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

[ALarson]

58 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.

Would you have been ok with the outlined speakers if any who were currently in a SSM had been excluded (I think there was at least one)? 

Or would you still have refused to stay and listen?

Edited February 1, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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?

 

I'm saying that people who have fallen away from the Church should not be invited to speak in Sabbath day meetings.

Quote

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

It's the surname only that bothers me. I'm from the stone age. It's jarring to me to see them referred to without their titles.

[Scott Lloyd]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Would you have been ok with the outlined speakers if any who were currently in a SSM had been excluded (I think there was at least one)? 

Or would you still have refused to stay and listen?

The bishop's text has since been quoted here where he said some would be speaking who had "stepped away" from the Church.

I wouldn't like or abide that either.

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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.  

Or at least the only or best one.  If they had shown other variations on the theme as they did at this meeting it might have been just fine.  Just showing that conveys a different message.

[Hamba Tuhan]

50 minutes ago, provoman said:

'The Bishop's wife is ready to go down for this cause ...'

Sadly, I think there's a pretty good chance that we'll get an unnecessarily public opportunity to gauge this person's assessment of her readiness.

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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. 

I think you certainly used the correct verb as the second word in this statement.

[Scott Lloyd]

20 minutes ago, bluebell said:

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).

Here's the way it was phrased:

Quote

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.

Maybe it was written unclearly, but the meaning I get from context is that bishop's wife is opposed to having the higher leaders review and scrutinize the video.

If either the bishop's wife or the bishop or the stake president or anybody else get's surly on this thing, I would predict that one or more releases are imminent.

 

[rockpond]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm saying that people who have fallen away from the Church should not be invited to speak in Sabbath day meetings.

It's the surname only that bothers me. I'm from the stone age. It's jarring to me to see them referred to without their titles.

I get that you don’t like having them speak in sabbath meetings but it is consistent with President (then Elder) Ballard’s counsel from last November.  

When I used Ballard’s surname only it was the second reference in the post.  I figured you would be okay with following AP style guidelines. 

[Calm]

"Maybe it was written unclearly, but the meaning I get from context is that bishop's wife is opposed to having the higher leaders review and scrutinize the video."

Except if you read what she actually wrote, no such impression is given.

"Hi friends! We received word from the the LDS church that we are unable to post the video from the meeting. We were under the impression that only sacrament meeting was not to be filmed because of the sacredness of the chapel. but we did not realize that filming is not allowed during the entire 3 hour block even if it is not in the chapel. I am a optimist by nature and feel so happy that this meeting took place and that we could share the love and understanding that bonded all of us in that room. It was truly miraculous and very sacred. I will be asking all of our speakers to let me post the written portion of their talks so that you may read them and feel of their spirit and also that you may be able to share their messages with those in your families, wards, stakes and communities. Our baptismal covenant reminds us daily to bare one another’s burdens and I invite everyone to do just this by following the counsel of Elder Ballard and reaching out to all of your lgbtq brothers and sisters and really listen to them and try to understand what it may be like to walk in their shoes. My life is better because I listened. In my opinion God will only ask one question when we die and that question is, “Did you learn to love the people I put in your life the way I love them?” I feel like I have witnessed Heaven on earth this last year and I am grateful for all of the kind posts and feedback about our special meeting. I hope you can take this message and flood the earth! Love you all!

Please if any of you are saddened by not being able to watch the video, I ask for my sake that you don’t use this as an opportunity to lash out or create a negative storm with your comments. This meeting was planned and executed with only love and compassion in mind. I want to keep the momentum in a positive and productive direction. So as respect to all that were involved please don’t reply with negative comments. Use your energy and comments to build bridges and continue to create change that will fill homes, churches and communities with more love!"

https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein?fref=ts

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think you certainly used the correct verb as the second word in this statement.

I asked the Bishop I'm serving with about this.  He said he'd be thrilled to have a meeting such as this one for our ward (if we could even find speakers who would be willing to come and speak).  I haven't approached my SP about this specific meeting, but will.  I would not be at all surprised if he'd be on board with it as well.  

