An open letter to the First Presidency of the LDS Church

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

I hope the video is posted.  I'd love to see it and listen to the words of those who spoke.

I think every ward could possibly have such a meeting.  I have learned that very few are not touched by or have a family member or friend who is gay.  Having them actually speak to members....make it real and personal and put a face to this issue....could be so beneficial in so many ways.  Any way that we can open up communication and listen.

Thanks for posting this, Tacenda.  Please post if you learn the video is available.

I have significant difficulties with videos that are made without permission as it now appears from Tacenda's clarification.

It would totally freak me out to know someone recorded me without my knowledge and even more so that this recording was available to anyone, even if I was just in the audience.  

I find it a very unkind thing to do to people.  You never know if any have personal hangups about such, if it will be emotionally damaging to them...you have taken away their choice.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Calm

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/27/2018 at 12:57 PM, juliann said:

That isn't the topic. I'm asking what I would do if I knew my child was slowly going under and one means of keeping her on solid ground was to leave the church so as to distance her from its policy on her, what would be my priority? 

Rather than debating the policy as if it were an administrative detail, maybe this is something we should all be asking ourselves and answering before making judgments for others.

Not sure how I was making judgements for others. I know the parents of addicts who were faced with that very choice. I have experienced it myself with two children.

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, pogi said:

In the Catholic church, baptism of children born to gay parents is left up to the local church leaders.  Some don't allow it, some do.  It is an emerging "battleground".   As to the second question, I think most conservative Christian churches excommunicate for homosexual activity. I know the Catholics do for sure. 

Yes, "automatic excommunication" (nothing formal).  I'm not sure that's really comparable.....but, it's still excommunication.

12 minutes ago, pogi said:

No, Mormonism is not specifically mentioned.  Here is the link, in case you missed it:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706071/

Thanks, pogi!  I'll take a look 

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Maestrophil said:

The part where I truly struggle as a member who wants to be as loving and accepting as possible is with the romance and sex portion of the discussion.

Bro. Weed mentions that he believed that everyone is entitled to romantic love - I bristle at the word "entitled."  Are we really entitled to romance, good sex lives?  I would wager to say there are MANY temple marriages that lack both of those elements and still succeed.  Should those people just call it off so they can get what they "deserve"?  Or is a commitment in the temple something that means sacrificing self - and IF you get romance and good sex with it - all the better for you.  

In order for me to be "accepting" of LGBTia people in the way I feel they and their defenders want me to as an LDS, I would need to reject the importance of the Law of Chastity, and the statement of gender importance in the Proclamation to the Family.  I firmly believe in my soul that the Lord loves all his children, and so should I.  I don't judge anyone for choosing to violate the laws of the church in order to feel happier in a gay lifestyle, just like I don't judge my hetero friends who choose to live outside the bounds set by the church (and I believe by the Lord).  Yet, their choices are outside the bounds that LDS are told the Lord has set.  

 

How do we reconcile this?  If I hold fast to feeling that it is (at least currently)not possible to live in an active same sex relationship and maintain temple worthiness or active membership, can I ever truly be considered accepting by the LGBT community.  That is the impasse I see.

 

 

I don't see it as an impasse.  I think from what you described, you are doing a fine job navigating the two.  There are a few from the LGBT community that will not be satisfied with anything less than total affirmation/endorsement.  Honestly, despite these individuals being especially vocal, I believe they are in the minority.   

Keep working on showing love on an individual level.  Be careful in your conversations that you don't refer to gays in a derogatory way.  Accept that even though you have a strong testimony about the eternal nature of family, not everyone shares that view.  Don't feel pressure to "correct" them.    Don't be afraid to tell people (including youth) that you love them regardless of the choices they make.  By living your life according to what you believe and answering honestly about those beliefs when asked, you are also holding fast to your testimony.  

I think that's all that can be asked of anyone.  

(As an example, switching positions: I know many people who don't believe that my path in life (LGBT fully in the Church) is wise or healthy.  Of these some still show great love and acceptance by offering encouraging comments about my marriage and decisions.  Even though they may think it, they don't tell me that I am delusional and my marriage is a sham.  They don't state publicly that Mixed-Orientation Marriages are dishonest and destined for failure.  I can feel loved, respected, and accepted by people who absolutely believe I am wrong in believing in the Church. 

Others feel a need to try to convince me constantly that I am wrong, that I'm living a lie.  They claim to be motivated by concern for me when they tell me that I will never truly be happy until I embrace my sexuality and leave my family.  They try to convince me that I have to change because of the pain I am causing others in my life, like my wife.  They don't hesitate to publicly denounce my faith and MOMs.  Despite the fact that I believe most of them are sincere, I simply don't feel loved or accepted by them.)

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

I have significant difficulties with videos that are made without permission as it now appears from Tacenda's clarification.

It would totally freak me out to know someone recorded me without my knowledge and even more so that this recording was available to anyone, even if I was just in the audience.  

I find it a very unkind thing to do to people.  You never know if any have personal hangups about such, if it will be emotionally damaging to them...you have taken away their choice.

Do you believe those who spoke were not aware that they were being recorded?  (I missed that, if it was stated earlier).  

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

kiwi, please at least try to have a civil discussion here.  I'm sure you knew what this poster meant (I agree they could have been more clear)....but these are the types of comments that shut discussion down.  Most here are really trying to openly communicate (even if there are definite disagreements).

"Akin to murderers" will shut down communication as well and given MG's posting style, it comes across as intentional and not careless to me.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes, "automatic excommunication" (nothing formal).  I'm not sure that's really comparable.....

If someone is automatically kicked out of school instead of granted a hearing/meeting, how is that not "formal"?  

If the rules are automatic, does it make them any less authoritative or formal?

"1.  done in accordance with rules of convention or etiquette; suitable for or constituting an official or important situation or occasion....

2. officially sanctioned or recognized."

Edited January 29, 2018 by Calm

[Marginal Gains]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Akin to murderers" will shut down communication as well and given MG's posting style, it comes across as intentional and not careless to me.

The Church does see people in a gay marriage as akin to murderers in that they are both apostates who are to be punished by being  excommunicated.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

"Akin to murderers" will shut down communication as well and given MG's posting style, it comes across as intentional and not careless to me.

Possibly.  I do see their point as they are both considered apostates.  But I agree, that's pretty extreme language.  

I'd need to readdress the wording regarding excommunication for being an apostate, (but I think most know the difference between someone who committed murder and someone who simply entered into a SSM).  They may be labeled the same....but I wouldn't use the word "akin".

 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

If someone is automatically kicked out of school instead of granted a hearing/meeting, how is that not "formal"?  

If the rules are automatic, does it make them any less authoritative or formal?

"1.  done in accordance with rules of convention or etiquette; suitable for or constituting an official or important situation or occasion....

2. officially sanctioned or recognized."

It's still different, IMO....no official court or procedure involved for the person to go through.  (But I did state that "it's still excommunication"....you left that off of my quote above).

 

----   And, now I'm off of here.  I'm late for an appointment!

 

[Calm]

34 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you believe those who spoke were not aware that they were being recorded?  (I missed that, if it was stated earlier).  

 

That information was not shared, but if it was not done through church leadership, it seems highly likely that at least some were not aware, including the bishop and likely many in the audience who were the usual ward members and not visitors.

They may have been aware once it started (it sounds like two people were filming with their phones as has happened in the past), but then it becomes a choice of disrupting the spirit of the meeting by asking them to stop...and risking more disturbance if someone refuses or another starts it...or continuing on even if they disliked the idea immensely...as I would have.

It may be obvious once the video is out.

PS:  I should make it clear it is not the topic that sets me off, I would be as ticked off about anything that was meant to be viewed by as many as possible, without permission, including a Primary Program.  That this is a controversial subject and therefore likely to be watch by much more than living parents or grandparents does make it worse for me...there will likely be people mocking and making horrible comments about those they see in the video if such past things are any indication.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Calm

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not much one can do with adult children other than watch them play out the scenario. 

So hard to watch, going through this with my youngest child who is back home. So difficult. 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

It's still different, IMO....no official court or procedure involved for the person to go through.  (But I did state that "it's still excommunication"....you left that off of my quote above).

 

----   And, now I'm off of here.  I'm late for an appointment!

 

I am not questioning the comparable, but simply the use of "formal".  I think you may mean ceremonial formality rather than authority form.

[Maestrophil]

51 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I don't see it as an impasse.  I think from what you described, you are doing a fine job navigating the two.  There are a few from the LGBT community that will not be satisfied with anything less than total affirmation/endorsement.  Honestly, despite these individuals being especially vocal, I believe they are in the minority.   

Keep working on showing love on an individual level.  Be careful in your conversations that you don't refer to gays in a derogatory way.  Accept that even though you have a strong testimony about the eternal nature of family, not everyone shares that view.  Don't feel pressure to "correct" them.    Don't be afraid to tell people (including youth) that you love them regardless of the choices they make.  By living your life according to what you believe and answering honestly about those beliefs when asked, you are also holding fast to your testimony.  

I think that's all that can be asked of anyone.  

(As an example, switching positions: I know many people who don't believe that my path in life (LGBT fully in the Church) is wise or healthy.  Of these some still show great love and acceptance by offering encouraging comments about my marriage and decisions.  Even though they may think it, they don't tell me that I am delusional and my marriage is a sham.  They don't state publicly that Mixed-Orientation Marriages are dishonest and destined for failure.  I can feel loved, respected, and accepted by people who absolutely believe I am wrong in believing in the Church. 

Others feel a need to try to convince me constantly that I am wrong, that I'm living a lie.  They claim to be motivated by concern for me when they tell me that I will never truly be happy until I embrace my sexuality and leave my family.  They try to convince me that I have to change because of the pain I am causing others in my life, like my wife.  They don't hesitate to publicly denounce my faith and MOMs.  Despite the fact that I believe most of them are sincere, I simply don't feel loved or accepted by them.)

Thanks for the insight, KL.  I am glad it seems there is room for people to be understanding on both sides of the issue.  I find it odd how many people in this life seem to 'know' what is good for others, rather than spending time being kind and worrying about what is good for themselves.  I wish you all the best in your chosen path, and admire you courage.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Maestrophil

[Maestrophil]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

So hard to watch, going through this with my youngest child who is back home. So difficult. 

Yes, accepting agency and loving despite choices that hurt is part of becoming like our Father in Heaven, I believe.  Imaging how much pain our Heavenly Parents experience because of our agency, and how much love and understanding it takes to allow us to make choices and still love us unconditionally.  I have much to learn!

[SteveO]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I struggled with this as well because, in the end, I don't believe that God condones the dissolution of a temple marriage (or any marriage) because one of the spouses isn't get the amount or kind of sex that they want.  At the same time though, i recognize that sex is an important part of marriage that would be very difficult to sacrifice.  But I still believe that God often asks for difficult sacrifices.

I just can't imagine that God sees "I wanted romance" as an acceptable answer to the question "Why did you abandon your temple marriage?"  But I also know He is loving and merciful in how He deals with our weaknesses.

My thoughts as well.  I told my wife about the 3 reasons Bro. Weed gives for why he just couldn’t do it anymore.  Also, the statement Sis. Weed gives concerning how she no longer felt “sexy or desired”.  My wife essentially said that you could pick at random a heterosexual member of the relief society, and ask them the last time they felt “sexy” or “desired”...and more often than not, get a depressing response.  

I would also note that the death of his mother is no different than heterosexual couples who divorce over the death of a child or another loved one.

I guess what I’m trying to say is, everyone has felt tired, depressed, worthless, etc.  Dr Jordan Peterson from the University of Toronto often says every life is a tradgedy. That it is no coincidence that the God of Western civilization is one who was unfairly nailed to a cross and tortured to death.  Everyone has probably felt the panic of “I’m only [so many years old] and I have [so many years left] of going through this monotonous routine of life”.

I wish them the best, but I just don’t think they’re as Job, or Joseph Smith in Liberty Jail...

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Not much one can do with adult children other than watch them play out the scenario. 

Unfortunately and tragically true.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Calm

[kiwi57]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

kiwi, please at least try to have a civil discussion here.

I'm perfectly willing to have a civil discussion. Does your idea of a "civil discussion" include inflammatory falsehoods like the following?

"denounce their parents?"

"summarily excommunicated?"

Not to mention "akin to muderers[sic]."

Quote

  I'm sure you knew what this poster meant (I agree they could have been more clear)....but these are the types of comments that shut discussion down.  Most here are really trying to openly communicate (even if there are definite disagreements).

Yes, and some are trying to openly communicate false claims.

Is it uncivil of me to challenge them?

Edited January 29, 2018 by kiwi57

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

In terms of the children of gay parents being baptised:

To get that permission, the policy states that a request must be made through a mission president or a regional church leader, and only after certain requirements are met. Those requirements are that a child is committed to living church doctrine and "specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage," is 18 "and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage."

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=3144035&itype=CMSID

So - must be over 18, must disavow their parents marriage, and must not live with their own parents, even when over the age of 18.

Yes, we know about this.

Disavowing SSM has nothing to do with "denouncing their parents." Of course, "disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage" isn't nearly as inflammatory as "denounce their parents," is it?

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, we know about this.

Disavowing SSM has nothing to do with "denouncing their parents." Of course, "disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage" isn't nearly as inflammatory as "denounce their parents," is it?

For some it is same difference...when you shun parents....you shun them all.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

For some it is same difference...when you shun parents....you shun them all.

You can disavow an action without shunning the person doing it. 

To disavow means to disagree with/not support.  It has nothing to do with avoiding or ignoring someone.

 

[JulieM]

16 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

For some it is same difference...when you shun parents....you shun them all.

It’s a fine line, but there is a distinction that should be made clear, I think.

Of course, many parents would feel shunned if their marriage was disavowed and they’d feel personally denounced.  

The result of either would in many cases cause a rift or estrangement.  It would be a tough spot for the son or daughter to be in 

Edited January 29, 2018 by JulieM

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You can disavow an action without shunning the person doing it. 

To disavow means to disagree with/not support.  It has nothing to do with avoiding or ignoring someone.

 

It’s really more (stronger) than that, but I agree it’s the behavior not the person they’re asked to disavow.  

dis·a·vow

ˌdisəˈvou/

verb

1. deny any responsibility or support for.

   "he appears to be in denial of his own past, which he continually disavows"

   synonyms:

   deny, disclaim, disown, wash one's hands of, repudiate, reject, renounce

Edited January 29, 2018 by JulieM

[Jeanne]

13 minutes ago, JulieM said:

It’s a fine line, but there is a distinction that should be made clear, I think.

Of course, many parents would feel shunned if their marriage was disavowed and they’d feel personally denounced.  

The result of either would in many cases cause a rift or estrangement.  It would be a tough spot for the son or daughter to be in 

Thank you ...I understand where you are coming from.

[Jeanne]

24 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You can disavow an action without shunning the person doing it. 

To disavow means to disagree with/not support.  It has nothing to do with avoiding or ignoring someone.

 

I get it..thanks!!