New HBO News Segment focuses on LGBT issues, touches on Monson, Priesthood

[Daniel2]

While it’s content offers little or nothing that will strike most here as anything new, it’s worth noting anything like this that appears in the mainstream media.... I imagine it’s content WILL be new(s) to many of its non-LDS viewers, so it’s worth taking note if nothing else to stay informed as to what members of other Faiths (or of no Faith at all) are hearing about Mormonism. 

 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Daniel2

[Guest]

Watched it, I believe that John Dehlin is wrong about his prediction. It is not just an issue of marriage, it is also about lifestyles and behaviors before marriage. Be it in my family, or a number of friends, homosexuality is a lifestyle that can only be explored through, conquests and sexual encounters. A very close friend of mine who once served in our Bishopric, who was married to a wife for 25+ years, and had five children, said...that living the law of chastity before marriage is just not an option. After he came out, and left the Church, he explained to me that men especially, only find companions through sexual encounters, not just dating, as many young people do, who wish to marry in the Temple. This is not my opinion, it is my experience, with my own child and many friends.    

[rockpond]

59 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Watched it, I believe that John Dehlin is wrong about his prediction. It is not just an issue of marriage, it is also about lifestyles and behaviors before marriage. Be it in my family, or a number of friends, homosexuality is a lifestyle that can only be explored through, conquests and sexual encounters. A very close friend of mine who once served in our Bishopric, who was married to a wife for 25+ years, and had five children, said...that living the law of chastity before marriage is just not an option. After he came out, and left the Church, he explained to me that men especially, only find companions through sexual encounters, not just dating, as many young people do, who wish to marry in the Temple. This is not my opinion, it is my experience, with my own child and many friends.    

There are many stories of other gay men that would counter your friend’s opinion/experience.

[kiwi57]

Sometimes it seems like some people feel the whole forum is completely pointless if there aren't at least four gay-themed threads on the first page.

Startling as it may seem to you, Daniel, there really are other things to talk about.

Especially in connection with President Monson's ministry.

Perhaps you didn't intend to exploit his death quite as opportunistically as it looks, but I find this personally offensive.

[Calm]

He didn't time the HBO video, it makes sense to post about it when it appears just like it makes sense to point out the NYTimes obit and then analyze that for accuracy and appropriateness.  We need to be educated or at least aware of what is out there if we are interested in defending leaders ' deserved good names as well as the Church.

Some of the obvious more extreme desperate screams for attention or to smear can safely be ignored,  I hope, because they won't gain traction.  This is mainstream and likely will. 

Edited January 5, 2018 by Calm

[Daniel2]

6 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Sometimes it seems like some people feel the whole forum is completely pointless if there aren't at least four gay-themed threads on the first page.

Startling as it may seem to you, Daniel, there really are other things to talk about.

Especially in connection with President Monson's ministry.

Perhaps you didn't intend to exploit his death quite as opportunistically as it looks, but I find this personally offensive.

Hi, Kiwi,

I've posted here at MD&D (and in it's previous incarnation, FAIR) for over 15 years.  I began posting as a devout member of the LDS Faith on a variety of LDS topics in defense of the Faith.  I loved many aspects of the Faith that has defined my family for many generations, as well as my own childhood, youth, and young adult hood for decades.  And I still do.

As my beliefs shifted due to a variety of factors, I began posting less and less on other topics, because I felt no desire to undermine other active members' beliefs, even ones I no longer share (church history, polygamy, priesthood bans, The Book of Abraham, etc.).  So long as any/all of those beliefs don't impede upon or interfere with my own, others' holding to and advocacy in support of those beliefs are no skin off my nose.  In fact, I often believe it's damaging to try to dissuade others from beliefs that provide value, structure, and meaning in their lives, and so long as religion serves as a force for good, I have no interest in negatively commenting thereon.

