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

[rockpond]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

 

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.

Yes.  Interesting isn’t it?  But these are the conflicting messages that we’re receiving from our leaders. 

[smac97]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  Interesting isn’t it?  But these are the conflicting messages that we’re receiving from our leaders. 

Yes, about as conflicting as the messages we have received to exercise our bodies, and also to attend Church.

Clearly the Brethren mean for us to stop attending Church and go to the gym, instead.  

Come, now.  Let us reason together.  When the Brethren give us points of counsel, they expect us to use reasoning, and common sense, and not to pit points of counsel against each other.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 1, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

8 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

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. 

This seems like an unfortunate circumstance.  I wish your family had chosen a venue in which you could have spoken.

8 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

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.  

It's not a really matter of being "unwelcome."  It's a matter of propriety and respect.  Speaking in a ward is a privilege generally limited to those in a covenant relationship with God, who are in good standing and fellowship, and who are members of that ward (or stake).

8 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

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).

Thank you.  Similarly, I would not expect a Gay Pride rally to host a series of speakers declaring homosexual behavior to be sinful and in contravention of the laws of God.  That is not because I disagree with those sentiments, but rather because it would be very unseemly to misappopriate that venue.

8 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

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.

Same here.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes, about as conflicting as the messages we have received to exercise our bodies, and also to attend Church.

Clearly the Brethren mean for us to stop attending Church and go to the gym, instead.  

Come, now.  Let us reason together.  When the Brethren give us points of counsel, they expect us to use reasoning, and common sense, and not to points of counsel against each other.

Thanks,

-Smac

Not an apt comparison.

But, I agree that the Brethren expect us to use reasoning and common sense in following their counsel.  I believe that is how this particular bishop wound up planning and executing the meeting as he did.

Honestly, I don't see what difference it makes if the bishop had done the same meeting several hours later as a fireside that night.

[Jeanne]

Daniel2, I was not even asked by family to participate at all in funeral services for my Dad last December...but I ask..who took care of him?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  Interesting isn’t it?  But these are the conflicting messages that we’re receiving from our leaders. 

Maybe the conflict is in your own grasp of the message. I haven't been confused in the least.

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Not an apt comparison.

I thought it was about as apt as it could be.

Quote

But, I agree that the Brethren expect us to use reasoning and common sense in following their counsel.  I believe that is how this particular bishop wound up planning and executing the meeting as he did.

I, on the other hand, feel that the bishop's zeal brought on a (hopefully momentary) lapse in judgment.

Quote

Honestly, I don't see what difference it makes if the bishop had done the same meeting several hours later as a fireside that night.

Smac, a former bishopric member, explained it well above:

Quote

Speaking in a ward is a privilege generally limited to those in a covenant relationship with God, who are in good standing and fellowship, and who are members of that ward (or stake).

 

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe the conflict is in your own grasp of the message. I haven't been confused in the least.

What exactly do you believe Elder Ballard meant when he stated that "we do must do better"?  (Specific examples if you have any.)

Quote

"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."

How do you feel this meeting was not a step in the right direction regarding the "need to listen to and understand what our LGBT brothers and sisters are feeling and experiencing"?  How can you listen to and understand them if we don't allow them to have a voice, speak and  share their feelings and experiences?

I understand you do not agree with this meeting being held during the block hours.  Would you attend a fireside with speakers who were gay members of the church so you could follow Elder Ballard's counsel?

Edited February 1, 2018 by ALarson

[rockpond]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I thought it was about as apt as it could be.

I, on the other hand, feel that the bishop's zeal brought on a (hopefully momentary) lapse in judgment.

Smac, a former bishopric member, explained it well above:

 

So, referring to smac's comment:  Does "speaking in a ward" mean just the 3 hour Sunday block?  Because my question was what is different if this bishop had done the same meeting several hours later as a fireside?  Would you still have been opposed?

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

How do you feel this meeting was not a step in the right direction regarding the "need to listen to and understand what our LGBT brothers and sisters are feeling and experiencing"?  How can you listen to and understand them if we don't allow them to have a voice, speak and  share their feelings and experiences?

I'm positioned differently from most, because I counsel with (and listen to and understand) as my calling. I think I do a pretty good job of that. I think what Elder Ballard said, with respect to general membership, is that many of us can do a better job of showing acceptance and empathy for gay Church members. To the extent that some have been harsh and hurtful, that should be repented of and changed. Many members don't have a problem with this, and already follow Elder Ballard's counsel.

I've mentioned this before, but in a Q&A fireside, in response to a question "Why do LDS hate gay people?," I asked the audience to raise their hands if they have gay family and friends. Almost every hand went up (this was youth), and I told people to look around for the answer to the question "Do LDS hate gay people?" What the questioner was asserting with the question was that Church teachings and policies vis a vis gay people = hate, and I pointed that out and said that this is false; that teaching the commandments and standards ≠ hate.

I understand you do not agree with this meeting being held during the block hours.  Would you attend a fireside with speakers who were gay members of the church so you could follow Elder Ballard's counsel?

I would most certainly attend such a fireside a) because of inherent interest in the topic, and b) because of a vested interest in seeing how the fireside goes and is addressed in my local area. But, I think using the 3 hour block for this was inappropriate, and having people speak who should not speak in Church meetings (ex'd or disf'd members; members living in a state of apostasy, etc.) was very inappropriate. The filming of it is generally forbidden, but the stake president can authorize exceptions (I think in this case he is being raked over the coals by the Brethren via his AA70). 

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, rockpond said:

So, referring to smac's comment:  Does "speaking in a ward" mean just the 3 hour Sunday block?  Because my question was what is different if this bishop had done the same meeting several hours later as a fireside?  Would you still have been opposed?

Generally, I think this applies to all public meetings under the auspices of the Church, which would include firesides. However, I think discretion can be used in firesides where an ex'd or disf'd member could conceivably and appropriately be approved to speak. Not on doctrinal matters, but maybe historical, technical instruction, anecdotes, etc. The presiding authority would need to ensure that it would be uplifting and "do no harm."

For a number of reasons, I think this Riverton thing was inappropriate, and I think the aftermath will show that the Brethren feel that way, too. 

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm positioned differently from most, because I counsel with (and listen to and understand) as my calling. I think I do a pretty good job of that. I think what Elder Ballard said, with respect to general membership, is that many of us can do a better job of showing acceptance and empathy for gay Church members. To the extent that some have been harsh and hurtful, that should be repented of and changed. Many members don't have a problem with this, and already follow Elder Ballard's counsel.

I've mentioned this before, but in a Q&A fireside, in response to a question "Why do LDS hate gay people?," I asked the audience to raise their hands if they have gay family and friends. Almost every hand went up (this was youth), and I told people to look around for the answer to the question "Do LDS hate gay people?" What the questioner was asserting with the question was that Church teachings and policies vis a vis gay people = hate, and I pointed that out and said that this is false; that teaching the commandments and standards ≠ hate.

I would most certainly attend such a fireside a) because of inherent interest in the topic, and b) because of a vested interest in seeing how the fireside goes and is addressed in my local area. But, I think using the 3 hour block for this was inappropriate, and having people speak who should not speak in Church meetings (ex'd or disf'd members; members living in a state of apostasy, etc.) was very inappropriate. The filming of it is generally forbidden, but the stake president can authorize exceptions (I think in this case he is being raked over the coals by the Brethren via his AA70). 

I agree with everything Rongo says here.

I hope the chastisement of the stake president, if it happens, is clarifying and firm rather than punitive.  We are, of course, operating on limited amounts of information.  However, based on what we are reading from the bishop and his wife (I'm becoming less inclined to give much credence to the stuff being posted on Reddit), I very much want to give them the benefit of the doubt.  That they were acting in good faith, that they were attempting to enact the counsel recently given by Elder Ballard to listen more, that they sought and received approval from the stake president, and so on.

In other words, if there was a error in judgment, it was seemingly done with good intentions.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

Yes.  Interesting isn’t it?  But these are the conflicting messages that we’re receiving from our leaders. 

There was no inherent need to film the meeting or have excommunicated members speak, so I don't see why you think there was conflict in the messages from leaders.  He could have had the identical meeting with all but the two married women and then arranged another event within policy including them.

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Generally, I think this applies to all public meetings under the auspices of the Church, which would include firesides. However, I think discretion can be used in firesides where an ex'd or disf'd member could conceivably and appropriately be approved to speak. Not on doctrinal matters, but maybe historical, technical instruction, anecdotes, etc. The presiding authority would need to ensure that it would be uplifting and "do no harm."

For a number of reasons, I think this Riverton thing was inappropriate, and I think the aftermath will show that the Brethren feel that way, too. 

I agree that the Brethren will likely feel it was inappropriate and I think that's sad.  It's tough to really listen and understand our LGBT brothers and sisters if we only provide forums for those with whom we already agree.  

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm positioned differently from most, because I counsel with (and listen to and understand) as my calling. I think I do a pretty good job of that. I think what Elder Ballard said, with respect to general membership, is that many of us can do a better job of showing acceptance and empathy for gay Church members. To the extent that some have been harsh and hurtful, that should be repented of and changed. Many members don't have a problem with this, and already follow Elder Ballard's counsel.

I've mentioned this before, but in a Q&A fireside, in response to a question "Why do LDS hate gay people?," I asked the audience to raise their hands if they have gay family and friends. Almost every hand went up (this was youth), and I told people to look around for the answer to the question "Do LDS hate gay people?" What the questioner was asserting with the question was that Church teachings and policies vis a vis gay people = hate, and I pointed that out and said that this is false; that teaching the commandments and standards ≠ hate.

I agree that "hate" is definitely the wrong word to use.   I like your example above and appreciate what you're doing to open up communication with your members.  I think that's great!

I haven't heard the youth in my ward express any feelings that they believe the leaders hate gays, but many of them have stated that they are embarrassed to let any of their gay friends know they are a Mormon.  I've told them they should invite them to some activities so we can get to know them and they can get to know us.  Most react with something like, "yeah sure....they'd never want to come to a Mormon church for anything".   So there is definitely a negative connotation that I wish we could dispel.

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

I would most certainly attend such a fireside a) because of inherent interest in the topic, and b) because of a vested interest in seeing how the fireside goes and is addressed in my local area. But, I think using the 3 hour block for this was inappropriate, and having people speak who should not speak in Church meetings (ex'd or disf'd members; members living in a state of apostasy, etc.) was very inappropriate. The filming of it is generally forbidden, but the stake president can authorize exceptions (I think in this case he is being raked over the coals by the Brethren via his AA70). 

I think this SP and Bishop really are onto something here with hopefully having similar meetings like this in other wards and stakes.  I know that some changes would need to be made, but at least they tried even if mistakes were made.  I'm hoping that the church leaders will take the good that was accomplished in this meeting, watch the video, and figure out a way to repeat these meetings where members can hear and learn from their gay brother's and sister's experiences.

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

There was no inherent need to film the meeting or have excommunicated members speak, so I don't see why you think there was conflict in the messages from leaders.  He could have had the identical meeting with all but the two married women and then arranged another event within policy including them.

I agree with respect to there not being a need to film the meeting.

There seems to be some debate here about whether allowing excommunicated members to speak in church at any time would be appropriate.  If you want ward members to hear the perspective and experience of the married lesbian couple, it would be tough to do that outside of church.  That's where I see the conflict.

[ALarson]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

There was no inherent need to film the meeting or have excommunicated members speak, so I don't see why you think there was conflict in the messages from leaders.  He could have had the identical meeting with all but the two married women and then arranged another event within policy including them.

Have they been excommunicated?  I hadn't read that.  (It's hard to keep up with everything being written and posted about this meeting).

I do agree that part of the "fine tuning" I've suggested would most likely include eliminating any speaker who was currently in a SSM.  I actually feel they could be beneficial for members to hear from regarding their experience in the church as a gay, married person.... but I also understand why that may not be appropriate in a church setting.  I also don't know the need to video tape these meetings.  

With those 2 changes (along with having them presented in firesides), I don't know what objections the members or leaders would have.  We will see....

Edited February 1, 2018 by ALarson

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I agree with everything Rongo says here.

I hope the chastisement of the stake president, if it happens, is clarifying and firm rather than punitive.  We are, of course, operating on limited amounts of information.  However, based on what we are reading from the bishop and his wife (I'm becoming less inclined to give much credence to the stuff being posted on Reddit), I very much want to give them the benefit of the doubt.  That they were acting in good faith, that they were attempting to enact the counsel recently given by Elder Ballard to listen more, that they sought and received approval from the stake president, and so on.

In other words, if there was a error in judgment, it was seemingly done with good intentions.

I think that's the form that the chastisement will take. "Let's be more careful about xyz in the future, okay?" I am concerned about the alleged requirement from the stake president that each ward have its own form of this (fireside or church service). 

I hope I'm wrong, but my read of the bishop and his wife makes me worry that they will use this as a springboard to agitate. I see the Augensteins following the Mormon Stories projection route. 

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

There was no inherent need to film the meeting or have excommunicated members speak . . . 

Was the recording surreptitious, or officially part of it. If it was officially part of it, why? That, to me, would speak to the intent to be kind of a celebrity, to a hope that it would be used as a model for other meetings. 

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, ALarson said:

What exactly do you believe Elder Ballard meant when he stated that "we do must do better"?  (Specific examples if you have any.)

How do you feel this meeting was not a step in the right direction regarding the "need to listen to and understand what our LGBT brothers and sisters are feeling and experiencing"?  How can you listen to and understand them if we don't allow them to have a voice, speak and  share their feelings and experiences?

 

Are you really unable to conceive of how this might be accomplished without taking the highly irregular and questionable measure of occupying near two hours of the three-hour meeting block and bringing in speakers who have "stepped away from" the Church or who are unpenitently engaged in excommunicable behavior?

Quote

I understand you do not agree with this meeting being held during the block hours.  Would you attend a fireside with speakers who were gay members of the church so you could follow Elder Ballard's counsel?

Possibly.

I know I would be less apt to feel manipulated, as I would if I were a member of the ward and part of a more-or-less captive audience by reason of the meeting being scheduled during a time when faithful members are not just invited but pretty much expected to be there.

 

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think that's the form that the chastisement will take. "Let's be more careful about xyz in the future, okay?" I am concerned about the alleged requirement from the stake president that each ward have its own form of this (fireside or church service). 

I hope I'm wrong, but my read of the bishop and his wife makes me worry that they will use this as a springboard to agitate. I see the Augensteins following the Mormon Stories projection route. 

Possibly.  I hope not.  Some comments on Reddit made it sound like there was going to be some publicity about this event.  And yet here we are, four days later, with no news coverage.  Hopefully the Augensteins will recognize that antagonism and "social justice"-style agitation are not appropriately deployed by members against the Church.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Was the recording surreptitious, or officially part of it. If it was officially part of it, why? That, to me, would speak to the intent to be kind of a celebrity, to a hope that it would be used as a model for other meetings. 

Which is why I, like you, see shades of Bill Reel behavior in this thing.

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Was the recording surreptitious, or officially part of it. If it was officially part of it, why? That, to me, would speak to the intent to be kind of a celebrity, to a hope that it would be used as a model for other meetings. 

I think I read that it was video taped at the request of those who spoke (or the visitors who attended who seemed like a more organized group or at least some nonmembers?).  

But then, one of those who videoed it was the Bishop's brother (if you can believe what was posted on reddit).

[Calm]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Was the recording surreptitious, or officially part of it. If it was officially part of it, why? That, to me, would speak to the intent to be kind of a celebrity, to a hope that it would be used as a model for other meetings. 

It being used as a model is not the same thing as seeking out celebrity unless you think all the models the church has passed around in the past were also for that purpose.  It is hard to teach by example in groups without creating models.

It was not apparently surreptitious from everything I have read.

There were others who personally recorded at least part of the program, so it would be best not to automatically assume if video gets put up, it is from the semiofficial recording.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Possibly.  I hope not.  Some comments on Reddit made it sound like there was going to be some publicity about this event.  And yet here we are, four days later, with no news coverage.  Hopefully the Augensteins will recognize that antagonism and "social justice"-style agitation are not appropriately deployed by members against the Church.

I think the Augensteins, et. al. are furiously trying to beat back the planned publicity because "the eye of Sauron" has been turned towards this. With the AA70 mediating communication to the SP and this bishop, I think they are all working hard to try to put out this fire. And that's a good thing.