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

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

Why do you think it would be tough to do outside of the Sunday worship service, unless you favor using members' sense of obligation to attend said worship services as a tool to compel them to attend what you, driven by your own social activism, have planned? That strikes me as an abridgment of personal agency.

 

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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?

That's what I'm asking you.  What specifically do you believe we can do to follow Elder Ballard's counsel:

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."

If we don't allow them to speak to us about their feelings and experiences, how do you believe we can listen and understand and do better than we have done in the past?

Would you agree that in a different venue (and minus anyone speaking who is in a SSM), meetings such as the one we are discussing would be a great example of what Elder Ballard is counseling members and leaders to do?

If not, why not?

And, what would you suggest doing instead of or that would be better than actually hearing from gay members regarding their feelings and experiences? (Please don't answer with another question....give some concrete suggestions if you have any.)

Edited February 1, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Well, it could just be a bit of overzealousness.  The Augensteins apparently sought and obtained authorization from the stake president.  They may have thought, incorrectly, that this event was only coloring outside the lines a little, when it turns out to be a bit more than that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

That's what I'm asking you.  What specifically do you believe we can do to follow Elder Ballard's counsel:

You've already suggested one. Scheduling a meeting at a different time or place and in a different manner. I don't think I need to spoon-feed you. You are perfectly capable on your own of coming up with possibilities.

Quote

If we don't allow them to speak to us about their feelings and experiences, how do you believe we can listen and understand and do better than we have done in the past?

I never advocated disallowing them to speak. I just don't think it needs to be done during Sabbath worship services. And if it is, I feel no obligation to attend.

 

Quote

Would you agree that in a different venue, meetings such as the one we are discussing would be a great example of what Elder Ballard is counseling members to do?

Already asked and answered. Perhaps you are missing my posts.

[rockpond]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why do you think it would be tough to do outside of the Sunday worship service, unless you favor using members' sense of obligation to attend said worship services as a tool to compel them to attend what you, driven by your own social activism, have planned? That strikes me as an abridgment of personal agency.

 

I said it would be tough to do "outside of church".  If you are saying that it would be okay to host the same meeting at a church building on a Sunday evening, that's great.  Would you have supported that?

I'm not in favor of abridging personal agency but it appears the bishop felt inspired to do this and to reach the maximum ward audience by holding it during the the three hour block.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, it could just be a bit of overzealousness.  The Augensteins apparently sought and obtained authorization from the stake president.  They may have thought, incorrectly, that this event was only coloring outside the lines a little, when it turns out to be a bit more than that.

Thanks,

-Smac

You are commendably longsuffering in giving the benefit of the doubt. And I hope you are right. Time will tell, I suppose.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, rockpond said:

I said it would be tough to do "outside of church".  If you are saying that it would be okay to host the same meeting at a church building on a Sunday evening, that's great.  Would you have supported that?

I'm not in favor of abridging personal agency but it appears the bishop felt inspired to do this and to reach the maximum ward audience by holding it during the the three hour block.

Because that's the time when, unlike a fireside or seminar or some other optional gathering, people feel some obligation to be there. How is that not an abridgment of agency?

[ALarson]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You've already suggested one. Scheduling a meeting at a different time or place and in a different manner.

Great to hear that you agree with me.  And, would you attend?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

45 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). 

A fine post.

But "AA70" (presumably meaning "Area Authority Seventy") is outmoded terminology. The position today is called Area Seventy.

 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are commendably longsuffering in giving the benefit of the doubt. 

We should all follow his example here.  Let's reserve judgement until we have more information and stop being so negative as many have been on this thread.  I commend this Bishop and SP in their efforts to follow Elder Ballard's great counsel.  Mistakes may have been made, but from what I've read, they had very good, righteous intentions.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We should all follow his example here.  Let's reserve judgement until we have more information and stop being so negative as many have been on this thread.  I commend this Bishop and SP in their efforts to follow Elder Ballard's great counsel.  Mistakes may have been made, but from what I've read, they had very good, righteous intentions.

I don't think we should be cavalier about the "mistakes [that] may have been made." Inviting people to speak in Church who have apostatized or are engaging in excommunicable conduct is an unacceptable precedent, regardless of the rationale.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Great to hear that you agree with me.  And, would you attend?

