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

[kllindley]

16 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 too wondered about this. From what I can tell 6 of the participants were active, temple-worthy Mormons. 2 were "stepped away from the church." Seems like "the Mormons" had plenty of representation. 

 

[Brian 2.0]

1 hour 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.

 

 

 

It might not be needed for you personally. You are obviously very savvy at navigating the internet and interacting with people on this topic online. A lot of members don't fall into that camp though. And using only one example, if LGBT Youth indeed are committing suicide, for whatever reason, at a higher rate than non-LGBT youth, then I would think planning a meeting in alignment with Ballard's counsel and strongly encouraging members to attend seems appropriate. 

[kllindley]

10 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.  

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

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

Thanks,

-Smac

1. Disagree. Unless we're talking about a meeting were the LGBT voices are taking in defense of their decision. Then I agree. 

2. Agreed

3. Ambivalent. As someone who doesn't live in Utah, I appreciate being able to view online. But I agree don't record a Sunday meeting. One or the other, not both. 

4. Agree. From every indication that's what I see happening here.

5. Agree 110%. 

5.(6) I loved CaliforniaBoy's of suggestions. That was some great common ground work.

Additional point: I would trust the SP. Especially as a Bishop? I can't see a Bishop needing to go to the Area Seventy to double check that his SP is right.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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.  

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

Well, as far as I know, none of those guidelines are currently in place (just speaking generally as I know there are rules against video taping in the chapel, and knowing who the speakers are, etc.).  I tried to look up guidelines and it mainly just stated things generally (most specific was nothing spoken that was against church doctrine which could apply here, of course).  But we may see more specific guidelines such as the ones you list in the future.

I'm not even sure this type of meeting is inappropriate to hold during the block.  We have had some odd 5th Sunday presentations and discussions (such as food storage presentations and demonstrations).  We've also had some great ones on other difficult issues (such as the one on the polygamy essay and others).  I'm not convinced (if done right) that something similar to this couldn't be done on a 5th Sunday.

And, we most definitely do not know that this was a "one-sided Mormon-shaming lecture"....it sounds like it was just the opposite.  A reaching out and sharing in an effort to open up communication and understanding.

 

[rockpond]

1 hour 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.

 

 

By this logic, why have second and third hour meetings at all?  All of the curriculum from those meetings is on LDS.org.

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

 

It might not be needed for you personally. You are obviously very savvy at navigating the internet and interacting with people on this topic online. A lot of members don't fall into that camp though. And using only one example, if LGBT Youth indeed are committing suicide, for whatever reason, at a higher rate than non-LGBT youth, then I would think planning a meeting in alignment with Ballard's counsel and strongly encouraging members to attend seems appropriate. 

I agree.  There is no substitute for actually meeting these members face to face and actually hearing them share their experiences as opposed to just reading about something on the internet, IMO

[Danzo]

I am no supporter of Gay Marriage, I have campaigned against it in the past, even was part of a commercial against a prop 8 like initiative in another state.  If I were king of the world, I would outlaw it (wouldn't be my first priority, but I would get to it eventually).

That being said. The scriptures tell us that church meetings are to be conducted by the spirit.

 "And their meetings were conducted by the church after the manner of the workings of the Spirit, and by the power of the Holy Ghost; for as the power of the Holy Ghost led them whether to preach, or to exhort, or to pray, or to supplicate, or to sing, even so it was done. "

I believe it is fully possible that a bishop was inspired by the spirit to help understand and relate to fellow sinners.  It may have been the right thing to to help members of the ward have more Christlike love toward their fellow brother and sisters who may be struggling with different sins than they are.  The meeting needn't be perfect to be inspired. Like anything, there may have been, and probably were better ways to do it.  The members have the Gift of the Holy Ghost to help them know what is true and what is false.

Its also possible that this bishop was an apostate trying to promote false doctrine.   If that were the case, the members have the gift of the holy ghost to help them discern the true from the false.  The bishop has priesthood leaders to guide and to correct and even release him if necessary.  This thing doesn't seem to have been done in secret, so I feel confident that the bishop will receive appropriate feedback.

 

I think what bothers some people the most is that they heard about this from people who are ex(anti?) Mormons.  It is not what happened, but how a version of what happened is being used that seems to bother them.

 

My opinion is to let the local priesthood leaders, with the Holy Ghost take care of this.   

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, as far as I know, none of those guidelines are currently in place (just speaking generally as I know there are rules against video taping in the chapel, and knowing who the speakers are, etc.).  I tried to look up guidelines and it mainly just stated things generally (most specific was nothing spoken that was against church doctrine which could apply here, of course).  But we may see more specific guidelines such as the ones you list in the future.

Perhaps so. 

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not even sure this type of meeting is inappropriate to hold during the block. 

I think there are plenty of questions and concerns about it.  So much so that we needn't press the matter.  There are plenty of alternative venues available.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We have had some odd 5th Sunday presentations and discussions (such as food storage presentations and demonstrations). 

Those don't seem very odd.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

We've also had some great ones on other difficult issues (such as the one on the polygamy essay and others). 

But probably none in which polygamists were invited to use the Church's Sunday services to present their views on the Church's doctrines.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm not convinced (if done right) that something similar to this couldn't be done on a 5th Sunday.

It could just as easily be done in a venue where participation is not as much of a "captive audience"-type scenario.

Mormons attend Sunday services as a principle of faith.  Individuals who are simply not ready to participate in such a meeting should have an opt-out that does not embarrass them.  A venue other than the three-hour block is conducive to that.

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And, we most definitely do not know that this was a "one-sided Mormon-shaming lecture"....it sounds like it was just the opposite.  A reaching out and sharing in an effort to open up communication and understanding.

I was speaking prospectively.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

18 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

 

It might not be needed for you personally. You are obviously very savvy at navigating the internet and interacting with people on this topic online. A lot of members don't fall into that camp though. And using only one example, if LGBT Youth indeed are committing suicide, for whatever reason, at a higher rate than non-LGBT youth, then I would think planning a meeting in alignment with Ballard's counsel and strongly encouraging members to attend seems appropriate. 

There is also a huge difference between reading or watching something from the distance created by the Internet and seeing someone face to face, up close and more personal.

The way people react on the board in ways they wouldn't if they were talking in person to the other is evidence it makes a difference.  That Church leaders visit individual stakes to give in person talks rather than doing everything by live streaming or recorded talks is additional evidence.  That ward councils occur not by email, but by face to face talking is more evidence, imo, that it is inspired to have this level of contact rather than add distance.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Calm

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

 

It might not be needed for you personally. You are obviously very savvy at navigating the internet and interacting with people on this topic online. A lot of members don't fall into that camp though. And using only one example, if LGBT Youth indeed are committing suicide, for whatever reason, at a higher rate than non-LGBT youth, then I would think planning a meeting in alignment with Ballard's counsel and strongly encouraging members to attend seems appropriate. 

I heard just yesterday about a local Mormon family who decided to kick out their minor child for identifying as lesbian. I know that in many of these situations there are problems with other behaviors, such as substance abuse or defiance or violence, that contribute to there parents' decision. I know that it is often simplified (weaponized) to say that the parents kicked the child out "for being gay." That's not fair. And it damages the chance for dialogue. 

But as a matter of professional confidence, that was not the case in this situation. I'm sure Scott wouldn't kick his kid out just for having same sex attraction. But the reality is that we do have members who are not getting the message. 

I don't have any evidence that the is a common attitude or that a meeting like this one would do anything to stop the problem. I mean look how many members still don't do home teaching or fail to follow other guidance, despite clear teaching. But with the high stakes of homelessness and suicide, I think it would be wise to try. 

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, kllindley said:

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?

Yes, that's more than a strong possibility and a good point.

My main problem with it (other than the boost its getting on the anti-Mormon Reddit) is the inclusion of excommunicated/apostate speakers. As someone here pointed out, we don't do that for other topics and I don't see the justification for it here.

 

[smac97]

10 minutes ago, kllindley said:

1. Disagree. Unless we're talking about a meeting were the LGBT voices are taking in defense of their decision. Then I agree. 

I think it might be hard for LGBT folks to parse out their comments in this way.  A venue other than the Church would allow both parties to present their views in a respectful way.

Moreover, the three-hour block is "compulsory" in a sense.  Mormons attend church on Sundays as a matter of faith.  Some may simply not be comfortable in participating in such a discussion.  They need an opt-out which is not embarrassing to such individuals, and which does not require them to choose between attending church meetings and attending this type of meeting.

10 minutes ago, kllindley said:

2. Agreed

3. Ambivalent. As someone who doesn't live in Utah, I appreciate being able to view online. But I agree don't record a Sunday meeting. One or the other, not both. 

Recording these events is, for me, nearly a deal-breaker.  I think plenty of people (including me) would be very nervous about saying anything knowing that their remarks are being published to the world, where strangers could pick apart condemn any remark made, well-intentioned or otherwise.

10 minutes ago, kllindley said:

4. Agree. From every indication that's what I see happening here.

5. Agree 110%. 

5.(6) I loved CaliforniaBoy's of suggestions. That was some great common ground work.

Additional point: I would trust the SP. Especially as a Bishop? I can't see a Bishop needing to go to the Area Seventy to double check that his SP is right.

Agreed.  I think SP approval would be sufficient (the SP may, in turn, seek guidance/approval from AA70).

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

43 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But probably none in which polygamists were invited to use the Church's Sunday services to present their views on the Church's doctrines.

True, but that doesn't have anything to do with inviting gay members of the church to speak. (Also, we were discussing the essays on polygamy in church history, so all of those polygamists are now dead ).  But, as kllindley pointed out:

"From what I can tell 6 of the participants were active, temple-worthy Mormons. 2 were "stepped away from the church." Seems like "the Mormons" had plenty of representation."

And since we don't have any transcript of what was said, you have no idea if anyone was allowed "to present their views on the Church's doctrines".  For all we know, the Bishop may have requested that they not do this.

If no one is invited to speak who is involved in a SSM, then I see nothing wrong with holding this meeting as a 5th Sunday discussion and most definitely no problem with holding the meeting at the church (as a fireside for example). 

Edited February 1, 2018 by ALarson

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Calm said:

There is also a huge difference between reading or watching something from the distance created by the Internet and seeing someone face to face, up close and more personal.

Even that can be done on an individual basis without necessarily calling a meeting for it.

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes, that's more than a strong possibility and a good point.

My main problem with it (other than the boost its getting on the anti-Mormon Reddit) is the inclusion of excommunicated/apostate speakers. As someone here pointed out, we don't do that for other topics and I don't see the justification for it here.

 

I agree with this concern. It would have to be a unique situation for me to feel comfortable. Not standard operating procedure. 

[Brian 2.0]

5 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It could just as easily be done in a venue where participation is not as much of a "captive audience"-type scenario.

 

If the concern is very real from the brethren on this issue and they feel some eduction on it is needed, a "captive audience" during a standard black might be appropriate. Those who actually need to hear the message the most (who unfairly judge or shun or have false ideas about it) might not be very inclined to come to a more voluntary-type meeting such as a fireside. This isn't a topic of "oh, if you have interest in LGBT issues, you should come." That's more than likely going to be a preaching to the choir fireside.

[rongo]

38 minutes ago, Calm said:

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

Of course. That's why I said, "I think" several times.

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Moreover, the three-hour block is "compulsory" in a sense.  Mormons attend church on Sundays as a matter of faith.  Some may simply not be comfortable in participating in such a discussion.  They need an opt-out which is not embarrassing to such individuals, and which does not require them to choose between attending church meetings and attending this type of meeting.

 

Thanks,

-Smac

Again, depending on what we mean by "this type of meeting" I can understand that. I'm curious if you think a similar opt out should have been given to the members who feel uncomfortable discussing mental health?

[smac97]

4 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Again, depending on what we mean by "this type of meeting" I can understand that. I'm curious if you think a similar opt out should have been given to the members who feel uncomfortable discussing mental health?

Certainly.  These are sensitive topics.  

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I heard just yesterday about a local Mormon family who decided to kick out their minor child for identifying as lesbian. I know that in many of these situations there are problems with other behaviors, such as substance abuse or defiance or violence, that contribute to there parents' decision. I know that it is often simplified (weaponized) to say that the parents kicked the child out "for being gay." That's not fair. And it damages the chance for dialogue. 

But as a matter of professional confidence, that was not the case in this situation. I'm sure Scott wouldn't kick his kid out just for having same sex attraction. But the reality is that we do have members who are not getting the message. 

I don't have any evidence that the is a common attitude or that a meeting like this one would do anything to stop the problem. I mean look how many members still don't do home teaching or fail to follow other guidance, despite clear teaching. But with the high stakes of homelessness and suicide, I think it would be wise to try. 

It would likely help open doors for other families to take in the hopefully few being expelled from their own.  Not saying many families wouldn't already if they knew about the need, just that it would create awareness and communication of that need and then what support was available.  Families would be better prepared to foster kids in this situation.

[smac97]

8 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

If the concern is very real from the brethren on this issue and they feel some education on it is needed, a "captive audience" during a standard black might be appropriate.

I don't think think such "education" is contemplated as being compulsory.

This is a very difficult, very sensitive topic.  People need time to address it.

Moreover, there are other potential problems with doing these types of meetings during the three-hour block.

8 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

Those who actually need to hear the message the most (who unfairly judge or shun or have false ideas about it) might not be very inclined to come to a more voluntary-type meeting such as a fireside.

So you propose that the Church essentially compel the Latter-day Saints (who are otherwise obligated to attend church meetings) to attend such an "education?"

I see some problems with that.

8 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

This isn't a topic of "oh, if you have interest in LGBT issues, you should come." That's more than likely going to be a preaching to the choir fireside.

Actually, I think it should be an "oh, if you have interest in LGBT issues, you should come" kind of topic.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, ALarson said:

True, but that doesn't have anything to do with inviting gay members of the church to speak.  As kllindley pointed out:

"From what I can tell 6 of the participants were active, temple-worthy Mormons. 2 were "stepped away from the church." Seems like "the Mormons" had plenty of representation."

 

For me, it's not a matter of balanced representation. Going back to my point about it being a sanctuary, dissident, disaffected or former members should not have a forum there at all. If I'm a hardliner on any aspect of this, it's that one.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Even that can be done on an individual basis without necessarily calling a meeting for it.

How many families are typically in a ward (including singles as families)?

How much time and effort would be required from ward leaders to set up something on an individual basis for the entire ward or at least those willing to be involved?

Seems rather impractical.

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Even that can be done on an individual basis without necessarily calling a meeting for it.

But how many members are actually doing this?  Are you?  

I know that I could do better on this.  I personally know and love a few gay members of the church (and I work with a couple of men who are gay, but who are not members of the church and are wonderful individuals).

I read what this Bishop and his wife are doing....volunteering their time locally to actually get to know and learn from and listen to the gay members.  I think that is incredibly admirable.

I'll tell who else is really getting to know those who are gay and that's the youth.  I don't know of hardly any youth in my ward who don't have friends who are gay.  They love them and are listening to them.  More and more of them are in complete support of SSM too.

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by ALarson

[smac97]

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

But probably none in which polygamists were invited to use the Church's Sunday services to present their views on the Church's doctrines.

True, but that doesn't have anything to do with inviting gay members of the church to speak.  As kllindley pointed out:

"From what I can tell 6 of the participants were active, temple-worthy Mormons. 2 were "stepped away from the church." Seems like "the Mormons" had plenty of representation."

I'm not sure exactly what "stepped away from the Church" means.  But my understanding was that two who participated are presently living in circumstances that are grounds for excommunication (same-sex marriages).

If we don't let polygamists present their views during our Sunday services, I don't see why we should privilege those who are living in same-gender marriages.

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And since we don't have any transcript of what was said, you have no idea if anyone was allowed "to present their views on the Church's doctrines".  For all we know, the Bishop may have requested that they not do this.

I acknowledge that.  It may have happened, or not.  My point, however, is that moving forward, the risk for such things is quite real.  So let's mitigate that risk by not insisting that such meetings take place during the three-hour block.

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

If no one is invited to speak who is involved in a SSM, then I see nothing wrong with holding this meeting as a 5th Sunday discussion and most definitely no problem with holding the meeting at the church (as a fireside for example). 

This is odd.  My proposal calls for people who are involved in a same-sex marriage.

I am curious about the seeming insistence that the Church host such meetings during the three-hour block.  Why?  Why not at least start this process by using a more neutral venue (civic center or library)?  

Thanks,

-Smac