(Neither of them are big fans of the new policy.)

I think a great addition would be to include someone with kllindley's experience and insight.

Edited February 1, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Maybe it was written unclearly, but the meaning I get from context is that bishop's wife is opposed to having the higher leaders review and scrutinize the video."

Except if you read what she actually wrote, no such impression is given.

"Hi friends! We received word from the the LDS church that we are unable to post the video from the meeting. We were under the impression that only sacrament meeting was not to be filmed because of the sacredness of the chapel. but we did not realize that filming is not allowed during the entire 3 hour block even if it is not in the chapel. I am a optimist by nature and feel so happy that this meeting took place and that we could share the love and understanding that bonded all of us in that room. It was truly miraculous and very sacred. I will be asking all of our speakers to let me post the written portion of their talks so that you may read them and feel of their spirit and also that you may be able to share their messages with those in your families, wards, stakes and communities. Our baptismal covenant reminds us daily to bare one another’s burdens and I invite everyone to do just this by following the counsel of Elder Ballard and reaching out to all of your lgbtq brothers and sisters and really listen to them and try to understand what it may be like to walk in their shoes. My life is better because I listened. In my opinion God will only ask one question when we die and that question is, “Did you learn to love the people I put in your life the way I love them?” I feel like I have witnessed Heaven on earth this last year and I am grateful for all of the kind posts and feedback about our special meeting. I hope you can take this message and flood the earth! Love you all!

Please if any of you are saddened by not being able to watch the video, I ask for my sake that you don’t use this as an opportunity to lash out or create a negative storm with your comments. This meeting was planned and executed with only love and compassion in mind. I want to keep the momentum in a positive and productive direction. So as respect to all that were involved please don’t reply with negative comments. Use your energy and comments to build bridges and continue to create change that will fill homes, churches and communities with more love!"

https://www.facebook.com/susie.augenstein?fref=ts

When this was quoted earlier, I thought it was the bishop being quoted. I didn't know until now it was his wife.

Laboring under that assumption, I got the impression wife was not being as compliant as her husband. The quotation from the Reddit post certainly made it seem that way.

And this quote doesn't say anything about the Area Seventy asking (or "demanding," if you believe the Reddit post) to see the video. I still wonder where the writer of the Reddit post got the impression they might not comply with the request.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I get that you don’t like having them speak in sabbath meetings but it is consistent with President (then Elder) Ballard’s counsel from last November.  

 

Elder Ballard did not say it's OK to turn our Sabbath Day worship services over to people who have fallen away. I strongly doubt he would be OK with that.

Quote

When I used Ballard’s surname only it was the second reference in the post.  I figured you would be okay with following AP style guidelines. 

I believe faithful Church members when they can appropriately do so ought to use the titles as a show of deference and respect for the office. As I said, it is jarring to me when it is not done.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When this was quoted earlier, I thought it was the bishop being quoted. I didn't know until now it was his wife.

And now you know, do you view her differently?

It is their shared Facebook page, but she is the Voice for the couple in that she posts stuff about and from her husband as far as I can tell.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Calm

[provoman]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

And now you know, do you view her differently?

It is their shared Facebook page, but she is the Voice for the couple in that she posts stuff about and from her husband as far as I can tell.

There is information from different sources. The Bishop's and Wife facebook page and reddit users who assert they are in the know.

The statement about the Bishop wife being willing to go down for the cause, is a from a reddit user who knows someone who was at the meeting.  

[Danzo]

I think that without a video or at least a transcript of the proceedings, we are all just projecting our own beliefs on this meeting.

I can imagine the meeting being a good meeting and I can imagine it being a bad meeting.  

Maybe it was a good meeting for those particular saints but it would have been a bad meeting for the ones where I live, or for another group.

I think I will leave judgement of the meeting to those who attended it and to those who have priesthood stewardship over their leaders.

[Calm]

6 minutes ago, provoman said:

There is information from different sources. The Bishop's and Wife facebook page and reddit users who assert they are in the know.