 

Asked and answered. I said, "Possibly."

But the thought occurs: Why is it necessary to attend a meeting (or plan one) to follow President Ballard's counsel? There is no shortage of lgbt commentary on the internet. Could I not just avail myself of that? The Church's mormonandgay.org website, which I have visited frequently, is a good place to go in the spirit of following President Ballard's council, it seems to me. Attending a two-hour meeting might be your cup of Postum, but it's not necessarily mine.

 

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

45 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.

From what I've read, they were doing all they could to discourage anyone from reacting with anger or from doing anything to draw negative publicity towards the church.  This is just one more indication that their hearts were in the right place regarding why they put in such a great effort to have this meeting with their ward members.  

This will be interesting to watch from here....

[rockpond]

32 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Because that's the time when, unlike a fireside or seminar or some other optional gathering, people feel some obligation to be there. How is that not an abridgment of agency?

I'm first curious about your answer to my question:  Would you have supported the same meeting held at the church on a Sunday evening?

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

From what I've read, they were doing all they could to discourage anyone from reacting with anger or from doing anything to draw negative publicity towards the church. 

Yes, I noticed that.  I credit them for it.

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

This is just one more indication that their hearts were in the right place regarding why they put in such a great effort to have this meeting with their ward members.  

This will be interesting to watch from here....

I agree.  I also think it is an indication that prudence is warranted in such efforts.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

That's what I'm asking you.  What specifically do you believe we can do to follow Elder Ballard's counsel:

If we don't allow them to speak to us about their feelings and experiences, how do you believe we can listen and understand and do better than we have done in the past?

Nobody is suggesting that we "don't allow them to speak to us."

Time, place and manner.  That is the point being raised here.

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Would you agree that in a different venue (and minus anyone speaking who is in a SSM), meetings such as the one we are discussing would be a great example of what Elder Ballard is counseling members and leaders to do?

I agree.

I also think a bit of bilateral discussion could be helpful.  That is, let the Mormons speak for themselves.  Don't impute onto them the worst of motives.

Thanks,

-Smac

[provoman]

Handbook 2 provides instruction on guest speaker, it is up to the Bishop, however the implied condition is that the guest speaker is a member, as the instructions are to speak with the persons Bishop.

 

The type of meeting is good as it shows that lgbt are people too, who have feelings too. Is 2nd and 3rd hour a place for, when the subject matter was likely not known to the members, I do not think it is a good venue choice.

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes, I noticed that.  I credit them for it.

I agree.  I also think it is an indication that prudence is warranted in such efforts.  

Yes.  I hope we hear more from those involved and from those who planned this meeting.  

I do wonder what the guidelines are for these special (for lack of a better term) meetings.  Are ward leaders supposed to go above their SP for approval?  Or do stake leaders have guidelines on when they need to submit things higher up for approval? 

If not, maybe there will be more direction in the future because of this one meeting.

I know my Bishop would have felt good about moving forward if he had the SP's ok.

Edited February 1, 2018 by ALarson

[Danzo]

Just as an aside, Recently our Bishop had a meeting right after the 3 hour block (5 minutes after) to discuss some sensitive issues in our ward (Not LGBT).

As part of the meeting someone who had been excommunicated spoke to us.  I think, in that setting his comments were appropriate, So I can't say that having someone excommunicated speak is always a wrong thing to do.

 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I also think a bit of bilateral discussion could be helpful.  That is, let the Mormons speak for themselves.  Don't impute onto them the worst of motives.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here?  ("the Mormons"..... meaning those who were in attendance at the meeting?).  Who is imputing "onto them the worst of motives"?

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes.  I hope we hear more from those involved and from those who planned this meeting.  

I think they are under instructions to be radio silent, and to let this die down. I think further social media explanations that tend to keep this alive are being discouraged by the AA70. I think that continuing to discuss the planning, intent, etc. would make authorities unhappy. I think the SP and bishop don't want to ruffle any more feathers over this.

I do wonder what the guidelines are for these special (for lack of a better term) meetings.  Are ward leaders supposed to go above their SP for approval?  Or do stake leaders have guidelines on when they need to submit things higher up for approval?  I know my Bishop would have felt good about moving forward if he had the SP's ok.

If not, maybe there will be more direction in the future because of this one meeting.

I think anyone seeking approval above the SP is going to be referred back to the SP. In this case, I think the SP is being corrected. The bishop sought the proper authorization with this.

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I think they are under instructions to be radio silent, and to let this die down. I think further social media explanations that tend to keep this alive are being discouraged by the AA70. I think that continuing to discuss the planning, intent, etc. would make authorities unhappy. I think the SP and bishop don't want to ruffle any more feathers over this.

 

 

Just to be clear, all this is pure speculation based on how you expect things to be done, correct?

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Yes.  I hope we hear more from those involved and from those who planned this meeting.  

I do wonder what the guidelines are for these special (for lack of a better term) meetings. 

Some possibilities:

1. Don't have these meetings during the three-hour block.  Frankly, I'm not sure it would be appropriate to use the church building at all.  Use a neutral forum, like a civic center or the public library.

2. Vet the event participants.  Make sure there aren't any axe-grinders.

3. Don't record the meetings.  Let people feel some measure of safety in being able to speak their minds, without fear of reprisal (Kate Kelly's scorched-earth, Brendan-Eich-Type-Blowback efforts against her bishop is a good example of my concern on this point).

4. Make the discussion more bilateral.  Not a one-sided "Mormon-shaming" lecture.  Mormons need to be given an opportunity to present their views as well.

5. The Mormons need some real and actual respect for and tolerance of their beliefs, and at present that's not happening.  Overwrought rhetoric accusing us of being bigots and haters is poisonous to an interchange of ideas.  My-way-or-the-highway-style demands from people like Paul Fisher and Dan Reynolds are not helpful.  At all.  

6. Try to identify areas of commonality.  Concrete things we can all agree will advance our ability to get along and help those in need.

7. Make these meetins more periodic, rather than a one-off type of thing.  People need time to digest information and divergent viewpoints.  A single meeting may not be sufficient.

Quote

Are ward leaders supposed to go above their SP for approval? 

Given the nature of this issue, i would say: Definitely.  Absolutely.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 1, 2018 by smac97

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not sure what you're referring to here?  ("the Mormons"..... meaning those who were in attendance at the meeting?).  Who is imputing "onto them the worst of motives"?

I was speaking generally.  I've lost count of the number of times I've read horrible accusations leveled against my people.  My Church and its members.

Thanks,

-smac

[kllindley]

51 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Asked and answered. I said, "Possibly."

But the thought occurs: Why is it necessary to attend a meeting (or plan one) to follow President Ballard's counsel? There is no shortage of lgbt commentary on the internet. Could I not just avail myself of that? The Church's mormonandgay.org website, which I have visited frequently, is a good place to go in the spirit of following President Ballard's council, it seems to me. Attending a two-hour meeting might be your cup of Postum, but it's not necessarily mine.

 

 

Scott, I don't necessarily disagree with this in general. Yet, my guy response is to go back to our recent 2/3 hour block meeting on mental health. Why did our Bishop feel it necessary to plan this meeting? There is already information online on mental health and suicide prevention. Elder Holland gave a conference talk on it. Why didn't our Bishop just assume that people could access that elsewhere?

And why not do it in fireside format? I honestly don't think the members who most desperately needed that message would have attended. We have parents of teens who are telling their kids that depression is all in their heads and that they just need to pray more and small out of it. Those parents are not going to attend a fireside about an issue they don't believe is actually an issue. 

I mentioned that the speaker was a doctor. This doctor really had no professional training in mental health and was not from the Ward or the Stake. I was personally a little hurt at first. I thought hmm, here I am a trained and licensed mental health professional in the ward, why would the Bishop ask this guy to speak? Turns out the Bishop knew that he had served as a mission doctor and worked in that calling with anxious and depressed missionaries. He was familiar with the counsel from the mission department. This gave him a lot more "street cred" with the members who would probably have rolled their eyes if I had been talking to them. 

I say this to point out that maybe the circumstances of this meeting were specific and inspired. It seems that the biggest problem is that this was shared from an (anti) ex Mormon site and tainted by that perspective. Could it be possible that the meeting was exactly in harmony with the Lord's will, without being any sort of "template" to be replicated elsewhere?