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

[Scott Lloyd]

17 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

 

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.

Odds are that people like that aren't going to be reached by such a meeting anyway. I think the vast majority of us are reasonable, and for that category a "teach-them-correct-principles-and-let-them-govern-themselves" a la President Ballard's counsel, generalized as it was, has typically been the best way to go.

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Calm]

"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."

Serious question, trying to see where the line is drawn...

Would you feel the same way if there was known bullying based on racism?  Problems with verbal abuse of children?

There are those who are uncomfortable/sensitive being told they need to do better hometeaching/visiting teaching.  I assume you are okay with using three hour block meetings to push these topics and others such as genealogy, food storage, temple attendance, temple marriage, and marriage in general.  I know of many who feel quite awkward for these subjects.

At what point for you does the need for all members to work towards a more Zion community outweigh the need to protect sensitive feelings?

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

I don't have in mind ward leaders setting up something at all. I'm thinking in terms of trusting members to take President Ballard's counsel to heart for their own individual circumstances. Just visiting mormonandgay.org or the Church's or others' suicide prevention websites might be sufficient for some people.

Again, it's the teach-correct-principles-and-let-them-govern-themselves approach.

 

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Odds are that people like that aren't going to be reached by such a meeting anyway. I think the vast majority of us are reasonable, and for that category a "teach-them-correct-principles-and-let-them-govern-themselves" a la President Ballard's counsel, generalized as it was, has typically been the best way to go.

 

There are people who aren't reached by meetings on home/visiting teaching, temple attendance, tithing, Word of Wisdom...yet we continue to have meetings on these subjects.

What is the difference in your view?

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are people who aren't reached by meetings on home/visiting teaching, temple attendance, tithing, Word of Wisdom...yet we continue to have meetings on these subjects.

What is the difference in your view?

Ongoing commandments and inspired programs vs. one-off topical issues.

Incidentally, other than the occasional Sunday School lesson, I don't remember the last time I attended a meeting specifically on Word of Wisdom observance. I don't even hear pulpit sermons on it very much anymore.

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[ALarson]

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

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).

I don't think it's a fair comparison.  Inviting those who are living polygamy (and who most likely not even be members of the church) vs. inviting members of the church to speak who are gay (as long as they are not currently in a SSM) is not a good comparison, IMO.

16 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I am curious about the seeming insistence that the Church host such meetings during the three-hour block

"Insistence"?  I have not done that at all.  I've stated several times that maybe a different venue such as in a fireside may be best.  I've also expressed that I personally would have no issue with having a discussion of this type for a 5th Sunday discussion.  But I'm certainly not insistent about that. 

Edited February 1, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

35 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

Doesn't just leaving it in the hands of the individual to determine how they will learn increase the risk of having unbalanced exposure?

Kids are now being taught the Gospel Essays in seminary rather than just leaving it open for them to explore information on their own time, in part I suspect to prevent a greater loss from first exposure from anti sources.

Having church sponsored events increases the likelihood, imo, that information will be shared in the context of church doctrine rather than through avenues that either ignore or reject such.

PS:  just to be clear, I am NOT including talks from excommunicated members and/or anything contradictory to church doctrine here, everything taught would need to be within the same conditions as we teach other principles of behaviour and doctrine.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

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).

I don't think it's a fair comparison.  Inviting those who are living polygamy (and who most likely not even be members of the church) vs. members of the church who are gay (as long as they are not currently in a SSM).

I was comparing people who are living in polygamist marriages and people who are living in same-sex marriages.  Neither such persons are positioned to address the Saints during the Church's own meetings and in its own buildings.

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Quote

I am curious about the seeming insistence that the Church host such meetings during the three-hour block

"Insistence"?  I have not done that at all.  I've stated several times that maybe a different venue such as a fireside may be best.  I've also expressed that I personally would have no issue with having a discussion of this type for a 5th Sunday discussion.  But I'm certainly not insistent about that. 

Fair enough.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Ongoing commandments and inspired programs vs. one-off topical issues.

Incidentally, other than the occasional Sunday School lesson, I don't remember the last time I attended a meeting specifically on Word of Wisdom observance. I don't even hear pulpit sermons on it very much anymore.

 

True, I was just thinking of subjects I have heard many express discomfort with...WoW is not generally one that gets focused attention on outside of regular lessons.

