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

[kiwi57]

13 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.'

Yes, I suppose that is what gossips will always prefer to assume.

13 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

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.

But do we need to give a professional apostate any more attention than he's already drumming up for himself?

[kiwi57]

11 hours ago, rockpond said:

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. 

It's not about trying to "erase them from history." It's about what we might reasonably expect to see in an obituary.

One wag suggested that if the NYT was being even-handed, Hefner's obit might have looked like this:  "Hugh Hefner, the Playboy founder who rebuffed demands that he stop publishing a misogynistic pornographic magazine and exploiting young women, died at 91."

Only it didn't.

Funny, that.

The NYT was also much kinder to [in]Fidel Castro. Anyone would think that the thousands of homosexuals flung into Cuban concentration camps were treated with more compassion than those for whom the Church doesn't surrender its moral standards.

How do we account for this?

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

It's not about trying to "erase them from history." It's about what we might reasonably expect to see in an obituary.

One wag suggested that if the NYT was being even-handed, Hefner's obit might have looked like this:  "Hugh Hefner, the Playboy founder who rebuffed demands that he stop publishing a misogynistic pornographic magazine and exploiting young women, died at 91."

Only it didn't.

Funny, that.

The NYT was also much kinder to [in]Fidel Castro. Anyone would think that the thousands of homosexuals flung into Cuban concentration camps were treated with more compassion than those for whom the Church doesn't surrender its moral standards.

How do we account for this?

I agree that the NYT obit was horrible.  That wasn’t my point with my earlier comments. 

[Bob Crockett]

On 1/5/2018 at 6:36 AM, Daniel2 said:

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

And yet, my past experience as a priesthood leader teaches me that for every one of you who comes to a crossroads and decides to, perhaps, leave a wife and commence a gay lifestyle, there are members of the church who don't do that, despite their urges.  And go on to be faithful fathers and priesthood leaders.  

How to measure that?  Not really possible as personal sin is a matter of privacy.  There's hope for you (not you, personally, as I am not here to preach to anybody in particular or at all) under the teachings of the church.  One little-known general authority was excommunicated for serious homosexual misconduct in a breach of his pastoral responsibilities and died as a high councilor.

Edited January 8, 2018 by Bob Crockett

[Bobbieaware]

20 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

It's not about trying to "erase them from history." It's about what we might reasonably expect to see in an obituary.

One wag suggested that if the NYT was being even-handed, Hefner's obit might have looked like this:  "Hugh Hefner, the Playboy founder who rebuffed demands that he stop publishing a misogynistic pornographic magazine and exploiting young women, died at 91."

Only it didn't.

Funny, that.

The NYT was also much kinder to [in]Fidel Castro. Anyone would think that the thousands of homosexuals flung into Cuban concentration camps were treated with more compassion than those for whom the Church doesn't surrender its moral standards.

How do we account for this?

Castro was a godless communist who imprisoned and murdered practitioners of free enterprise, so the Times gave him a pass.

Hefner was a political progressive whose life’s work undermined the traditional nuclear family, so the Times gave him aa pass too.

Simple

 

[Daniel2]

On ‎01‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 10:08 AM, Bob Crockett said:

And yet, my past experience as a priesthood leader teaches me that for every one of you who comes to a crossroads and decides to, perhaps, leave a wife and commence a gay lifestyle, there are members of the church who don't do that, despite their urges.  And go on to be faithful fathers and priesthood leaders.  

How to measure that?  Not really possible as personal sin is a matter of privacy.  There's hope for you (not you, personally, as I am not here to preach to anybody in particular or at all) under the teachings of the church.  One little-known general authority was excommunicated for serious homosexual misconduct in a breach of his pastoral responsibilities and died as a high councilor.

Each of us, as individuals, have abilities and choices that are uniquely ours, and none of our circumstances with our loved ones are identical. 

What may be possible, preferable, or optimal for one person, couple, and/or family may not be possible, preferable, or optimal for others.

I respect the personal freedom and autonomy for each of us to make choices according to what resonates as truth within our hearts and minds.

In my life, I finally found the best possible outcomes after taking great care in studying, pondering, and praying, and being both unafraid of, and willing to be open to, truth wherever it may come from--in sum, by following the wisdom in all the various translations of 1 Thessalonians, Chapter 5, verse 22:

New International Version : but test them all; hold on to what is good,

 

New Living Translation : but test everything that is said. Hold on to what is good.