It's true that these days, despite some side commentaries that I try to focus on individuals I've come to appreciate and value or topics I find uplifting and affirming to all of us, the majority of my time and energy is focused on LDS/LGBT issues. 

That is because that intersection is what causes the most friction in MY life, among MY devout LDS family members still struggling with acceptance of my husband's and my family (and children and grandchildren), and within MY local predominantly-LDS Utah-based neighborhood.  As such, it makes perfect sense to me that I continue to focus on increasing understanding surrounding the central issue that causes conflict between Mormonism and my life.  While I was perfectly content to leave Mormonism alone, Mormonism won't due the same to me--at least, insofar as Mormonism informs and defines the rejecting/restricting/withholding/discriminatory behaviors that continue to be demonstrated by and often advocated for my LDS family, friends, community members, and even politicians.

That being said, I am saddened to see your hyperbolic insinuation that I "seem to feel the whole forum is completely pointless if there aren't at least four gay-themed threads on the first page."  Trust me--there's NO ONE more than I that wishes that my sexual orientation or the gender of my spouse simply wouldn't be an issue; here, in my family members' homes, in schools, at work, at church, or anywhere else.  I'd much rather our family be valued by the content and character of our relationship, and not on the nature of our genitals or status of our (in)fertility.  But that time has not yet come. 

Even so, I think you'll find that the amount of times I start threads on the subject is actually very few and far between, and, as Calm has pointed out, is a matter of timely reporting on current events, and not born out of some implied desire to fail to see any worth if there aren't "four gay-themed threads on the first page."  If you find them disturbing whenever you see a mere thread on a message board, imagine how some of us might feel when we deal on a daily basis with dirty and judgmental looks or comments merely because we hold hands in public, or have learned to develop a thick skin when our families continue to object to our presence at family meals, get-togethers, and holiday, or in the frequent news items about re-enforcing LGBT discrimination in the name of religious freedom, etc. 

The good news for you is you can simply overlook such threads and avoid them, if you wish. 

Best to you,

D

Edited January 5, 2018 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

10 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Watched it, I believe that John Dehlin is wrong about his prediction. It is not just an issue of marriage, it is also about lifestyles and behaviors before marriage. Be it in my family, or a number of friends, homosexuality is a lifestyle that can only be explored through, conquests and sexual encounters. A very close friend of mine who once served in our Bishopric, who was married to a wife for 25+ years, and had five children, said...that living the law of chastity before marriage is just not an option. After he came out, and left the Church, he explained to me that men especially, only find companions through sexual encounters, not just dating, as many young people do, who wish to marry in the Temple. This is not my opinion, it is my experience, with my own child and many friends.    

Hi, PaPa,

I hope you are doing well and your health is improving!

If you mean to suggest that many gay couples have sex before entering into a serious relationship, such as marriage... well, yes, that's likely true, just as it is of many straight couples.  Given that marriage itself has only become an option for same-sex couples in the last 5 years or so, and given that most conservative advocates of marriage itself still are upset that gays have access to it, I wouldn't think it's surprising that gays and lesbians haven't chosen abstinence before marriage; by acting on their very attractions to someone of the same sex, they're already outside the bounds of conservative/traditional propriety, so there's never been a need or an expectation by either side.

As a counterpoint to your experience, in mine: an increasing number of younger gay and lesbian couples I know who are dating now often express the same values as relating to engaging in sex as their straight counterparts; especially in cultures (such as where I am in Utah) where chastity before and monogamy after marriage are the expectation/norm. 

So while your observations may be true for some, they are not universally true, nor must they be universally true.  If we inclusively expect and ask more of our LGBT youth, such as the same standards before and within marriage, regardless of the gender of the person whom anyone is dating, it's very realistic to expect we can change that cultural mindset where gay and lesbian teens no longer live on the fringes and succumb to a variety of unwise and unhealthy behaviors, and which would be completely in synch with the expectations of the law of chastity as described in the temple--the only difference from their straight counterparts being the gender between spouses.