[ALarson]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I was comparing people who are living in polygamist marriages and people who are living in same-sex marriages. 

And I have repeatedly made it clear that I agree that those who are currently in a SSM should not be invited to speak in a church meeting.  So, I do not see your comparison as being applicable here.

Edited February 1, 2018 by ALarson

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't think it's a fair comparison.  Inviting those who are living polygamy (and who most likely not even be members of the church) vs. inviting members of the church to speak who are gay (as long as they are not currently in a SSM) is not a good comparison, IMO.

"Insistence"?  I have not done that at all.  I've stated several times that maybe a different venue such as in a fireside may be best.  I've also expressed that I personally would have no issue with having a discussion of this type for a 5th Sunday discussion.  But I'm certainly not insistent about that. 

About five years ago (or longer) all the wards in our stake had a 5th Sunday discussion on same-sex attraction and how the saints need to treat everyone with charity. I don't remember what prompted it, but I had the impression is was a Church-wide initiative. I'm not sure how often a Church-wide initiative is required, or even stake-wide, but I welcome the judgement of any leader at any jurisdictional level that I am part of.

That is one reason I see the broad dissemination of the thread's subject meeting over social media a potential example of unrighteous dominion. Bishops are not everyone's shepherd, nor should their calling be leveraged to promote a personal social and political interest any more than a career or business interest. I'm not thinking of the bishop alone, but those who use him.

Edited February 1, 2018 by CV75

[smac97]

23 minutes ago, CV75 said:

About five years ago (or longer) all the wards in our stake had a 5th Sunday discussion on same-sex attraction and how the saints need to treat everyone with charity. I don't remember what prompted it, but I had the impression is was a Church-wide initiative. I'm not sure how often a Church-wide initiative is required, or even stake-wide, but I welcome the judgement of any leader at any jurisdictional level that I am part of.

That is one reason I see the broad dissemination of the thread's subject meeting over social media a potential example of unrighteous dominion. Bishops are not everyone's shepherd, nor should their calling be leveraged to promote a personal social and political interest any more than a career or business interest. I'm not thinking of the bishop alone, but those who use him.

While well-intentioned, I think this part of the plan (to disseminate recordings/transcripts of the meeting) runs well outside this bishop's stewardship.

However, he apparently did seek and obtain permission from his stake president, so he probably felt like he was in the clear.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

While well-intentioned, I think this part of the plan (to disseminate recordings/transcripts of the meeting) runs well outside this bishop's stewardship.

However, he apparently did seek and obtain permission from his stake president, so he probably felt like he was in the clear.  

Thanks,

-Smac

Thanks for the update -- i haven't been following the thread too closely. Not to put too much on you to be a messenger, but has it been confirmed that the stake president approved its release? I can't find anything about it on Google.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Certainly.  These are sensitive topics.  

Okay. I can respect that. I guess I don't believe that people are best served by avoiding sensitive topics, especially when there is an ongoing problem like frequent suicide attemps. 

[kllindley]

1 hour 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.

 

Agreed. The only justification I can imagine is that the Bishop and Stake President were inspired to ask these two individuals for whatever reason. Otherwise, it would have been not "just a mistake," but also a serious violation of stewardship. 

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Okay. I can respect that. I guess I don't believe that people are best served by avoiding sensitive topics, especially when there is an ongoing problem like frequent suicide attemps. 

You have a point.  But I think there is also some risk is the Church essentially compelling its members to address this topic.  

If there are people at risk for suicide, they certainly need attention and help.  My sense is that these meetings are not geared specifically toward that.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

14 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Thanks for the update -- i haven't been following the thread too closely. Not to put too much on you to be a messenger, but has it been confirmed that the stake president approved its release? I can't find anything about it on Google.

I don't know.  That there has not been much news about this is, I think, a good thing.  Nobody is "airing the family's dirty laundry," as it were.  Those involved are trying to address and resolve this issue quietly, such that there is no estrangement or embarrassment to any party (or else such things are minimized).

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

Just now, smac97 said:

You have a point.  But I think there is also some risk is the Church essentially compelling its members to address this topic.  

