Utah Ward Invites LGBT Speakers for 2nd and 3rd Hour

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, provoman said:

The meeting was already misused. Just look at the reddit post. The author leaves no doubt that, in the authors veiw, the meeting should be used to change the Church Doctrine and/or policies from the bottom up.

The author, if we are talking about the same one, is an exmormon and likely of the opinion the sacrament prayer should be so used.

[kllindley]

24 minutes ago, provoman said:

Did a BOM Prophet or Christ centered religious leader dedicate time with the Saints so that those whose lifestyle is in opposition to Church coukd speak to the Saints about showing greater love to person who is in opposition to the Church. There is a big difference between what occurred in the BOM and what happened at that Riverton ward.

 

I acknowledge that.  I don't believe anyone was actually suggesting that.  I thought the entire comment was in response to calling the meeting "Mormon Shaming."

As an active, faithful, member who is also LGBT,  I am just saying that I think the net good was significantly greater than any negative side-effects.  And I say this as one who has gone on record time and time again to combat more "progressive" approaches to the issue in the Church.  I really don't get the impression that this was coming from a place of trying to change doctrinal opinions or challenge established standards.  

[Bobbieaware]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

If you read D&C 76 closely, you'll see it's not exactly what is taught anymore (quite a bit of material in the D&C is no longer doctrine).

 

So in this teaching, even if you died without law and later converted in spirit prison, you still don't get to the Terrestrial Kingdom.

 

Regarding sons of perdition, the LDS tradition about that is you have to have an extraordinary closeness with God (probably personal visitations) and then deny God himself to get that punishment. It's not LDS doctrine that Mormons who become atheists go to outer darkness.

 

 

They do get into the Terrestrial Kingdom because that’s what it says.

My other point is that one doesn’t have to be in the immediate presence of God in order to be cast into outer darkness; you seemed to be saying otherwise. The witness of the invisible (to us) Holy Ghost is even greater than the personal witness of Christ in the flesh..

Please post three or four of the teachings in the D&C that you say no are longer doctrine, and please supply your explanations as to why in each case you know they are are no longer doctrinal. Also, if you can find any statements from past and present members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to back you up in your specific assertions I would much appreciate it. I guess this my very first call for a CFR on this board. COOL! 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, smac97 said:

Perhaps what might work better will be for these sorts of meetings to take place in other venues.  I am not sure it's appropriate or necessary for the LDS Church to provide a forum for people to criticize its doctrines, to explain/justify some individuals' rejection of or disobedience to its doctrines, to air grievances against the Church, and so on.

"These types of meetings" seem to have some real potential for turning into faultfinding gripefests.  Sunday services are not the place for that.

Meanwhile, I continue to be fairly flummoxed at the one-sidedness of all this.  Will there ever be a call for circumspection as to the "other side" and what it is saying and doing?   

Much of the interaction between the LDS Church and folks speaking on behalf of LGBT folks is poor.  Much improvement can and should be made.  The LDS Church has made significant efforts, but such efforts are routinely ignored, or only barely acknowledged, and are always insufficient. 

There is very much a "my way or the highway" approach to the LDS Church.  Look at the public demands made of the Church by people like Kate Kelly.  Dan Reynolds.  Paul Fisher.  There is also a lot of caustic, hateful rhetoric and accusations being aimed at the LDS Church, with seemingly very little effort to restrain or reign in such things.

That may sound defensive, but that's only because . . . it is.  My faith community is being attacked constantly.  Of course I am going to defend it.  It is good, though not perfect.  It is worth defending.

So yes, I question the calls for the Church to do all the improving, with no corollary expectation that the "other side" consider their contributions to the poor state of affairs. 

Thanks,

-Smac

I wonder when it was that defensive came to be regarded as a pejoratie, as in "Why are you being so defensive?".

I agree with you that if something worth defending is being attacked, then defensiveness is precisely what is needed.

 

[ALarson]

4 hours ago, JulieM said:

Some are posting that the handbook states only that no recording take place in the chapel.  Do you know if that’s true?  I’m not familiar with the specific guideline there.

There appears that there may have already been copies of the video emailed to a few people.  A “leak” is being encouraged by many over there and someone who has a copy posted something like “Don’t worry....I have a plan.”  Who would own the rights to that video, do you (or anyone else) know?  

They're also trying to get this in the media and get the story out there.  

I was kind of poking around over there too and if many have their way,  it does appear that the video may be leaked.  However, I can tell that the Bishop involved is very much trying to be obedient and supportive of church leaders.  So, I will feel bad if someone leaks the video after he's asked for patience and understanding (and to not respond with anger or rebellion).  I see that a 70 has requested a copy from the SP, so we will just have to see where it goes from here.  Maybe church leaders will find value in at least some of what the speakers had to say and will release parts of the video?  

I believe whoever took the video would most likely have the rights to it (someone who knows more can correct me if I'm wrong).  But, I imagine he'd have to have the permission of all on the video before he could publish it online.  Maybe some who know about the church leader's request would not give their permission now.

I hope for all involved, that just a transcript will be released and I look forward to reading it if it is.

Edited January 31, 2018 by ALarson

[Gray]

37 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

They do get into the Terrestrial Kingdom because that’s what it says.

That's not what the church teaches.

 

37 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

My other point is that one doesn’t have to be in the immediate presence of God in order to be cast into outer darkness; you seemed to be saying otherwise. The witness of the invisible (to us) Holy Ghost is even greater than the personal witness of Christ in the flesh..

 

Again, not what the church teaches.

This is the usual quote from Joseph Smith used to explain the concept:

 

Quote

All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it.

 

37 minutes ago, Bobbieaware said:

Please post three or four of the teachings in the D&C that you say no are longer doctrine, and please supply your explanations as to why in each case you know they are are no longer doctrinal. Also, if you can find any statements from past and present members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve to back you up in your specific assertions I would much appreciate it. I guess this my very first call for a CFR on this board. COOL! 

I'll start with a couple, I'll try to think of more later:

D&C 107:

 

Quote

35 The Twelve being sent out, holding the keys, to open the door by the proclamation of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and first unto the Gentiles and then unto the Jews.

36 The standing high councils, at the stakes of Zion, form a quorum equal in authority in the affairs of the church, in all their decisions, to the quorum of the presidency, or to the traveling high council.

37 The high council in Zion form a quorum equal in authority in the affairs of the church, in all their decisions, to the councils of the Twelve at the stakes of Zion.

38 It is the duty of the traveling high council to call upon the Seventy, when they need assistance, to fill the several calls for preaching and administering the gospel, instead of any others.

39 It is the duty of the Twelve, in all large branches of the church, to ordain evangelical ministers, as they shall be designated unto them by revelation—

 

The "standing high councils at the stakes of Zion" are supposed to be a quorum equal in authority in the affairs of the church to the presidency and the 12 apostles. That is of course no longer the case. If you read the whole chapter, the Q12 apostles were envisioned as a traveling body governing the church in parts far distant.

 

D&C 89 is an easy example:

 

Quote

1 A Word of Wisdom, for the benefit of the council of high priests, assembled in Kirtland, and the church, and also the saints in Zion—

2 To be sent greeting; not by commandment or constraint, but by revelation and the word of wisdom, showing forth the order and will of God in the temporal salvation of all saints in the last days—

5 That inasmuch as any man drinketh wine or strong drink among you, behold it is not good, neither meet in the sight of your Father, only in assembling yourselves together to offer up your sacraments before him.

6 And, behold, this should be wine, yea, pure wine of the grape of the vine, of your own make.

Nevertheless, wheat for man, and corn for the ox, and oats for the horse, and rye for the fowls and for swine, and for all beasts of the field, and barley for all useful animals, and for mild drinks, as also other grain.

9 And again, hot drinks are not for the body or belly.

Areas that are nullified by current teachings are bolded. Does this help?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[carbon dioxide]

19 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I hate that kind of logic because it is just so off base and so desperate to belittle the argument of others.  No, Marginal Gains, I did not equate child molesters with those in a same sex marriage. What I did do was identify a different type of egregious sin.  

I get this a lot also.  If I take issue A and apply a similar train of thought to issue B, people say how day you compare issue A to issue B when I am not doing that.  I am just using the same standards in both situations to see if the person is consistent in their views.

[USU78]

On 1/30/2018 at 3:44 PM, cinepro said:

So maybe the Bishop didn't make the perfect choice in when to have the meeting, or where to have it, or who to invite to speak

Granting excommunicants a forum during worship services contrary to Church rules is a less than perfect choice?

How very astute!

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Granting excommunicants a forum during worship services contrary to Church rules is a less than perfect choice?

How very astute!

In all fairness to cinepro, you should post his entire quote:

Quote

So maybe the Bishop didn't make the perfect choice in when to have the meeting, or where to have it, or who to invite to speak, but he did something to try and help bridge the gap between Mormons who are more than happy to not have homosexuals attending their wards and homosexuals who are more than happy to not be attending those wards. 

I also believe that this Bishop had the very best and loving intentions.  None of us are perfect, but read the Bishop's words again and try not to judge him.

Edited January 31, 2018 by ALarson

[USU78]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

In all fairness to cinepro, you should post his entire quote:

 

No, my choice was correct. Your intermeddling attempt at editing my post is a fail.

[rockpond]

I don't know if this has been pointed out but a couple of months ago President (then Elder) Ballard said the following in a BYU Devotional:

"We need to listen to and understand what our LGBT brothers and sisters are feeling and experiencing. Certainly we must do better than we have done in the past so that all members feel they have a spiritual home where their brothers and sisters love them and where they have a place to worship and serve the Lord."

I think it can be argued that the Bishop who put together this meeting for his ward was doing just what Ballard advised.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't know if this has been pointed out but a couple of months ago President (then Elder) Ballard said the following in a BYU Devotional:

"We need to listen to and understand what our LGBT brothers and sisters are feeling and experiencing. Certainly we must do better than we have done in the past so that all members feel they have a spiritual home where their brothers and sisters love them and where they have a place to worship and serve the Lord."

I think it can be argued that the Bishop who put together this meeting for his ward was doing just what Ballard advised.

I agree.  His heart was definitely in the right place.  I'm hopeful more meetings like this one will take place (with some fine tuning).  How are members going to learn to love and accept their gay brothers and sisters if they don't know and understand them (and listen to them)?  This meeting brought it down to a very personal level for all involved.  I have great admiration for those who were willing to come and speak.  That could not have been easy for some of them to do, I'd imagine. 

It will be interesting to see where it goes from here.

Edited January 31, 2018 by ALarson

[carbon dioxide]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

It's chock-full of Mormon shaming! 1 Ne 16:2

2 And it came to pass that I said unto them that I knew that I had spoken hard things against the wicked, according to the truth; and the righteous have I justified, and testified that they should be lifted up at the last day; wherefore, the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center.

I would not call this shaming.  It is simply truth and a warning.   The central point of the Church is to bring people to Christ and cause people to repent so that they can stand blameless before God when they are judged.   The truth can be hard for all of us as it may cause us to change our ways and way of thinking.  If this is called shaming than so be it but better to shame than leave people exposed so they do stand guilty and filthy before God and there is no time left to repent.

[Scott Lloyd]

59 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

I get this a lot also.  If I take issue A and apply a similar train of thought to issue B, people say how day you compare issue A to issue B when I am not doing that.  I am just using the same standards in both situations to see if the person is consistent in their views.

In logic, that is an argument known as reductio ad absurdum. It is an effort to disprove a statement by demonstrating the absurdity of the conclusion to which it inevitably leads.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I don't know if this has been pointed out but a couple of months ago President (then Elder) Ballard said the following in a BYU Devotional:

"We need to listen to and understand what our LGBT brothers and sisters are feeling and experiencing. Certainly we must do better than we have done in the past so that all members feel they have a spiritual home where their brothers and sisters love them and where they have a place to worship and serve the Lord."

I think it can be argued that the Bishop who put together this meeting for his ward was doing just what Ballard advised.

That Elder Ballard meant by this statement that we should invite unrepentant practicing homosexuals to address our Sabbath worship services to justify their behavior or that we should present our Sabbath meetings as a platform to those who have forsaken the faith is not immediately self-evident to me. Knowing what I know about him, it doesn't sound like something he would advise.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[provoman]

This from Reddit 

“Just spoke with my friend who was a speaker in the meeting last Sunday. He shared quite a bit with me, I'll try to remember it all and share it here.

The SP organized a Stake-wide LGBT+ outreach that he requested EACH WARD address this topic head-on. One of the wards showed the film titled 'Splitting the Sky: Meet Courtney and Rachelle'. He realized the ward had made a tremendous mistake and he approached a second bishop and asked if they would do it right. The video recording was arranged by the people who presented, but it was done at the request of the SP. The intent is to show it to all of the wards in the stake.

