is more than just sex.  

 

Why would you think that would shock me?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

Is it the church or society that is obsesing over sex?  The Lord has given us the Law of Chastity.  I can go a year in church without hearing about it.  It's hard to go 10 minutes of flipping the channels on TV without hearing about sex.  

It is the church's viewing of gay relationships as being one dimensional that really matters.  What the world thinks is irrelevant.

[bluebell]

12 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Their God needs to send a revelation like he did in 1978...but that won't happen until the societal pressure is great enough and the financial cost to the institution is great enough for them to act out of self preservation to make the necessary changes...the church has historically been 20-30 years behind societal changes and I suspect that with this issue it  will be no different...but it will happen.

This is a great example of the real problem and illustrates how unreasonable your perspective is.

There is no way for the church or it's members to make people like you happy, except agree with you.   Isn't that the definition of bigotry though?  Intolerance for opinions that disagree with your own?

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, california boy said:

Ponder how important and central marriage and family is to the Plan of Happiness  And think about whether some should be excluded from that plan simply because they are gay.  Look to God for an answer to that dilemma and realize that a vote by committee does not necessarlly represent the will of God. Whatever that answer is, they better be pretty darn well sure it is the will of God and not their own prejudice and belief.

Obviously.  I could say the exact same thing back to you and it would be equally as relevant and valid, right?  

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Why would you think that would shock me?

I am hoping it doesn't.  Yet the policies the church has outlined for BYU students does not even allow a gay person to hold hands.  The church does not even allow a gay person to go on a date.  

[california boy]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Obviously.  I could say the exact same thing back to you and it would be equally as relevant and valid, right?  

Except none of my actions excludes anyone from the Plan of Happiness.  This is where things get dangerous in my opinion. 

[bluebell]

22 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

And I gave them credit for making the statement...but it doesn't go far enough and it won't fix the real issue that is leading to these suicides of LDS LGBTQ youth.  Do you not understand that the church IS the problem.  It is the institution that has created the no win toxic environment for LGBTQ youth. Do you not understand that by the church making all of these mixed signals they are only giving a false hope to these youth?  Until they disavow their hateful stance against a fulfilling pathway to a full life of family for these youth the problem will continue.

The church is speaking out of both sides of their mouth...with this press release they are sending out a message of "qualified" love and support and out of the other side of their mouth they continue to fight against the ONLY solution that leads to health, happiness and fulfillment in the lives of these LGBTQ youth.

And I'm sorry your argument of moral equivalence between my posting history and that of the churches history of fighting against the LGBTQ community might work here among your posting peers...but it does not excuse the church for its history and failure to embrace equality for all of its members.

Can you give someone credit for making a statement and call it a PR stunt/talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time?  

But, it doesn't really matter since you've already said that the only outcome you will accept is everyone agreeing with you.  There's no point in continued discussion when that's the perspective of one of the participants.  

I'm personally very glad that the church is very willing to work with and support people as much as they can, for the greater good, even when those people don't agree with them.  That's why i appreciate the statement.  

 

 

[california boy]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

What you did was post the law of chastity in the context of a false frame of reference. The term marriage in the law of chastity cannot apply to same sex relationships, because neither the Lord nor his church regards them in an ecclesiastical sense as marriage. 

Applying something to a false frame of reference is the very essence of what Bobbieaware characterized as twisting words and manipulating facts. 

What he did was post the Law of Chastity without all the latter addemdums  that have since been added.  

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Thanks for these thoughts.  It sounds like you've thought through these issues quite a bit.  I wonder since you recognize that these identities aren't located on a binary, but you support the church sticking to the old binary way of viewing these concepts in light of new research and information to the contrary.  My question is why would the church want to essentially cut itself off from certain segments of society?  Its essentially going to do harm if it continues to view the spectrum of sexuality and gender in binary terms, because it will continue to cause rifts in families where these individuals are born.  Why are you comfortable with that kind of collateral damage?  Are you implying that there is greater risk for the church by shifting away from binary thinking and embracing those who identify outside those two polls?  

I do not understand your first question. Feasibly from the assumptions you're going with? I don't know what and who you're assuming the church is cutting itself off from in this questions. In an extremely generic sense there are several groups that the church insists on disassociating themselves with if not condemning (The first statement this week is a perfect example). There are also times that the church has distanced themselves in large or small scales (the pioneer trek to UT). And there are times that we affirm our points even if it contradicts general social consensus. They were for varying reasons, but mostly it was to build/structure the church in accordance with God...not necessarily the world. 

