Church Statement - LBGTQ concert - is this sincere?

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

And then this statement about LGBTQ's getting support and this concert having their backing. The elephant that anyone who is gay and acting on it and married, cannot be members nor their children. It contradicts, and only seems like a move to not get a bad rep. 

I'm going to the Love Loud concert and glad I talked my husband into it. Mainly to support Encircle and their ability to keep gay children off the street and keep at bay any of them from wanting to take their lives. 

I'm quite surprised that the church is backing this concert in light of Neon Tree's Tyler Glenn and his music video pretty much slamming the church's November policy, temple signs, and Joseph Smith. The lead singer of Imagine Dragons also made a statement in a video which took a big jab at the church and it's policy about gays. And one of the performers is a bit on the racy side with Krewella, her videos have the F-word throughout. So it just seems odd to me that "the church" is backing this. Can't they just back gays and not ride this bandwagon? But if they are sincere, then awesome!

When we tout Mormons who become celebrities, we must own their fallout. Morality dictated by Mormon pop culture. Interesting.

Edited August 16, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[ksfisher]

Just now, hope_for_things said:

Its so clearly mistreatment that I'm going to start with that as the baseline for a discussion.  Now, someone can claim that the mistreatment is justified by God, that is one angle of argument and I believe that is the one Amulek was proposing.  Another angle is denial that the mistreatment is even mistreatment, that is a form of gaslighting in my mind, and I'm not really very tolerant of that kind of thing as I don't find it "dialoguing in good faith".  

Another angle that we could discuss is whether this mistreatment has some higher purpose, perhaps God wants to mistreat this segment of society because God knows they will learn something from that mistreatment that will be of value to them at some point in the future.  I'm not sure I buy this argument, but I'm open to discussing it.  

You're setting up a false dilemma here.  The Law of Chasity defines sexual relations as only appropriate between a husband and wife.  Anything outside of this is sin.  By calling it mistreatment you are asking members of the church to defend a position that you are manufacturing in order to further your beliefs.

Saying that it is God that is mistreating a certain segment of society is again setting up a false dilemma. 

[hope_for_things]

17 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believe that God, through His prophets, has given commandments to His children here on earth.  We believe that one of those commandments, the Law of Chastity, defines sexual relations as only appropriate between a man and a woman, legally and lawfully wedded.  Your use of pejorative terms in framing that current discussion detracts from the dialogue. 

It sounds like you were side tracked by the "pejorative terms" I used (personally I don't think they were pejorative), and in essence you really agree with what I originally stated.  You believe its not mistreatment, because you believe God commanded the policies, so it can't be mistreatment because God can't command mistreatment, therefore its not mistreatment.  

[CV75]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree that this is human nature and a reasonable explanation for how people operate.  But is this truly "good faith".  From the perspective of the individual, it may seem like it, but isn't this more of a self deception.  This is partly why I think we need to constantly be re-evaluating our positions and beliefs, so we can progress and grow.  

Rationalization isn't good faith, as good faith is not a rational process. People rationalize, as you seem to have done in critiquing the Church policy as mistreatment and finding contradictions between the Church's linked statement and the policy, but that said, you can still act in good faith. How do you go about doing that? And I asked you first

Edited August 16, 2017 by CV75

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I'm quite surprised that the church is backing this concert in light of Neon Tree's Tyler Glenn and his music video pretty much slamming the church's November policy, temple signs, and Joseph Smith. The lead singer of Imagine Dragons also made a statement in a video which took a big jab at the church and it's policy about gays. And one of the performers is a bit on the racy side with Krewella, her videos have the F-word throughout. So it just seems odd to me that "the church" is backing this. 

I agree and was surprised to see that Tyler Glenn would be performing at this concert.  I admit that it give me hope to see the church issuing a statement supporting the event.  

[Amulek]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Does singling out a specific "sin" as the church defines it, for a very special kind of mistreatment, qualify as mistreating? 

Different treatment isn’t the same as mistreatment. I understand many are upset that the church has instituted policies which they personally disfavor, but that doesn’t mean the church is mistreating anyone.

 

Quote

What if everyone who's kids didn't pay a full tithe had to wait until they were 18 and then disavow their parents in order to be baptized.  

Nobody has to “disavow their parents” in order to be baptized. That is antithetical to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I suspect you know this.

 

[Bernard Gui]

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would argue that the church has been more inconsistent on this subject than just about any other.  Its a wonderful example of inconsistency.  If you can't see that, I'm not sure we have a lot of common ground to build on.  Even many defenders of the church's LGBT policies and positions that I've spoken with are able to see the inconsistencies over the past few decades, its been all over the map.  If you can't see that, and the evidence is so clear in my mind, I'm not sure we can have a constructive dialogue as you asked for earlier.  

I don't think it's fair or accurate to lay all this supposed "inconsistency" at the feet of the Church. We navigate through a broader culture that has been wrestling with the difficult issues of the sexual revolution since the 60s. Just one example.....note the numbers of prominent entertainers, academics, media folks, politicians who rapidly switched sides on ssm once it started to gain popular traction. Some at Tesla acceleration speeds. (Not seeking to derail to yet another pointless debate on ssm, just using it as an example of the fluidity of our current moral and legal culture.) We are sailing in treacherous unchartered waters as a culture and the Church is caught up in the wake.

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Different treatment isn’t the same as mistreatment. I understand many are upset that the church has instituted policies which they personally disfavor, but that doesn’t mean the church is mistreating anyone.

 

Nobody has to “disavow their parents” in order to be baptized. That is antithetical to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I suspect you know this.

 

Perhaps it would be helpful to have the actual policy laid out here rather than relying on Hope's misconstrued version of that policy as a basic for discussion.  From Handbook 1:

16.13 Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing.

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows:

A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

 

1. The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.

 

2.  The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.

 

[Kenngo1969]

30 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Its so clearly mistreatment that I'm going to start with that as the baseline for a discussion.  ...

OK.  I will not be responding to you further.

[hope_for_things]

37 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

"The Church" has one sole responsibility, that is to teach and preach the lessons and doctrines of scripture. It is not required to act as a "social experiment", and be "tossed to and fro by every wind and doctrine". They as a (and we as a) Church of Jesus Christ, must decry the mistreatment of others, but is not required to condone behavior expressly forbidden in scripture. This carries with it, the calling of, teaching the truths of Jesus Christ and to call all unto him. Every public announcement, causes anger, doubt, or as you put it "hypocritical", and to those who share Church policies, "properly measured comments". 

The most important part of any comments to the media, is there are those who will embrace it, and others who will seek to pick apart  every word, that "proceeds out of the mouth of Church leadership". Other than those who are believers, the only comment that would be received by the world, would be..."hey we are all liars and frauds and we are shutting down operations tomorrow". Even then many would step forward and say; "You should have done it sooner". In the court of public opinion, nothing said would or will ever be good enough. So to those who seem harmed at every comment, just stop reading or listening, you have passed judgement, we are guilty, simply remove the stress from your lives. So fly, be free, just let go and search for what might bring you happiness. You own it to yourself and your families to find peace at last. I truly mean this, it is painful to see others whose only belief system, is not believing at all, and being angry at those who do. If those who cannot believe anymore want converts, first find something to believe in, and then find converts. Be happy, it is impossible to find joy in just opposing others, it can only be found in serving others. 

Papa,

You sound sincere, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that.  I do agree with you on some things in the above.  I agree the church ought to teach the gospel, and should stand strong for core principles and the teachings of Jesus.  We probably just disagree about what those core teachings are in some aspects.  

I'm not trying to be angry at believers.  I'm a believer too, but my beliefs might be different than yours on many fronts, I think we probably have more in common than you'd expect.  

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

When we tout Mormons who become celebrities, we must own their fallout. Morality dictated by Mormon pop culture. Interesting.

Just curious, but are you frustrated by the church's statement of support for the concert that these celebrities are sponsoring?   

[HappyJackWagon]

I'll just note that this "church statement" can only be found as a quotation in the DN article. There is no statement on the Mormon Newsroom.

So now we are required to believe the DN who quotes the Church PR dept. which works under the guidance of the 12, which works under the guidance of the First Presidency, which works under the guidance of the prophet, who relates to us the will of God. That chain is getting mighty long in deed.

[Okrahomer]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

I'll just note that this "church statement" can only be found as a quotation in the DN article. There is no statement on the Mormon Newsroom.

So now we are required to believe the DN who quotes the Church PR dept. which works under the guidance of the 12, which works under the guidance of the First Presidency, which works under the guidance of the prophet, who relates to us the will of God. That chain is getting mighty long in deed.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-love-loud-festival

[hope_for_things]

34 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

You're setting up a false dilemma here.  The Law of Chasity defines sexual relations as only appropriate between a husband and wife.  Anything outside of this is sin.  By calling it mistreatment you are asking members of the church to defend a position that you are manufacturing in order to further your beliefs.

Saying that it is God that is mistreating a certain segment of society is again setting up a false dilemma. 

The church created punitive policies to treat the children of LGBT individuals differently than other children.  I call that mistreatment.  You are arguing the same position over and over in your responses.  You're saying its not mistreatment, because its God's law.  You're essentially just justifying the mistreatment.  You can't change the meaning of the word mistreatment.  You can say that God sanctioned or authorized or commanded it if you want.  Its still mistreatment.  

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, Okrahomer said:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-statement-love-loud-festival

awesome. Thanks. It wasn't there 30 minutes ago.

 

[ALarson]

39 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

When we tout Mormons who become celebrities, we must own their fallout. Morality dictated by Mormon pop culture. Interesting.

How do you feel about the church supporting a concert that is to include a performance by Tyler Glenn?

[thesometimesaint]

It is not mistreatment to disagree with someone. I doubt the Savior was telling the woman taken in adultery to go thy way, and sin some more. Even as he condemned those that would stone her to death.