The SP got a phone call from a 70 and demanded that the church get a copy of the video. I do not know if that will happen. The Bishop's wife is ready to go down for this cause and she's a firecracker. I can't wait to meet her. ...”

Edited February 1, 2018 by provoman

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, provoman said:

This from Reddit (Link is to xmormon reddit, I apologize before hand if linking to that is not permitted)

Some history regarding the LGBT+ meeting in Riverton

Just spoke with my friend who was a speaker in the meeting last Sunday. He shared quite a bit with me, I'll try to remember it all and share it here.

The SP organized a Stake-wide LGBT+ outreach that he requested EACH WARD address this topic head-on. One of the wards showed the film titled 'Splitting the Sky: Meet Courtney and Rachelle'. He realized the ward had made a tremendous mistake and he approached a second bishop and asked if they would do it right. The video recording was arranged by the people who presented, but it was done at the request of the SP. The intent is to show it to all of the wards in the stake.

The SP got a phone call from a 70 and demanded that the church get a copy of the video. I do not know if that will happen. The Bishop's wife is ready to go down for this cause and she's a firecracker. I can't wait to meet her.

Anybody know the nature of "Splitting the Sky"? What is it about the film that made the stake president believe the ward had made a "tremendous mistake"?

And why is the bishop's wife so adamant against providing a copy of the video to the Area Seventy?

Edited February 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Bobbieaware]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

That's not what the church teaches.

 

 

Again, not what the church teaches.

This is the usual quote from Joseph Smith used to explain the concept:

 

 

I'll start with a couple, I'll try to think of more later:

D&C 107:

 

 

The "standing high councils at the stakes of Zion" are supposed to be a quorum equal in authority in the affairs of the church to the presidency and the 12 apostles. That is of course no longer the case. If you read the whole chapter, the Q12 apostles were envisioned as a traveling body governing the church in parts far distant.

 

D&C 89 is an easy example:

 

Areas that are nullified by current teachings are bolded. Does this help?

 

 

 

 

 

 

1) What’s “not what the Church teaches?” Be specific because I must be be missing something. Either that or you’re using a wrong word or term without realizing it.

2) In the quote from Joseph Smith, he’s not talking about committing the unpardonable against God while in his immediate physical presence. He’s talking about sinning against the greater INWARD LIGHT of revelation from the Holy Ghost. His simile about one turning against God in the light of noonday is just that, a simile that’s not meant to be taken literally.

3) The temporary earthly organization known as the Church of Jesus Christ has had its structure changed many times throughout the years in order to better fit current needs and circumstances. One such change came about when there was no longer the need for the Standing High Council organization when there were no longer only one or two stakes in the entire Church. Changes in Church organization such as this one are to be expected, when necessary, in order to better address current needs. I’m rather underwhelmed by this example of so-called doctrinal change.

4) Since the text of D&C 89 was not given by way of commandment, and since it addresses some suggested health practices for the benefit of the temporary earthly organism known as the fallen human body, I’m not bothered about it in an eternal sense except as to how the the current leaders interpret its counsel to fit current needs,

[smac97]

4 hours ago, kllindley said:

As an active, faithful, member who is also LGBT,  I am just saying that I think the net good was significantly greater than any negative side-effects. 

I hope so.  

I guess my concern is the precedent being set.

Quote

And I say this as one who has gone on record time and time again to combat more "progressive" approaches to the issue in the Church.  I really don't get the impression that this was coming from a place of trying to change doctrinal opinions or challenge established standards.  

From the Reddit post: "Just wanted to get this on the record. This will happen more and more in the future in more places. Bottom up revelation is what is going to change the church."

Even if this person is wrong in the intent of the meeting, consider the perceptions and expectations it is generating.

Is it possible that other bishops are going to be asked to arrange similar meetings?  That he may be accused of being closed-minded or bigoted if he doesn't?

And what happens if the Church sends out a reminder to bishops and stake presidents that basically put the kibosh on such events during Sunday services.  What will be the narrative?  "Oh, look at what closed-minded, bigoted Mormon Church is doing, stifling 'dialogue' and punishing bishops who only want to encourage love and inclusivity!"

Is the stage being set where people are going to try to pit local leaders against the General Authorities (or otherwise characterize this issue in that way)?

The immediate effects may feel nice, but this could get real ugly, real fast.