 

New American Standard Bible :  But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good;

 

King James Bible : Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

For me, personally, being 'fully awake' about what options were available, what was workable for me, my family, and our circumstances, and what wouldn't/shouldn't work for us led me to the greatest peace of heart, might, and mind.  I now believe I experience the greatest joy by fulfilling the measure of my creation.

I'm fully aware that others who are also on a path to be 'fully awake' in their own right can and do make different choices than mine.  And regardless of anyone else's path, I respect our agency to do so, and wish and hope that we all find the best inner peace, hope, and love that's possible for ourselves and our families.

Best,

D

Edited January 9, 2018 by Daniel2

[Bob Crockett]

The reason for my post is to respond to your many many posts pretending to speak for all homosexuals who are former members of the church.  Your story is not typical.  Homosexuals don't all leave the church.  Some do, some don't.  Some do, and some come back.  I mentioned the story of the general authority's history I know; I also know of a current living former general authority.  I have a friend who was a bishop and now is on a high council.  I have another friend in his 60s who left the church after his mission.  He met me to sell me a rare church book.  He told me he wanted to return to the church but didn't know if he could withstand the temptation. 

So, when you go on and on about how the Church is not responsive, is cruel and thoughtless, keep in mind that there are plenty of us who have served in leadership roles who have agonized over this issue, trying to keep a father or mother in the home, and some of us have been successful.  And that defines the Christian's struggle.  I have read Augustine.  We are Christians here to conquer hedonism, and not to give into it.

Regarding your signature line, I once addressed a UCLA law school seminar on the issue of gay rights.   A black student said she found it offensive to compare the struggle for racial equality and against slavery to the right to engage in homosexual relations.   A gay student spoke up and said that it was her experience that blacks typically were over-the-top bigoted against gays.  So, I don't buy your signature line in the least.  It is a corruption of Dr. King. Gays have their struggles, so quote Noel Coward and not Dr. King.

Edited January 9, 2018 by Bob Crockett

[rockpond]

9 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

The reason for my post is to respond to your many many posts pretending to speak on all homosexuals who are former members of the church.  Your story is not typical.  Homosexuals don't all leave the church.  Some do, some don't.  Some do, and some come back.  I mentioned the story of the general authority's history I know; I also know of a current living former general authority.  I have a friend who was a bishop and now is on a high council.  I have another friend in his 60s who left the church after his mission.  He met me to sell me a rare church book.  He told me he wanted to return to the church but didn't know if he could withstand the temptation. 

So, when you go on and on about how the Church is not responsive, is cruel and thoughtless, keep in mind that there are plenty of us who have served in leadership roles who have agonized over this issue, trying to keep a father or mother in the home, and some of us have been successful.  And that defines the Christian's struggle.  I have read Augustine.  We are Christians here to conquer hedonism, and not to give into it.

I know this was directed at Daniel but I'm going to weigh-in as well...

I was with you on this until your last line.  If that line was an inference that homosexuality = hedonism, than we are far apart.

While I agree that it ought to be the goal of church leaders to keep mother/father in the home and together, I also agree with Daniel that it isn't always what is best.

Above all, I'd like to see us, as a church, find a better path for our LGBT members so that they don't feel a need to leave the church and so that they don't feel required to enter into a marriage that has a high likelihood of failure.

[Bob Crockett]

36 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I know this was directed at Daniel but I'm going to weigh-in as well...

I was with you on this until your last line.  If that line was an inference that homosexuality = hedonism, than we are far apart.

While I agree that it ought to be the goal of church leaders to keep mother/father in the home and together, I also agree with Daniel that it isn't always what is best.

Above all, I'd like to see us, as a church, find a better path for our LGBT members so that they don't feel a need to leave the church and so that they don't feel required to enter into a marriage that has a high likelihood of failure.

And that path is, what?   I mean, I'd like to belong to a church that lets practicing gays be full-fledged members, but I don't.  It is an offense against God and makes a mockery of the marriage sacrament, goes the logic.  Is that right or wrong?  It isn't for me to judge and I don't.  But why not celebrate those gays who choose to stay within the church and and become priesthood leaders? Why do we have to just blithely accept Daniel's post about how the struggle for gay rights is like the struggle for racial equality?   