[hope_for_things]

38 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Rationalization isn't good faith, as good faith is not a rational process. People rationalize, as you seem to have done in critiquing the Church policy as mistreatment and finding contradictions between the Church's linked statement and the policy, but that said, you can still act in good faith. How do you go about doing that? And I asked you first

Oh, I didn't understand you originally, thanks for clarifying.  If you define good faith as a form of trust, and that is how I define it, but let me know if you think of this differently.  Then I think I'm showing "good faith" to God with my pointing out the church's duplicity on this issue.

I believe we should learn to exercise faith in God first, institutions and humans second, and we should prioritize and scrutinize our motives, biases and preconceived notions on all issues on a regular basis.  I don't believe if we get too confident about our ideas that we are in danger of pride, and I feel called to continue to re-evaluate as a principle of humility and in an effort to receive inspiration.  

[ALarson]

Here is a statement from Dan Reynolds who organized the event:

Quote

 

Reynolds himself is Mormon, a religion that teaches, as he puts it, "if you are gay and acting upon it, that is sinful."

"That is a very dangerous and hurtful and hateful thing to preach and to teach our children," says Reynolds. "To be gay is beautiful and right and perfect; to tell someone they need to change their inner-most being is setting up someone for an unhealthy life and unhealthy foundation."

"I believe in Mormons and I believe in people in orthodox religion and I believe they have good hearts," he continues. "But I believe we all can be educated on the matter to create positive change. This is about awareness more than anything."

http://wifc.com/news/articles/2017/jun/26/imagine-dragons-dan-reynolds-plans-benefit-show-in-support-of-lgbtq-youth/

 

I find it remarkable that the church is supporting this and a very positive thing.

Edited August 16, 2017 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

28 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Different treatment isn’t the same as mistreatment. I understand many are upset that the church has instituted policies which they personally disfavor, but that doesn’t mean the church is mistreating anyone.

Different treatment can absolutely be mistreatment.  This sounds awfully close to the old "separate but equal" arguments from our racist American history.  

30 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Nobody has to “disavow their parents” in order to be baptized. That is antithetical to the gospel of Jesus Christ. I suspect you know this.

I don't have access to the handbook, but I'm pretty sure it used the word "disavow" with respect to qualifying for baptism at age 18 for the children of LGBT parents.  Maybe someone can help me out here as I couldn't find the language of the policy specifically quoted on any of the many articles on this subject. 

I do agree with you that this is antithetical to the gospel though, at least we agree on that.  

[Amulek]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

The church created punitive policies to treat the children of LGBT individuals differently than other children. 

Well, except for the children of polygamists of course. Good thing they don't count. 

[hope_for_things]

34 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

I don't think it's fair or accurate to lay all this supposed "inconsistency" at the feet of the Church. We navigate through a broader culture that has been wrestling with the difficult issues of the sexual revolution since the 60s. Just one example.....note the numbers of prominent entertainers, academics, media folks, politicians who rapidly switched sides on ssm once it started to gain popular traction. Some at Tesla acceleration speeds. (Not seeking to derail to yet another pointless debate on ssm, just using it as an example of the fluidity of our current moral and legal culture.) We are sailing in treacherous unchartered waters as a culture and the Church is caught up in the wake.

 

I agree that the culture has experienced massive changes and inconsistencies as well, and that the church is just one participant in this wider culture.  I think there is some blame to go around to lots of institutions, but the church in particular chose to wade deeper into this culture war than they have chosen on many other fronts.  I think there is plenty of blame to point at the church for their handling of LGBT issues.  

[Amulek]

2 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Different treatment can absolutely be mistreatment.  

It can be; doesn't mean it must be. And I don't think it is in the situation we are discussing.

 

[hope_for_things]

30 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Perhaps it would be helpful to have the actual policy laid out here rather than relying on Hope's misconstrued version of that policy as a basic for discussion.  From Handbook 1:

16.13 Children of a Parent Living in a Same-Gender Relationship

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing.

A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may be baptized and confirmed, ordained, or recommended for missionary service only as follows:

A mission president or a stake president may request approval from the Office of the First Presidency to baptize and confirm, ordain, or recommend missionary service for a child of a parent who has lived or is living in a same-gender relationship when he is satisfied by personal interviews that both of the following requirements are met:

1. The child accepts and is committed to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage.

2.  The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage.

Thanks for posting, I couldn't find it when I looked online. 

I think the original language was a little less kind, and they backed away from that after the initial fire storm about the policy.  It still says to disavow the practice of cohabitation and marriage.  Thats still pretty harsh mistreatment in my book.  

Imagine for a moment that you were joining another religion and one of the conditions for your joining that religion would be to disavow your parents marriage.  In practice, I'm not sure what that even means, but think about if that new religion asked you to disavow your parents marriage.  Would you do it?  

[hope_for_things]

Nevermind, already answered.  

Edited August 16, 2017 by hope_for_things