The statement about the Bishop wife being willing to go down for the cause, is a from a reddit user who knows someone who was at the meeting.  

I know.  I also think firsthand accounts are better than third or fourth hand (at times) anonymous sources.

Let Sister Augenstein speak for herself.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

DELETE (Inappropriate Commentary - my bad)

Edited February 1, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

" I'm starting to feel that my preliminary assessment and concerns are being validated"

Those who want this to happen are going to look at events and people as validating their expectations and are going to be spreading rumors to that effect, there is no reason save our own bias to accept them as likely accurate.

OTOH, we could let people speak for themselves before assuming others have some sort of inside knowledge.

Skepticism of those speaking negatively of those we support runs high even when they claim inside knowledge.  Pity the same level of skepticism doesn't exist for everyone and instead we are willing to believe negative things based on the opinions and representations of people we have no clue about.

If such a report had been made about Elder Utchdorf ('I know someone who talked to him after the new 1st Presidency was announced and boy, was he bummed about not being in it'), it would be immediately dismissed by most of those who are expressing some level of validation for their doomsaying by the same quality of rumors.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Elder Ballard did not say it's OK to turn our Sabbath Day worship services over to people who have fallen away. I strongly doubt he would be OK with that.

I believe faithful Church members ought to use the titles as a show of deference and respect for the office. As I said, it is jarring to me when it is not done.

Well, it’s jarring to me that you are so unwilling to listen to other perspectives because they have “fallen away”. 

[Calm]

If I was Sister Augenstein, who as far as I can tell from spending a few hours reading her Facebook last night is highly devoted to the Church and committed to giving the Gospel and the Church community her all, I would be hurt by the easy lack of trust being expressed of me by fellow members based on what strangers (to those members) had said about me.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

"I'm starting to feel that my preliminary assessment and concerns are being validated"

Those who want this to happen

That's not me.  I want the Church to improve its relations with LGBT folks.  I want members to remain in fellowship in the Church.

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

are going to look at events and people as validating their expectations

I'm trying to be objective here.  I would love for my concerns to be misplaced.  I truly hope they are.  I will happily stand corrected if that is the case.

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

and are going to be spreading rumors to that effect,

The Reddit rumors are problematic, yes.

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

there is no reason save our own bias to accept them as likely accurate.

Perhaps you are correct.

17 minutes ago, Calm said:

OTOH, we could let people speak for themselves before assuming others have some sort of inside knowledge.

Skepticism of those speaking negatively of those we support runs high even when they claim inside knowledge.  Pity the same level of skepticism doesn't exist for everyone and instead we are willing to believe negative things based on the opinions and representations of people we have no clue about.

If such a report had been made about Elder Utchdorf ('I know someone who talked to him after the new 1st Presidency was announced and boy, was he bummed about not being in it'), it would be immediately dismissed by most of those who are expressing some level of validation for their doomsaying by the same quality of rumors.

You raise a fair point.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

"That's not me."

I am talking about those claiming inside information that is contrary to Sister Augenstein's own statements.

[smac97]

31 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Well, it’s jarring to me that you are so unwilling to listen to other perspectives because they have “fallen away”. 

I'm willing to listen (I've been on this board since 2004, after all).

The concern being expressed her pertains more to the forum that was used.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm willing to listen (I've been on this board since 2004, after all).

The concern being expressed her pertains more to the forum that was used.

Thanks,

-Smac

A bishop felt it was the appropriate forum for his ward to follow an apostle’s counsel.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

And now you know, do you view her differently?

It is their shared Facebook page, but she is the Voice for the couple in that she posts stuff about and from her husband as far as I can tell.

The knowledge does make a difference in how I view the matter. But I’m still wondering why the Reddit user said it remains to be seen whether the video will be provided to the Area Seventy as requested. Why would they not produce it promptly? Do you know?

[Scott Lloyd]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I'm willing to listen (I've been on this board since 2004, after all).

The concern being expressed her pertains more to the forum that was used.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes. That describes my objection precisely. I have repeatedly said here that I view the formal Sabbath meetings as an inviolable sanctuary. 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd