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

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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

Apparently there is some question about the propriety of the decision, as higher authority has asked to view the video. 

[Storm Rider]

13 hours ago, Gray said:

You're mixing up the prophet with God.

Yeah....no.  It is exactly what Lucifer did:  He thought his plan, his way of doing things, was superior to God's way.  Humans do the same thing all the time - the think they are infinitely more qualified than some invisible old man in the sky and seek to follow the arm of flesh all the time.  

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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

He also believed it was appropriate for it to have been filmed, but has assuming his wife's comments are accurate (and I don't believe we have any reason to disbelieve at this point) has accepted correction on that and will not release the video or do it again.

It is possible he will see having those who qualify by definition as apostate (I know this is often used as a derogatory term, I am only using it in the sense they chose to act outside the covenant they had previously made, likely for reasons they believed were right and proper, but are still contrary to the doctrine of the Church) speak in a Sunday teaching setting as also inappropriate if corrected in this and in the future will look for a different venue.

We have no knowledge at this time whether the two women in a SSM spoke in any way to promote their marriage as what the Church should accept.  No one so far has came out and said that was said, only that one said she was happy in her marriage, iirc.  I think it would have been jumped on if anything stating the Church was wrong was said and not interrupted as happened when 13? Year old Savannah gave her testimony that God was approving of her dreams to be in a SSM awhile back (apologies if I am getting details wrong from memory, please correct me if so).  So I am hopeful that it was approached as an opportunity to love as opposed to "approving".  I don't remember "approval" or "acceptance" being used in the Bishop's comments, rather he focused on love and understanding.

If this was the actual approach, I think it very appropriate for a fireside as interfaith firesides ('learn more about others in your community') have been given in the past without anyone thinking missionary work was being done for nonLDS faiths.

-----

Iow, I think the choice of venue was a mistake even though I have at this point nothing but positive thoughts about the content.  I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with having nonmembers, including those excommunicated or acting in apostasy in other areas of their life speak in Sabbath teaching settings, but I believe leaderership for the entire Church has a right to set out policies of behaviour and structure and determine how rigid or loose these policies are meant to be.

My understanding, which may be wrong, is the policy that an excommunicated individual can no longer speak or pray in Sabbath day teaching settings (from the pulpit so to speak) is one that is on the more rigid side.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Calm

[Bobbieaware]

25 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.

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.

The Reddit rumors are problematic, yes.

Perhaps you are correct.

You raise a fair point.

Thanks,

-Smac

Your concerns aren’t misplaced. The plainly evident signs of the times make it likely that a burgeoning progressive wing of the Church is going to be more and more boldly at odds with the leaders of the Church. This “I just can’t wait to let the whole world know about what we did” publicity stunt is just the beginning. 

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, Calm said:

He also believed it was appropriate for it to have been filmed, but has assuming his wife's comments are accurate (and I don't believe we have any reason to disbelieve at this point) has accepted correction on that and will not release the video or do it again.

It is possible he will see having those who qualify by definition as apostate (I know this is often used as a derogatory term, I am only using it in the sense they chose to act outside the covenant they had previously made, likely for reasons they believed were right and proper, but are still contrary to the doctrine of the Church) speak in a Sunday teaching setting as also inappropriate and in the future will look for a different venue.

We have no knowledge at this time whether the two women in a SSM spoke in any way to promote their marriage as what the Church should accept.  No one so far has came out and said that was said, only that she said she was happy in her marriage, iirc.  I think it would have been jumped on if anything stating the Church was wrong was said and not interrupted as happened when 13? Year old Savannah gave her testimony that God was approving of her dreams to be in a SSM awhile back (apologies if I am getting details wrong from memory, please correct me if so).  So I am hopeful that it was approached as an opportunity to love as opposed to "approving".  I don't remember "approval" or "acceptance" being used in the Bishop's comments, rather he focused on love and understanding.

If this was the actual approach, I think it very appropriate for a fireside as interfaith firesides ('learn more about others in your community') have been given in the past without anyone thinking missionary work was being done for nonLDS faiths.

-----

Iow, I think the choice of venue was a mistake even though I have at this point nothing but positive thoughts about the content.  I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with having nonmembers, including those excommunicated or acting in apostasy in other areas of their life, but I believe leaderership for the entire Church has a right to set out polices of behaviour and structure and determine how rigid or loose these policies are meant to be.

My understanding, which may be wrong, is the policy that an excommunicated individual can no longer speak or pray in Sabbath day teaching settings (from the pulpit so to speak) is one that is on the more rigid side.

I agree that the bishop is on the wrong side of church policy.  And I think that most members would agree with you that a fireside would be a more appropriate forum.