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

The reason for my post is to respond to your many many posts pretending to speak for all homosexuals who are former members of the church.  Your story is not typical.  Homosexuals don't all leave the church.  Some do, some don't.  Some do, and some come back.  I mentioned the story of the general authority's history I know; I also know of a current living former general authority.  I have a friend who was a bishop and now is on a high council.  I have another friend in his 60s who left the church after his mission.  He met me to sell me a rare church book.  He told me he wanted to return to the church but didn't know if he could withstand the temptation. 

So, when you go on and on about how the Church is not responsive, is cruel and thoughtless, keep in mind that there are plenty of us who have served in leadership roles who have agonized over this issue, trying to keep a father or mother in the home, and some of us have been successful.  And that defines the Christian's struggle.  I have read Augustine.  We are Christians here to conquer hedonism, and not to give into it.

Regarding your signature line, I once addressed a UCLA law school seminar on the issue of gay rights.   A black student said she found it offensive to compare the struggle for racial equality and against slavery to the right to engage in homosexual relations.   A gay student spoke up and said that it was her experience that blacks typically were over-the-top bigoted against gays.  So, I don't buy your signature line in the least.  It is a corruption of Dr. King. Gays have their struggles, so quote Noel Coward and not Dr. King.

Thanks, Bob.  I appreciate your response because context and clarifications are always helpful.

In turn, allow me to clear up some things:

• It's never been my intention to 'pretend to speak for all homosexuals who are former members of the church,' and if that's the impression I've given, I welcome the opportunity to emphatically say my words represent my own views and experiences, unless I specifically say otherwise in any given post.
• That being said, I belong and have belonged to many LDS/LGBT/SSA organizations and have interacted with large numbers of LDS-LGBT individuals.  Organizations I have been involved with range from formal to informal, ranging from:
  • the now defunct Evergreen International,
  • North Star,
  • Affirmation,
  • The Utah Gay Fathers' Association,
  • LDS Family Fellowship,
  • BYU-USGA, 
  • BYU Gay Alumni,
  • several smaller Gay RM organizations, and
  • several non-LDS-specific but still Utah-based LGBT organizations.
• While I fully and completely agree with you that not all gay people "leave the church," and that "some do, some don't," and "some come back, some never do," I emphatically disagree with your statement that "my story isn't typical," assuming the word 'typical' means "showing the characteristics expected of or popularly associated with a particular person, situation, or thing."  Many aspects of my story are very common among LDS gay men... although, as I said previously, each of us is unique, and we all must find for ourselves what is possible and what isn't.  Affirmation has one site that is a great place to learn how common my story actually is, but also that my story doesn't represent the entirety of being gay and LDS, because Affirmation has a great diversity in it's ranks: https://affirmation.org/faces/
• Even so, as I've said several times now in this thread, I freely admit that my story is NOT indicative of all LDS gay men, and I myself have discussed such men on this board in the past, including given them the respect and deference to tell their own stories (i.e. Tom Christofferson, Josh Weed, Ty Mansfield, Josh Searle and other such individuals featured on the church's www.mormonandgay.com website, and more can be found here: https://ldsvoicesofhope.org/meet-the-voices/).
• There have been several peer-reviewed studies that indicate that many aspects of "my story" actually do "show the characteristics expected of or popularly associated with a particular person, situation, or thing," (as in, 'typical').   I don't have time to pull the studies all up now, but if you'd like, but there's one in the link at the start of this bullet point, I'd be happy to post links in the future.
• You have said that I "go on and on that the Church is not responsive, is cruel and thoughtless."  This is a call for references (CFR) that I have said any of those things.  I trust that at best, you'll find none; at worst (assuming my memory and persona isn't perfect and I sometimes fail my own lofty goals), if I ever have, I've tried to apologize or make restitution for moments of personal weakness.
• Yes, I agree and know from personal experience that many good LDS men and women "serving in leadership roles...have agonized over this issue, trying to keep a father or mother in the home," because I have experienced exactly that same thing.  I have trusted in and shared together their good hearts and best intentions, and have sat with them in prayer, fasting, and counsel.  Further, I have many LDS friends and family members who have been those LDS leaders who have shared such struggles with me in the hopes of finding the best answers.

You, see, Bob... despite our divergent views on this topic, Mormonism has been and always will be 'my tribe' (with quotes), and very literally my family (no quotes).  My beloved parents, siblings, children, extended family, friends, neighbors, and coworkers... and even today, I still self-identify as Mormon, but not LDS.  The metaphors I view the world through, the songs that resonate in my spiritual center, the stories and histories and even jokes and humor... I am Mormon, just as I am gay--whether or not I'm acting on either. I can't lobotomize myself by taking either out.  I am here because I do hope for a better world for all of us, where even if our paths never converge to become one unified road, that we may travel the journey of life together on parallel paths the best we each know how, without malice for one another, and with justice and equal opportunities for all (from a civil perspective, if not a religious/spiritual one).