Ordain Women and Kate Kelly started out with great-sounding intentions, too.  Things didn't really pan out very well, though.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 1, 2018 by smac97

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, USU78 said:

Granting excommunicants a forum during worship services contrary to Church rules is a less than perfect choice?

How very astute!

I guess there is more than one way to look at this.

Suppose there was an LDS community that had a small Muslim population, and after 9/11 there was a problem with some of the LDS in the community venting their anger by sneering at the local Muslims at the grocery store.  And at school, some of the kids call the Muslim kids "towel-heads" and otherwise bully them.  And then rumors start to go around, and even be taught in church, about how all Muslims are terrorists and the Koran teaches that they all want to kill Christians and so on.

So a Bishop in a local ward decides that this needs to stop, so he invites some local Muslim families and leaders in to speak to the ward for the second and third hour, to explain what they believe.  The Bishop then explains to the ward that they need to "love and support" their Muslim neighbors, even though they aren't LDS.  And he does it during the Church block so everyone understands that this isn't optional, and it's a problem the whole ward needs to be aware of.

Would that bother you as much?  Even though any LDS who became Muslim would be excommunicated, would you still be so opposed to having Muslims come in and speak under such circumstances?

[provoman]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Anybody know the nature of "Splitting the Sky"? What is it about the film that made the stake president believe the ward had made a "tremendous mistake"?

I believe it is a 18 minute video about a lesbian couple that divorces to join the Church - it is on youtube. It is well produced and is from the couples own telling. 

A basis offered in the dicussion on reddit why it was a mistake is because all the Mormons would think every gay couple could or should do the same. There isnt a response from reddit author as to why the SP considered it a mistake

[Calm]

provoman and others quoting his link,

My understanding is linking to places that allow or have as a common feature profanity is not allowed.  Certain Reddit forums seemed to pride themselves on using such language as much as possible.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

That Elder Ballard meant by this statement that we should invite unrepentant practicing homosexuals to address our Sabbath worship services to justify their behavior or that we should present our Sabbath meetings as a platform to those who have forsaken the faith is not immediately self-evident to me. Knowing what I know about him, it doesn't sound like something he would advise.

So you think he meant that we should only listen to our LGBT brothers and sisters with whom we already agree?  That would seem like odd counsel.  Or are you saying that there is something special about the last two hours of our Sunday meeting block which forbids hearing from practicing homosexuals?

*You’ll note that I acknowledged both his Elder title at the time and his President title now. 

[bluebell]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Anybody know the nature of "Splitting the Sky"? What is it about the film that made the stake president believe the ward had made a "tremendous mistake"?

And why is the bishop's wife so adamant against providing a copy of the video to the Area Seventy?

It sounds like he thinks it was a mistake because his plan wasn't to have members believe that divorcing to accept the gospel was a valid option.  As for the bishop's wife, i don't think she's ready to go down for the video but rather for the cause (i.e.. that the meeting was appropriate and the right thing to do).

[rockpond]

43 minutes ago, provoman said:

This from Reddit (Link is to xmormon reddit, I apologize before hand if linking to that is not permitted)

Some history regarding the LGBT+ meeting in Riverton

Just spoke with my friend who was a speaker in the meeting last Sunday. He shared quite a bit with me, I'll try to remember it all and share it here.

The SP organized a Stake-wide LGBT+ outreach that he requested EACH WARD address this topic head-on. One of the wards showed the film titled 'Splitting the Sky: Meet Courtney and Rachelle'. He realized the ward had made a tremendous mistake and he approached a second bishop and asked if they would do it right. The video recording was arranged by the people who presented, but it was done at the request of the SP. The intent is to show it to all of the wards in the stake.

The SP got a phone call from a 70 and demanded that the church get a copy of the video. I do not know if that will happen. The Bishop's wife is ready to go down for this cause and she's a firecracker. I can't wait to meet her.

My brother (who was recently released from serving in a Bishopric) and I were discussing this meeting in Riverton when I said: “I wonder if the Bishop will get released for letting apostates speak in his ward.”   My brother replied:  “I’d be honored to take that release!”

But it is sounding like the Riverton bishop had the support and encouragement of his SP (if I’m understanding you correctly). 

I imagine it is going to become increasingly difficult to fill ward and stake leadership positions with members who are willing to uphold the current church position and policies with respect to LGBT members.  This is what I’ve expected would happen and will ultimately lead to further revelation on the matter.