But a fireside wouldn’t have been attended by as many ward members as the Sunday meeting block.  And I think it seems clear that this bishop felt the content was important for his ward to hear.

The bishop may be told not to do it again.  Perhaps instruction will be sent to all units regarding this type of meeting.  But I take great comfort in all of it as a step in the right direction.

 

[Calm]

"But a fireside wouldn’t have been attended by as many ward members as the Sunday meeting block.  And I think it seems clear that this bishop felt the content was important for his ward to hear."

I agree a fireside would have been more limited in terms of audience.

If the bishop had not included making a video to share as part of it and had not had the two women in SS marriages speak, he could have held it at the same time and place as far as I can tell, thus achieving most of his purpose without risking alienating some by pushing policy boundaries.  It could even have been presented as a "part 1" with additional speakers including the women who spoke in a fireside setting later.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Calm

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

I hope so.  

I guess my concern is the precedent being set.

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

This is a really good point. I agree that it's absolutely essential that the perception around this event matters a great deal. If there is any chance that people will attempt to use an event like this to create a negative spin for the church, wouldn't that be all the more reason to do more?

Let's be honest, those who are unhappy with the church are already talking about what a horrible, bigoted, hate-filled place it is. I think the best way to ensure that the correct intent is communicated, would be to have many more meetings like this throughout the church.

While I don't personally have that big of a problem with former members in same-sex relationships speaking, I can understand that concern. I think it would matter very much how their perspectives are introduced, and exactly what they said. My intuition tells me that with this bishop extensive experience with the LGBT community, he was very comfortable in his ability to pick individuals who he knew would not speak against Church teachings, promote apostasy, or otherwise engage in inappropriate behavior. However, I believe that many members of the ex LDS or their allies, would attempt to take advantage of the opportunity Kevin this sort of platform to say exactly those sorts of things. So when I say meetings like this, I don't necessarily mean exactly like this one. I think it would require great care and, dare I say it, inspiration for a local leader to make that kind of decision. 

[Calm]

While it is possible that many members of Ordain Women in the beginning were of the more "work with and within church rules", Kate Kelly who was the spokesperson/leader of the group never was.  Her stance from the beginning was the Church must accept women into the Priesthood.

From what Bishop Augenstein wrote/spoke at the meeting, there was no such drawing of lines.  His emphasis over and over was about increasing love and understanding.  Iirc, there was no comment about acceptance or tolerance, which might have been interpreted as requiring approval.

The approaches, imo, are diametrically different.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

31 minutes ago, Calm said:

"But a fireside wouldn’t have been attended by as many ward members as the Sunday meeting block.  And I think it seems clear that this bishop felt the content was important for his ward to hear."

I agree a fireside would have been more limited in terms of audience.

If the bishop had not included making a video to share as part of it and had not had the two women in SS marriages speak, he could have held it at the same time and place as far as I can tell, thus achieving most of his purpose without risking alienating some by pushing policy boundaries.  It could even have been presented as a "part 1" with additional speakers including the women who spoke in a fireside setting later.

Yep... he could have done that and stayed within the perceived bounds of church policy.  Personally, I’m happy with the way he handled it and with the discussion that it has created. 

I believe I responded to Scott back in November of 2015 that any trend toward acceptance of gay marriage within the church would not look like a straight line.  Rather it would be driven by somewhat of a pendulum effect.  And, the Nov 2015 policy was the pendulum swinging hard one direction.  Now we see it swinging back. 

[blueglass]

On 1/29/2018 at 4:37 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Members of the Church are not entitled to get up in a Church meeting or class and say anything they like whether it conforms to Church teachings or not.

I've said I wouldn't attend, and I stand by that.

Why do you feel that Jesus sought out dialogue with sinful company such as winebibbers and sinners?   Against the tradition of the authorities of the jewish ruling class, Jesus embraced those traditionally alienated by the Mosaic law, such as the lepers Mark 1:40-45, the tax collectors and sinners Mark 2:13-17 and the unclean gentiles, such as the Syrian/phoenician woman Mark 7:24-30.   

[Gray]

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

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.

Let's just say it's closer to shaming than the alleged shaming going on at the special ward meeting. I wouldn't really call it shaming either, but some folks are getting pretty dramatic.

[Gray]

4 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

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.

The church is currently teaching that those "without law" who die are eligible for celestial glory if they accept the gospel in the hereafter.

 

Quote

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.

You're interpreting it very differently than the official church material does:

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-seminary-teacher-manual-2017/introduction-to-the-book-of-alma/lesson-96-alma-39?lang=eng

Quote

An individual who receives a witness of the Holy Ghost and then falls away or becomes less active in the Church is not guilty of the unpardonable sin.

 

 

Quote

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.