In the second, a mix of things. But I think it slims down to, I'm okay with pain and struggle, having a less binary view does not necessarily remove such pain, and that there are truth in what the church teaches about sexuality and gender. There is also a lot of cultural baggage surrounding it. But I think the core is still truth. Truth isn't always easy, it was never promised to create a sense of complete ease or comfort within society or our families. But it's still truth. All that said, I think there is a lot of assumptions in your statement/question to a point that it seems fairly loaded. For example, even if one does ascribe to a binary model doesn't mean one's family is destroyed....families just aren't that black and white (hehe...or binary ). In my own with a couple of my out cousins, you have a a large chunk that are very much conservative and "binary" in thought. But the children are never expected to vacate the family. One of my favorite cousins is lesbian. My activity in the chruch, her parents, or her sister's isn't somehow insisting on a major divide between us. The process with her parents and her, wasn't always the smoothest from what I can tell, but it never came close to tearing away the love they have and share. It may (and has) contributed to some rifts. But from what I've seen in the church's current messages and stories that they highlight, they are working hard for that to not be the case. 

I don't think I was talking about some obvious risk to the church. But I do think that if it adopts the general world view growing, it will lose key parts of the doctrine tied to eternal life. I believe the church will continue to evolve in its understanding of sexuality and gender. I believe that the changes will bring us that much closer to a zion people. I do not believe that what that looks like is what the world is currently ascribing as right.

 

With luv,

BD 

Edited August 17, 2017 by BlueDreams

[california boy]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Can you give someone credit for making a statement and call it a PR stunt/talking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time?  

But, it doesn't really matter since you've already said that the only outcome you will accept is everyone agreeing with you.  There's no point in continued discussion when that's the perspective of one of the participants.  

I'm personally very glad that the church is very willing to work with and support people as much as they can, for the greater good, even when those people don't agree with them.  That's why i appreciate the statement.  

 

 

I agree. It is a baby step, but never the less, a step.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Bluebell, the church doesn't get to make this statement in a vacuum. They have a history of fighting against LGBTQ issues and families...this PR stunt doesn't let them escape that history.

The Church is not making the statement in a vacuum. It is consistent with past expressions of compassion for those who deal with these issues even as it has upheld the doctrinal position that homosexual behavior is sinful. 

And your calling it a "PR stunt" speaks more to your own hostility and cynicism than it does to any intent in the part of the Church. 

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, california boy said:

I am hoping it doesn't.  Yet the policies the church has outlined for BYU students does not even allow a gay person to hold hands.  The church does not even allow a gay person to go on a date.  

It might be shocking for you to realize that the church and BYU are two different organizations.  

But, is it really a surprise that the church doesn't support homosexual dating.  The church's position is that dating is a stepping stone to marriage.  From the church's perspective, that's the whole reason dating exists.

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

Except none of my actions excludes anyone from the Plan of Happiness.  This is where things get dangerous in my opinion. 

Do you believe that God has standards that others must meet, once they know about them, or there are eternal consequences?

[Johnnie Cake]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is a great example of the real problem and illustrates how unreasonable your perspective is.

There is no way for the church or it's members to make people like you happy, except agree with you.   Isn't that the definition of bigotry though?  Intolerance for opinions that disagree with your own?

Bluebell, I respect you and your perceptive.  The church is in a tough spot of its own making...it is the one that has painted itself into a corner. But lets not gloss over the real problem here and who has created it.  The church has every right to be what it is.  it has every right to continue to  marginalize its LGBTQ youth and adult members and put them in second class status and continue not to provide them with a pathway to a fulfilled life on an equal status with its hetro members. The church can continue to fight against marriage equality on the one hand and issue PR press releases giving permission for its member to support a concert geared to supporting LGBTQ youth on the other. The church can continue to put lipstick on a pig and feel good about how wonderful and loving it is with their PR press releases.....and yes those efforts are relatively helpful since they give permission for members to be more compassionate and accepting...but underlying it all...is the fact that the church continues to be a toxic environment for its LGBTQ Youth by not allowing them to have the same pathway to happiness that you as a (I'm assuming) married woman enjoy. This is exactly where the church wants to be...it is a problem of its own making...it wants to speak out of both sides of its mouth. To send mixed messages. This isn't difficult and I'm surprised that you can't seem to see this.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, california boy said:

What he did was post the Law of Chastity without all the latter addemdums  that have since been added.  

This is ridiculous. There are no "latter addendums." The law of chastity has never allowed homosxual behavior. It was society that endeavored to redefine marriage, not the Church. 

He is playing games with frame of reference, and that should be obvious to any reasonable mind. 

Edited August 17, 2017 by Scott Lloyd