Best,

D

Edited January 9, 2018 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Regarding your signature line, I once addressed a UCLA law school seminar on the issue of gay rights.   A black student said she found it offensive to compare the struggle for racial equality and against slavery to the right to engage in homosexual relations.   A gay student spoke up and said that it was her experience that blacks typically were over-the-top bigoted against gays.  So, I don't buy your signature line in the least.  It is a corruption of Dr. King. Gays have their struggles, so quote Noel Coward and not Dr. King.

Regarding my signature line, I will defer to the person who I believe likely knew Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., best... his wife, Coretta, as annotated in Coretta Scott King on Gay Rights and a subsequent article Coretta Scott King on LGBT Rights: “I hasten to remind what Martin Luther King Jr. said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere’

(both posted below):

Quote

I have often made the argument that gay marriage and interracial marriage are analogous, particularly in the arguments against each (no one outside the KKK thinks interracial marriage should be banned anymore, but the arguments against it were virtually identical to the arguments against gay marriage) and that the modern struggle for gay rights is the logical extension of the struggle for black civil rights in this country. Several black ministers have come out against this analogy and argued against gay rights. Others in the religious right have adopted their rhetoric and expanded on it. Concerned Women for America, for instance, has declared:

“To compare rich, privileged homosexual lobby groups allied with transsexuals and sadomasochists to brave civil rights crusaders – who risked their lives to advance freedom – insults every black American who overcame real injustice and poverty,” said CWA President Sandy Rios… “It’s time for the homosexual lobby to stop co-opting the black civil rights struggle. The [National Gay and Lesbian] Task Force’s agenda of promoting perversion – including public homosexual sex, sadomasochism and bisexuality – would offend the vast majority of African-Americans who understand the difference between God-designed racial distinctions and changeable, immoral behavior.”

As the nation mourns the death of Coretta Scott King, it is important to note that she rejected this nonsense completely and argued forcefully that gay rights was indeed the logical next step for a civil rights movement that cares about more than just racial inequality. Mrs. King spoke often to gay rights groups and always spoke out strongly for gay rights. In 1998, just a few days before the 30th anniversary of her husband’s assassination, she noted the obvious similarities:

“Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.”

She also noted that her husband believed that all struggles for equal rights were bound together and that it was necessary to fight against bigotry in all forms, not merely the form that affected you personally:

“We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny…I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be,” she said, quoting her husband. “I’ve always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy.”

And she pointed out that many gays and lesbians had fought for black civil rights, demanding that blacks return the favor:

“Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Ga. and St. Augustine, Fla., and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement,” she said. “Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions.”

But perhaps her most eloquent statement on the subject came in 1994, again invoking the words of her late husband in support of equal rights for all:

For too long, our nation has tolerated the insidious form of discrimination against this group of Americans, who have worked as hard as any other group, paid their taxes like everyone else, and yet have been denied equal protection under the law…I believe that freedom and justice cannot be parceled out in pieces to suit political convenience. My husband, Martin Luther King, Jr. said, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” On another occasion he said, “I have worked too long and hard against segregated public accommodations to end up segregating my moral concern. Justice is indivisible.” Like Martin, I don’t believe you can stand for freedom for one group of people and deny it to others.

—————–

“I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice… But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, ‘Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere’ … I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people.”

 

—————–

 

“Gay and lesbian people have families, and their families should have legal protection, whether by marriage or civil union. A constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages is a form of gay bashing, and it would do nothing at all to protect traditional marriages.”

 

 

Edited January 9, 2018 by Daniel2

[rockpond]

57 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

And that path is, what?   I mean, I'd like to belong to a church that lets practicing gays be full-fledged members, but I don't.  It is an offense against God and makes a mockery of the marriage sacrament, goes the logic.  Is that right or wrong?  It isn't for me to judge and I don't.  But why not celebrate those gays who choose to stay within the church and and become priesthood leaders? Why do we have to just blithely accept Daniel's post about how the struggle for gay rights is like the struggle for racial equality?   