You may be underwhelmed, but it's a teaching in the D&C that is no longer followed.

 

Quote

4) Since the text of D&C 89 was not given by way of commandment, 

Since it's interpreted as a commandment now, this represents a teaching in  the D&C that is no longer followed

 

Quote

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,

You might not be bothered, but again, this represents a teaching in  the D&C that is no longer followed

Edited February 1, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Yeah....no.  It is exactly what Lucifer did:  He thought his plan, his way of doing things, was superior to God's way. 

So prophets are identical to God then?

 

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

 

Humans do the same thing all the time - the think they are infinitely more qualified than some invisible old man in the sky and seek to follow the arm of flesh all the time.  

Last time I checked every prophet who ever lived had an arm of flesh.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

He also believed it was appropriate for it to have been filmed, but has assuming his wife's comments are accurate (and I don't believe we have any reason to disbelieve at this point) has accepted correction on that and will not release the video or do it again.

Has the guidelines for video taping meetings been posted?  I tried to look up what was in the handbook, but couldn’t find where they were stated.  Maybe the Bishop just didn’t understand this shouldn’t take place even if he moved the meeting to the cultural hall.  I do think he moved it from the Chapel in an effort to obey what the leaders had asked.  And now, he’s complying with not releasing the video.  I think he’s acting in good faith and respect.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

This is a really good point. I agree that it's absolutely essential that the perception around this event matters a great deal. If there is any chance that people will attempt to use an event like this to create a negative spin for the church, wouldn't that be all the more reason to do more?

I am all for more discussions.  But they need to be in the appropriate time, place and manner.

Moreover, I think the discussion need to include introspection by both sides.

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Let's be honest, those who are unhappy with the church are already talking about what a horrible, bigoted, hate-filled place it is. I think the best way to ensure that the correct intent is communicated, would be to have many more meetings like this throughout the church.

Unless, of course, such meetings end up being a platform provided by the Church for people to rise up against it.  

Again, time, place and manner.  And bilateral introspection.  We need a level playing field.

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

While I don't personally have that big of a problem with former members in same-sex relationships speaking, I can understand that concern. I think it would matter very much how their perspectives are introduced, and exactly what they said. My intuition tells me that with this bishop extensive experience with the LGBT community, he was very comfortable in his ability to pick individuals who he knew would not speak against Church teachings, promote apostasy, or otherwise engage in inappropriate behavior.

I think there are more factors in play that prudent selection of individuals to speak on this issue.

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

However, I believe that many members of the ex LDS or their allies, would attempt to take advantage of the opportunity Kevin this sort of platform to say exactly those sorts of things. So when I say meetings like this, I don't necessarily mean exactly like this one. I think it would require great care and, dare I say it, inspiration for a local leader to make that kind of decision. 

I agree.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

48 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Has the guidelines for video taping meetings been posted?  I tried to look up what was in the handbook, but couldn’t find where they were stated.  Maybe the Bishop just didn’t understand this shouldn’t take place even if he moved the meeting to the cultural hall.  I do think he moved it from the Chapel in an effort to obey what the leaders had asked.  And now, he’s complying with not releasing the video.  I think he’s acting in good faith and respect.

I agree.  It seems there was a real expectation that the filming could be shared, so it doesn't come across to me as a "ask forgiveness rather than permission" pressure tactic.

I can see three policy reasons why the video was rejected.  First the policy states "the chapel", I believe.  Church buildings are sometimes referred to as the "chapel" as a whole and it may have been assumed to be this case on Sunday since pretty much every classroom, including the cultural hall and even kitchens at times if needed are used for Sunday classes.  If so, hopefully it will be made explicit in the future if it isn't at this point.  Think how the cultural hall becomes part of the chapel at tImes.

Second, there may be legal concerns with not having permissions to video everyone pictured.  After all, why ask to see the video at all if the violation was filming during the three hour block since it was already known that had happened?

Third, the policy that excommunicated individuals are not allowed to speak in Sunday meetings was in fact violated and releasing the video unedited of those talks would make it appear the policy was not intended to be strictly enforced and if released with those two talks edited or a disclaimer that such talks were not allowed in general, that would become the major story.

Also Perhaps the Seventy reported to have viewed it and rejected it being published wanted to see the extent of the filming and if it was limited to viewing only speakers, he might have open to giving permission.

Otoh, there may other concerns outside of policy such as a lack of desire for a Sunday meeting to be nationally and internationally publicized as releasing the video would result in.  There may also be concern that if it was visually spread, people would push the boundaries more and more.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

"Photographs, Video Recordings, and Broadcasts in Chapels

Taking photographs or making video recordings in chapels is not permitted. Meetings and other events that are held in the chapel may not be broadcast over the Internet or by any other means (see 18.3.1 for an exception)."

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies/21.2?lang=eng#21.2.10

[JulieM]

4 minutes ago, Calm said:

"Photographs, Video Recordings, and Broadcasts in Chapels

Taking photographs or making video recordings in chapels is not permitted. Meetings and other events that are held in the chapel may not be broadcast over the Internet or by any other means (see 18.3.1 for an exception)."

https://www.lds.org/handbook/handbook-2-administering-the-church/selected-church-policies/21.2?lang=eng#21.2.10

Thank you Calm for looking all of that up.  You’re the research wiz 

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am all for more discussions.  But they need to be in the appropriate time, place and manner.

Moreover, I think the discussion need to include introspection by both sides.

Unless, of course, such meetings end up being a platform provided by the Church for people to rise up against it.  

Again, time, place and manner.  And bilateral introspection.  We need a level playing field.

I think there are more factors in play that prudent selection of individuals to speak on this issue.

I agree.  

Thanks,

-Smac

The second and third hours of our Sunday meetings seem like a great time for a ward  to follow the counsel of an apostle. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, blueglass said:

Why do you feel that Jesus sought out dialogue with sinful company such as winebibbers and sinners?   Against the tradition of the authorities of the jewish ruling class, Jesus embraced those traditionally alienated by the Mosaic law, such as the lepers Mark 1:40-45, the tax collectors and sinners Mark 2:13-17 and the unclean gentiles, such as the Syrian/phoenician woman Mark 7:24-30.   

I think what Smac has said about time, place and manner applies here. Many posts ago he said something along the lines of him being willing to listen, but the issue is the venue. 

High-level Church leaders have established what is and what is not appropriate for Sabbath worship services. As a believing Latter-day Saint, I am confident they have done so under inspiration from Jesus Christ. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The second and third hours of our Sunday meetings seem like a great time for a ward  to follow the counsel of an apostle. 

Are you still pushing this? 

Nothing you have presented here compels the belief that Elder Ballard had in mind inviting those who have abandoned the faith or their covenants to address Church members in our worship services. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

I agree that the bishop is on the wrong side of church policy.

 

5 minutes ago, rockpond said:

The second and third hours of our Sunday meetings seem like a great time for a ward  to follow the counsel of an apostle. 

So what you repeatedly insist is merely 'following the counsel of an apostle' has put a bishop 'on the wrong side of church policy'. Interesting.

[Daniel2]

If the married same-sex couple are former members of the church, I am shocked they were invited, let alone allowed, to speak in a church meeting about their experiences in a same-sex relationship.

As a former member who resigned my membership, my father’s bishop and stake president refused to even allow me to speak about my dad at his funeral, despite having lived in the ward boundaries and helped him attend church services as one of dad’s two caregivers (the other being Mom) for the last 7 years of his life. 

While I’d love to believe this couples’ experience indicates a shift, this thread (while not surprising and certainly understandable evidence that the church can and should be free to set its own rules and agenda) also seems to be clear evidence that this type of participation is still mostly unwelcome and an anomaly.  I agree the meeting sounds as if it was at odds with “the policy” and efforts like it will be not only frowned upon, but squelched by a realignment/clarification of what types of outreach are allowed, and those deemed to be inappropriate (the latter of which this seems to fall under, from an Orthodox LDS perspective). I remain hopeful that the church will continue efforts to reach out to its youth who are also LGBT with hopeful and life-affirming messages.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Daniel2

[Calm]

"their participation is still mostly unwelcome and an anomaly."

I would have no issue with anyone speaking outside of the three hour block as long as there wasn't advocacy for rejecting church doctrine.  If the policy extends further I am unaware of that, but would support it being followed.

I would also support special dispensation for events where authorities believe dramatic efforts are required and therefore they waived the policy, but I tend to obey rules and laws as I like things orderly and relationships predictable to the extent needed to avoid miscommunication and unnecessary conflict, so I push for generally living according to rules.  I stop at stoplights in the middle of nowhere in the middle of the night and wait for the green light, for example.  If you obey the rules by habit, then you are lesss likely to break them when not paying full attention...like driving through a stoplight in the middle of the day because distracted by a problem.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Calm

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Are you still pushing this? 

Nothing you have presented here compels the belief that Elder Ballard had in mind inviting those who have abandoned the faith or their covenants to address Church members in our worship services. 

As I said before, in response to that point, it would seem odd for him to advise us only to listen to those with whom most members already agree (celibate, active gay members).  But I do acknowledge he may have meant that. 

It’s a reasonable conclusion (especially given his wife’s statement about it) that the Bishop felt he was following Elder Ballard’s counsel.