Edited January 5, 2018 by Daniel2

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Watched it, I believe that John Dehlin is wrong about his prediction. It is not just an issue of marriage, it is also about lifestyles and behaviors before marriage. Be it in my family, or a number of friends, homosexuality is a lifestyle that can only be explored through, conquests and sexual encounters. A very close friend of mine who once served in our Bishopric, who was married to a wife for 25+ years, and had five children, said...that living the law of chastity before marriage is just not an option. After he came out, and left the Church, he explained to me that men especially, only find companions through sexual encounters, not just dating, as many young people do, who wish to marry in the Temple. This is not my opinion, it is my experience, with my own child and many friends.    

It IS your opinion based on your experience. You make some broad sweeping statements as if your experience translates universally to everyone else's. It doesn't.

I find your statement about "conquests" very offensive. People are people. and gay people are still people. Most people generally behave in similar ways. I don't see the "gay lifestyle" as being any more about conquests and encounters than a hetero lifestyle. People date. They have encounters. The main difference is that in the church hetero people can date with an expectation or hope of marriage and intimacy. That doesn't exist for gay people in the church. So they really have no path equivalent to the hetero couple.

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

While it’s content offers little or nothing that will strike most here as anything new, it’s worth noting anything like this that appears in the mainstream media.... I imagine it’s content WILL be new(s) to many of its non-LDS viewers, so it’s worth taking note if nothing else to stay informed as to what members of other Faiths (or of no Faith at all) are hearing about Mormonism. 

I too thought the quote from Dehlin implying that about 20 - 30 years from now that SSM will be accepted and mainstreamed in the LDS church quite odd.  I think they may have edited that video poorly as I'm pretty sure he might have qualified that prediction quite a bit.  I personally don't see the church moving that far on this issue in 20 - 30 years.  Perhaps 50 - 100 years, but I don't think there are any guarantees on this.  

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I too thought the quote from Dehlin implying that about 20 - 30 years from now that SSM will be accepted and mainstreamed in the LDS church quite odd.  I think they may have edited that video poorly as I'm pretty sure he might have qualified that prediction quite a bit.  I personally don't see the church moving that far on this issue in 20 - 30 years.  Perhaps 50 - 100 years, but I don't think there are any guarantees on this.  

I thought that we were somewhere in the mid 30-year range on Dehlin's original prediction.  And I don't think he really qualified it at that time.  20 years seems too soon for full acceptance of gay marriage within the church.  About 35 years still seems right to me.

Tom Christofferson's recent Mormon Stories interview with John Dehlin was really interesting.  Christofferson is certainly not as extreme in his views as Dehlin but he does tend to see a different church than many LDS would recognize (IMO).

[cinepro]

It's surprising to see to see the focus on President Monson's death being steered towards the OW movement and LGBT issues from later in his Presidency.

And I suspect President Monson might be quite surprised to hear about these things as well from his abode from on high.

[RevTestament]

13 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Watched it, I believe that John Dehlin is wrong about his prediction. It is not just an issue of marriage, it is also about lifestyles and behaviors before marriage. Be it in my family, or a number of friends, homosexuality is a lifestyle that can only be explored through, conquests and sexual encounters. A very close friend of mine who once served in our Bishopric, who was married to a wife for 25+ years, and had five children, said...that living the law of chastity before marriage is just not an option. After he came out, and left the Church, he explained to me that men especially, only find companions through sexual encounters, not just dating, as many young people do, who wish to marry in the Temple. This is not my opinion, it is my experience, with my own child and many friends.    

Bill I am responding for the purpose of supporting you in at least one way. However, I think you are making a generalization about gay men which is not always true. It I believe has some truth to it. Even gay men have written on the tendency of gay men to find partners based on physical attraction, and sexual encounters vs longer term relationships. However, I believe that tendency can also now be found among heterosexual couples much moreso than even 5 decades ago, and I believe contributes to the modern high divorce rate. It is unfair to say all gays are like this - they aren't. However, I do agree with you to the extent that it is even a more prominent trend among gays than heterosexuals. 

I too am kind of tired of the constant trotting out of this particular issue with the Church. It seems a strategy to keep the issue on the board with new news stories, and podcasts such as Dehlin's. It seems it will just keep appearing in an attempt to wear down the Church - like Dehlin concluded, he sees it changing 20 or 30 years from now. I do not. So, I wish to support you in this regard. I hope the Church continues on its current path of loving the sinner, but guiding them to change. I will say I see room for change with respect to the policy towards children of gay parents, but accept the Church's current position on it. I really can't speak further on it without knowing what the full rationale for the policy is. I feel the same way about the policy towards the children of polygamous parents. I feel it is more an artifact of current US law than a policy based on moral law, so perhaps a future change in the US will bring about change in the policy towards these children, which I would welcome. To any such children out there reading this, I hope they will not exclude themselves from attending church because of this policy, and will prepare themselves for the day when the Church will allow them to get baptized at 18. 

[rockpond]

36 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Bill I am responding for the purpose of supporting you in at least one way. However, I think you are making a generalization about gay men which is not always true. It I believe has some truth to it. Even gay men have written on the tendency of gay men to find partners based on physical attraction, and sexual encounters vs longer term relationships. However, I believe that tendency can also now be found among heterosexual couples much moreso than even 5 decades ago, and I believe contributes to the modern high divorce rate. It is unfair to say all gays are like this - they aren't. However, I do agree with you to the extent that it is even a more prominent trend among gays than heterosexuals. 

I too am kind of tired of the constant trotting out of this particular issue with the Church. It seems a strategy to keep the issue on the board with new news stories, and podcasts such as Dehlin's. It seems it will just keep appearing in an attempt to wear down the Church - like Dehlin concluded, he sees it changing 20 or 30 years from now. I do not. So, I wish to support you in this regard. I hope the Church continues on its current path of loving the sinner, but guiding them to change. I will say I see room for change with respect to the policy towards children of gay parents, but accept the Church's current position on it. I really can't speak further on it without knowing what the full rationale for the policy is. I feel the same way about the policy towards the children of polygamous parents. I feel it is more an artifact of current US law than a policy based on moral law, so perhaps a future change in the US will bring about change in the policy towards these children, which I would welcome. To any such children out there reading this, I hope they will not exclude themselves from attending church because of this policy, and will prepare themselves for the day when the Church will allow them to get baptized at 18. 

I think this board is a reflection of what is happening in the church, what is being taught, what is being done politically, and what is happening among leadership.

I agree with you that I hope children of gay and polygamous parents will not exclude themselves from attending church but the intent of the policy (at least with respect to children of gay couples) seems to be that they not attend so as to not have a conflict at home.  If they are attending regularly, it seems that we might as well baptize them.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I think this board is a reflection of what is happening in the church, what is being taught, what is being done politically, and what is happening among leadership.

I agree with you that I hope children of gay and polygamous parents will not exclude themselves from attending church but the intent of the policy (at least with respect to children of gay couples) seems to be that they not attend so as to not have a conflict at home.  If they are attending regularly, it seems that we might as well baptize them.

As Yeshua said 

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

While I do see a potential problem with conflict in the house with 10 year olds, perhaps it is best to let families work that out rather than the Church playing big brother. I saw that conflict between my own little brother and my father without the gay or polygamy issue being involved, and ultimately it worked itself out. I see no real reason it cannot do so for others, but I don't hold the keys to make that change for them. As I have indicated, perhaps different times will bring about a different policy.

[rockpond]

58 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

As Yeshua said 

34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

36 And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

While I do see a potential problem with conflict in the house with 10 year olds, perhaps it is best to let families work that out rather than the Church playing big brother. I saw that conflict between my own little brother and my father without the gay or polygamy issue being involved, and ultimately it worked itself out. I see no real reason it cannot do so for others, but I don't hold the keys to make that change for them. As I have indicated, perhaps different times will bring about a different policy.

I was referring to this statement from Elder Christofferson:

"So this policy originates out of that compassion. It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things. First, a membership record for them. It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different."

That doesn't sound to me like he is counseling that the children of these families still attend church.  

[kiwi57]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I was referring to this statement from Elder Christofferson:

"So this policy originates out of that compassion. It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things. First, a membership record for them. It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different."

That doesn't sound to me like he is counseling that the children of these families still attend church.  

He's saying that it doesn't seem likely in all the circumstances. He's certainly not telling them not to come. Do you disagree?

[kiwi57]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

It's surprising to see to see the focus on President Monson's death being steered towards the OW movement and LGBT issues from later in his Presidency.

Not all that surprising when you notice who's doing the steering.

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

And I suspect President Monson might be quite surprised to hear about these things as well from his abode from on high.

Indeed.

[kiwi57]

6 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

That being said, I am saddened to see your hyperbolic insinuation that I "seem to feel the whole forum is completely pointless if there aren't at least four gay-themed threads on the first page."

Not you by yourself. But between you and others, this pot is never really allowed to go off the boil, is it?

Quote

The good news for you is you can simply overlook such threads and avoid them, if you wish. 

And the good news for you is that your POV would thus become the default position of the forum, right?

My main point is that your timing was pretty horrible. President Monson isn't even buried yet.

People on your side of the argument seem to specialize in telling the rest of us how "insensitive" we are when we don't immediately and enthusiastically agree with you. Odd how sensitivity is only required of us, and never of you.

Couldn't you have waited just a few more days before advertising Dehlin's latest podcast?

Edited January 5, 2018 by kiwi57

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

He's saying that it doesn't seem likely in all the circumstances. He's certainly not telling them not to come. Do you disagree?

He's not saying "don't come".  But he is saying that it is likely not appropriate and that they don't want the conflicts that would arise from those children attending.

[Guest]

16 hours ago, rockpond said:

There are many stories of other gay men that would counter your friend’s opinion/experience.

This may be, but it was not "my" opinion that I was expressing. 

[Guest]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It IS your opinion based on your experience. You make some broad sweeping statements as if your experience translates universally to everyone else's. It doesn't.

I find your statement about "conquests" very offensive. People are people. and gay people are still people. Most people generally behave in similar ways. I don't see the "gay lifestyle" as being any more about conquests and encounters than a hetero lifestyle. People date. They have encounters. The main difference is that in the church hetero people can date with an expectation or hope of marriage and intimacy. That doesn't exist for gay people in the church. So they really have no path equivalent to the hetero couple.

As I stated, this was not my opinion, but a collection of observations and comments of those within the Gay community, "in and out" of the Church. Nothing I typed or said in my post were my own thoughts or experience, as I am not Gay. 

[RevTestament]

30 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I was referring to this statement from Elder Christofferson:

"So this policy originates out of that compassion. It originates from a desire to protect children in their innocence and in their minority years. When, for example, there is the formal blessing and naming of a child in the Church, which happens when a child has parents who are members of the Church, it triggers a lot of things. First, a membership record for them. It triggers the assignment of visiting and home teachers. It triggers an expectation that they will be in Primary and the other Church organizations. And that is likely not going to be an appropriate thing in the home setting, in the family setting where they're living as children where their parents are a same-sex couple. We don't want there to be the conflicts that that would engender. We don't want the child to have to deal with issues that might arise where the parents feel one way and the expectations of the Church are very different."

That doesn't sound to me like he is counseling that the children of these families still attend church.  

Well, obviously, if the parents have a problem with it, they wouldn't give permission for the child to be baptized anyway - which is a policy for all minors. So like you I don't really see a need for this policy. I don't understand the "conflicts" the Church is worried about being any different or at least much different for any other minor child whose parents are not members, so Christofferson's explanation frankly doesn't really wash with me. I don't see anything being triggered for a child investigator until they get baptized. But if their parents okayed that, I just really don't see the issue. 

Like I said, I don't hold this key, but I think my history on this board shows I don't understand the policy. I merely am OK with it because those who have the keys said it is the policy, and I don't know the full rationale. The given rationale doesn't really serve to change my mind, because it seems to be addressed by the baptismal policy for all minors, which seems to be heavily influenced by US law. There are probably other rationale which just go unsaid.

[rockpond]

As I finished watching this HBO news segment, it did make me wonder... Why does the Church keep letting John Dehlin seemingly be the uncontested "expert" on Mormonism?  I understand that the media is choosing him and the church doesn't have control over that.  But if the Church would grant requests to let these media outlets interview an apostle or other GA, journalists would certainly jump at the chance to include that in their reporting, right?

In saying this, I also acknowledge that the Church has a very savvy public affairs group and so I assume they have good reasons for not granting more interviews.  I'm just not sure what those are.  Anyone is welcome to enlighten me.

[Daniel2]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

As I finished watching this HBO news segment, it did make me wonder... Why does the Church keep letting John Dehlin seemingly be the uncontested "expert" on Mormonism?  I understand that the media is choosing him and the church doesn't have control over that.  But if the Church would grant requests to let these media outlets interview an apostle or other GA, journalists would certainly jump at the chance to include that in their reporting, right?

In saying this, I also acknowledge that the Church has a very savvy public affairs group and so I assume they have good reasons for not granting more interviews.  I'm just not sure what those are.  Anyone is welcome to enlighten me.

I thought the same thing, Rockpond... The Church's silence and refusal to respond in any fashion, whether by interview or answering written questions, doesn't cast it in the best light.  When organizations use aversion tactics like this, I think most presume the lack of candor and transparency means that something is being hidden, and that presumption if often one along the lines of 'guilty as charged.'

There was a time during the 90's, when Hinckley started meeting with the Press, that The Church seemed on the brink of breaking through the barriers of silence and leveraging the media to spread their message.  Interviews like this seem to indicate they're retreating from that sense of openness.  Like you, I'm puzzled that the Church allows others to frame the conversation without sitting down in front of a camera to tell its side of the story and set the record straight, as it were.  Even Christofferson's "interview" was with a member of the Church's own press, if I recall... 

While I understand, like you, that the Church has its own savvy PR department, this does seem like a misstep to me; silence may have worked in the past, but I'm not sure it's a technique that will serve the Church well in both the near future and long term.

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I thought the same thing, Rockpond... The Church's silence and refusal to respond in any fashion, whether by interview or answering written questions, doesn't cast it in the best light.  When organizations use aversion tactics like this, I think most presume the lack of candor and transparency means that something is being hidden, and that presumption if often one along the lines of 'guilty as charged.'

There was a time during the 90's, when Hinckley started meeting with the Press, that The Church seemed on the brink of breaking through the barriers of silence and leveraging the media to spread their message.  Interviews like this seem to indicate they're retreating from that sense of openness.  Like you, I'm puzzled that the Church allows others to frame the conversation without sitting down in front of a camera to tell its side of the story and set the record straight, as it were.  Even Christofferson's "interview" was with a member of the Church's own press, if I recall... 

While I understand, like you, that the Church has its own savvy PR department, this does seem like a misstep to me; silence may have worked in the past, but I'm not sure it's a technique that will serve the Church well in both the near future and long term.

Good comments.  I’ll add to it that now I am seeing many fellow members who are unhappy at the press bringing up Prop 8, Ordain Women, and the Nov 2015 policy as part of President Monson’s legacy.  Most church members don’t see a connection since President Monson never publicly addressed those matters.  But, those things did happen while he was the prophet and president — refraining from commenting on them doesn’t mean they aren’t happening and it won’t erase them from history.