Is there a reason we can't both accept Daniel's story and the reality of the struggle for gay rights AND accept celebrate those who choose to stay within the church?  I do... so I think it's possible.

As you noted, it is not for you or me to determine the path.  I was only saying that we don't appear to be there yet.

[Bob Crockett]

I lobbed into this thread only to say that the story we hear from the most active gay-rights activists on this thread are, in my opinion, atypical of church members who are gay.   Daniel's story may be typical of those who leave the church.  Some guy who went to seminary, went on a mission and married in the temple is, in my opinion, if he is gay, much less likely to announce his gayness, leave his family and get into same-gender marriage than one who stays in the church and with his family.

 

Do I have statistics? No.  How could one know?   And when I was a bishop, likely I was dealing more with those who wanted to stay and continue with the struggle than those who deviated.  

[california boy]

37 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I lobbed into this thread only to say that the story we hear from the most active gay-rights activists on this thread are, in my opinion, atypical of church members who are gay.   Daniel's story may be typical of those who leave the church.  Some guy who went to seminary, went on a mission and married in the temple is, in my opinion, if he is gay, much less likely to announce his gayness, leave his family and get into same-gender marriage than one who stays in the church and with his family.

 

Do I have statistics? No.  How could one know?   And when I was a bishop, likely I was dealing more with those who wanted to stay and continue with the struggle than those who deviated.  

I don't have statistics or a reference to a specific article.  But I do remember reading an article in Sunstone written by a psychologist from BYU who was assigned to work with gay couples.  He reported that  of 300 married couples he was involved with, at the end of 5 years, only 10 couples remained married.  His data was instrumental in the church changing it's policy that if gays married, then they would eventually become straight.  I wish I could find the article, but I have looked all over the internet to find it.  Perhaps Calm can find it.  She seems to be a genius in this kind of things.  

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Is there a reason we can't both accept Daniel's story and the reality of the struggle for gay rights AND accept celebrate those who choose to stay within the church?  I do... so I think it's possible.

As you noted, it is not for you or me to determine the path.  I was only saying that we don't appear to be there yet.

I answer your question, I don't think so.  I think it is perfectly possible.  I can offer the feedback that based solely on my interactions with you on this board, you do a great job of the former and the latter is an after-thought.  My perspective is that you do genuinely want to validate and honor my personal choices and those who make similar choices.  However, as you do, many of the comments and perspectives you share do not make me feel celebrated or accepted.  I do appreciate that when I have pointed this out in the past you generally apologize and make an effort to express support and I do appreciate that.  

Would it be possible to recognize that even as you mean to be affirming of those within the Church, but often come across as invalidating, maybe others who seem to come across as invalidating to those who leave the church may be equally sincere in their effort to accept and love their LGB brothers and sisters, but do so imperfectly?

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Thanks, Bob.  I appreciate your response because context and clarifications are always helpful.

In turn, allow me to clear up some things:

• It's never been my intention to 'pretend to speak for all homosexuals who are former members of the church,' and if that's the impression I've given, I welcome the opportunity to emphatically say my words represent my own views and experiences, unless I specifically say otherwise in any given post.
• That being said, I belong and have belonged to many LDS/LGBT/SSA organizations and have interacted with large numbers of LDS-LGBT individuals.  Organizations I have been involved with range from formal to informal, ranging from:
  • the now defunct Evergreen International,
  • North Star,
  • Affirmation,
  • The Utah Gay Fathers' Association,
  • LDS Family Fellowship,
  • BYU-USGA, 
  • BYU Gay Alumni,
  • several smaller Gay RM organizations, and
  • several non-LDS-specific but still Utah-based LGBT organizations.
• While I fully and completely agree with you that not all gay people "leave the church," and that "some do, some don't," and "some come back, some never do," I emphatically disagree with your statement that "my story isn't typical," assuming the word 'typical' means "showing the characteristics expected of or popularly associated with a particular person, situation, or thing."  Many aspects of my story are very common among LDS gay men... although, as I said previously, each of us is unique, and we all must find for ourselves what is possible and what isn't.  Affirmation has one site that is a great place to learn how common my story actually is, but also that my story doesn't represent the entirety of being gay and LDS, because Affirmation has a great diversity in it's ranks: https://affirmation.org/faces/
• Even so, as I've said several times now in this thread, I freely admit that my story is NOT indicative of all LDS gay men, and I myself have discussed such men on this board in the past, including given them the respect and deference to tell their own stories (i.e. Tom Christofferson, Josh Weed, Ty Mansfield, Josh Searle and other such individuals featured on the church's www.mormonandgay.com website, and more can be found here: https://ldsvoicesofhope.org/meet-the-voices/).
• There have been several peer-reviewed studies that indicate that many aspects of "my story" actually do "show the characteristics expected of or popularly associated with a particular person, situation, or thing," (as in, 'typical').   I don't have time to pull the studies all up now, but if you'd like, but there's one in the link at the start of this bullet point, I'd be happy to post links in the future.
• You have said that I "go on and on that the Church is not responsive, is cruel and thoughtless."  This is a call for references (CFR) that I have said any of those things.  I trust that at best, you'll find none; at worst (assuming my memory and persona isn't perfect and I sometimes fail my own lofty goals), if I ever have, I've tried to apologize or make restitution for moments of personal weakness.
• Yes, I agree and know from personal experience that many good LDS men and women "serving in leadership roles...have agonized over this issue, trying to keep a father or mother in the home," because I have experienced exactly that same thing.  I have trusted in and shared together their good hearts and best intentions, and have sat with them in prayer, fasting, and counsel.  Further, I have many LDS friends and family members who have been those LDS leaders who have shared such struggles with me in the hopes of finding the best answers.

You, see, Bob... despite our divergent views on this topic, Mormonism has been and always will be 'my tribe' (with quotes), and very literally my family (no quotes).  My beloved parents, siblings, children, extended family, friends, neighbors, and coworkers... and even today, I still self-identify as Mormon, but not LDS.  The metaphors I view the world through, the songs that resonate in my spiritual center, the stories and histories and even jokes and humor... I am Mormon, just as I am gay--whether or not I'm acting on either. I can't lobotomize myself by taking either out.  I am here because I do hope for a better world for all of us, where even if our paths never converge to become one unified road, that we may travel the journey of life together on parallel paths the best we each know how, without malice for one another, and with justice and equal opportunities for all (from a civil perspective, if not a religious/spiritual one).

Best,

D

Thanks, Daniel.  I hope you know that I see us as being together in this effort to improve things.  I know the CFR isn't to me, but I would say that you have apologized and clarified whenever you have crossed the line. I appreciate your contributions.  I know that not everyone is in a place emotionally to handle it with the grace you do.  

[california boy]

Just now, kllindley said:

Thanks, Daniel.  I hope you know that I see us as being together in this effort to improve things.  I know the CFR isn't to me, but I would say that you have apologized and clarified whenever you have crossed the line. I appreciate your contributions.  I know that not everyone is in a place emotionally to handle it with the grace you do.  

And you are a valued voice concerning these issues on this board.  I always appreciate your perspective and fully support the choices you have made in your life.

[kllindley]

10 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't have statistics or a reference to a specific article.  But I do remember reading an article in Sunstone written by a psychologist from BYU who was assigned to work with gay couples.  He reported that  of 300 married couples he was involved with, at the end of 5 years, only 10 couples remained married.  His data was instrumental in the church changing it's policy that if gays married, then they would eventually become straight.  I wish I could find the article, but I have looked all over the internet to find it.  Perhaps Calm can find it.  She seems to be a genius in this kind of things.  

That may be true.  It seems to contradict national, non-religious data that suggest about 30% of MOMs tend to end as soon as the partner's sexuality is discovered, 30% try to make it work but are unsuccessful, and 30% stay together.  

[california boy]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

That may be true.  It seems to contradict national, non-religious data that suggest about 30% of MOMs tend to end as soon as the partner's sexuality is discovered, 30% try to make it work but are unsuccessful, and 30% stay together.  

I agree.  I personally. have no access to accurate statistics when it comes to those within the Mormon church.  And I don't think that particular article I referenced can be considered a statistic.  It is just a report of his experience.

[Bob Crockett]

24 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't have statistics or a reference to a specific article.  But I do remember reading an article in Sunstone written by a psychologist from BYU who was assigned to work with gay couples.  He reported that  of 300 married couples he was involved with, at the end of 5 years, only 10 couples remained married.  His data was instrumental in the church changing it's policy that if gays married, then they would eventually become straight.  I wish I could find the article, but I have looked all over the internet to find it.  Perhaps Calm can find it.  She seems to be a genius in this kind of things.  

I don't support a gay Mormon marrying to go straight.  But if he has done it, he better do what he said he would do. 

And Daniel, I don't think it fruitful to quote homophobic changes against me.  Mormons are not monolithic. I am a libertarian and support gay rights in my libertarian way, meaning, leave me alone about your sexuality because I don't care.  Stop pestering me about it and in my Christian way I won't care.  I home teach a gay married couple and don't give a hoot.  Live and let live.  But Mormon doctrine is unequivocally against your teachings so give it up. 

Edited January 10, 2018 by Bob Crockett

[kiwi57]

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

I don't have statistics or a reference to a specific article.  But I do remember reading an article in Sunstone written by a psychologist from BYU who was assigned to work with gay couples.  He reported that  of 300 married couples he was involved with, at the end of 5 years, only 10 couples remained married.  His data was instrumental in the church changing it's policy that if gays married, then they would eventually become straight.  I wish I could find the article, but I have looked all over the internet to find it.  Perhaps Calm can find it.  She seems to be a genius in this kind of things.  

Did the Church ever have such a policy?

Before you throw the usual stuff at me: Yes, I've read the pamphlet. Yes, I've read the various talks. No, not one of them ever said that "if gays married, then they would eventually become straight." In every single case, without exception, the process was explicitly expected to work the other way around: the person with SSA was first supposed to work on overcoming their problem, and then seek marriage.

So, can you document your repeated claim?

[california boy]

40 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't support a gay Mormon marrying to go straight.  But if he has done it, he better do what he said he would do. 

And Daniel, I don't think it fruitful to quote homophobic changes against me.  Mormons are not monolithic. I am a libertarian and support gay rights in my libertarian way, meaning, leave me alone about your sexuality because I don't care.  Stop pestering me about it and in my Christian way I won't care.  I home teach a gay married couple and don't give a hoot.  Live and let live.  But Mormon doctrine is unequivocally against your teachings so give it up. 

Sorry.  You asked if there were any stats on how many marriages succeeded.  I was trying to give you helpful information.  I certainly did not intend for you to take it as some personal attack.  

[california boy]

26 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Did the Church ever have such a policy?

Before you throw the usual stuff at me: Yes, I've read the pamphlet. Yes, I've read the various talks. No, not one of them ever said that "if gays married, then they would eventually become straight." In every single case, without exception, the process was explicitly expected to work the other way around: the person with SSA was first supposed to work on overcoming their problem, and then seek marriage.

So, can you document your repeated claim?

Not going down this road again.  If you want to know my position, there are plenty of threads that I have stated quite clearly what I base my opinion on.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

I don't have statistics or a reference to a specific article.  But I do remember reading an article in Sunstone written by a psychologist from BYU who was assigned to work with gay couples.  He reported that  of 300 married couples he was involved with, at the end of 5 years, only 10 couples remained married.  His data was instrumental in the church changing it's policy that if gays married, then they would eventually become straight.  I wish I could find the article, but I have looked all over the internet to find it.  Perhaps Calm can find it.  She seems to be a genius in this kind of things.  

Are you thinking of someone on this panel?  The obvious choice if working at BYU at one time is Bill Bradshaw.  Ron Rees is a therapist who graduated from BYU.

https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/the-persistence-of-same-sex-attraction-in-latter-day-saints-who-undergo-counseling-or-change-therapy/

The problem with such studies is there may be numerous or just a few married mixed orientation couples who do not seek out counseling and therefore no one would ever be aware of them.  Those who seek out counseling generally have problems, so of course the rate of divorce would be larger.  It should be compared to heterosexual couples who get counseling, not the general public, if compared.

Edited January 10, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

"Approximately half of these clients left counseling after one or two sessions; the other half, who were in therapy for one to three years, include roughly two hundred single men and two hundred married men. Among the two hundred single men, only 10 percent were able to marry. Almost all of them (nineteen of twenty) identified themselves as bisexual. Of the two hundred married males (a large portion of whom, it is probably safe to speculate, were likely bisexual), only half were able to stay in their marriages, although there is no information as to what kinds of accommodations they had to make to do so, nor how many of these marriages will ultimately endure."

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/sbi/articles/Dialogue_V38N03_145.pdf

"According to some research, approximately a quarter of couples who receive marriage therapy report that their relationship is worse two years after ending therapy, and up to 38 percent of couples who receive marriage therapy get divorced within four years of completing therapy."

Too lazy to look for actual research...but thought this might give a ballpark:

https://guidedoc.com/does-marriage-counseling-work-statistics-facts