If there are people at risk for suicide, they certainly need attention and help.  My sense is that these meetings are not geared specifically toward that.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yeah. I think I've made things more confusing by taking about the recent mental health meeting our Ward had and comparing it to the meeting on Riverton. I think the comparison is still appropriate, but they are not the exact same situation. And I have not always been clear which meeting I was referring to.  

Sorry for that. 

[rongo]

32 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Okay. I can respect that. I guess I don't believe that people are best served by avoiding sensitive topics, especially when there is an ongoing problem like frequent suicide attemps. 

If the approach is pogi's approach (genuine sympathy/empathy, encouragement to hang in there and "it will get better," etc.) --- in other words, doing everything we can to treat people Christlike and offer support but not caving in on standards, commandments, or the sanctity of marriage as defined by the Church . . .

If this is the approach, will that finally cause our critics on this to say, "We are very happy with the way the Mormon Church is handling this now?" Or, will there still be attacks that church discipline, doctrine, culture, etc. are causing suicide, depression, hate, etc.?

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

If the approach is pogi's approach (genuine sympathy/empathy, encouragement to hang in there and "it will get better," etc.) --- in other words, doing everything we can to treat people Christlike and offer support but not caving in on standards, commandments, or the sanctity of marriage as defined by the Church . . .

If this is the approach, will that finally cause our critics on this to say, "We are very happy with the way the Mormon Church is handling this now?" Or, will there still be attacks that church discipline, doctrine, culture, etc. are causing suicide, depression, hate, etc.?

Some. Others won't be moved. I really don't care what the critics say or think. I am worried about doing the right thing. 

And I believe that as"pogi's approach" becomes more and more widespread, the problems of hopelessness and suicide will decrease. Some members will leave, not willing to abide the standards, but they will do so without the self hatred and despair. And I imagine that as those fruits become apparent, the vast majority of current critics will respectfully ignore the Church's stance. 

[clarkgoble]

52 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Okay. I can respect that. I guess I don't believe that people are best served by avoiding sensitive topics, especially when there is an ongoing problem like frequent suicide attemps. 

Dealing with suicide is very tricky. How you talk about it mattes a lot otherwise well intentioned people may actually prime copy-cat suicides. i.e. talk about people committing suicide due to homosexuality and pressure in the church and you may actually make it more likely depressed people on spur of the moment commit suicide. This psychological effect has long been known. It was first noted when the press would report a suicide and there would be a large spike of copycats.

I'd think indirect means of preventing suiciding my having people care and most importantly emphasizing how good life can be is far, far superior to talking about suicide directly. Unless one has training in such things. (I'd add my pet peeve that this also applies to mass killings that often end with suicide that are poorly reported these days - a tragic combination of the need for sensationalism due to collapse of advertising combined with poorly trained reporters)

Edited February 1, 2018 by clarkgoble

[CV75]

50 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't know.  That there has not been much news about this is, I think, a good thing.  Nobody is "airing the family's dirty laundry," as it were.  Those involved are trying to address and resolve this issue quietly, such that there is no estrangement or embarrassment to any party (or else such things are minimized).

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you -- I'm heading out on vacation for a week, guess where? UTAH! Maybe I'll ask around about this deal  

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Some. Others won't be moved. I really don't care what the critics say or think. I am worried about doing the right thing. 

And I believe that as"pogi's approach" becomes more and more widespread, the problems of hopelessness and suicide will decrease. Some members will leave, not willing to abide the standards, but they will do so without the self hatred and despair. And I imagine that as those fruits become apparent, the vast majority of current critics will respectfully ignore the Church's stance. 

I definitely prefer pogi's approach to the Riverton meeting, which honestly, as part of their attempt to change attitudes and behavior, tried overtly to garner acceptance for same sex marriage and same sex relationships within the Church. I think that is clear from Bishop Augenstein's remarks, and from who was selected to speak. And, if true, by the stake president insisting that all wards have these types of meetings. 

I would be much more comfortable with pogi's approach than this Riverton meeting. And like you, I think it would do much more good towards preventing and mitigating teen suicide than abandoning our standards. 

[kllindley]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Dealing with suicide is very tricky. How you talk about it mattes a lot otherwise well intentioned people may actually prime copy-cat suicides. i.e. talk about people committing suicide due to homosexuality and pressure in the church and you may actually make it more likely depressed people on spur of the moment commit suicide. This psychological effect has long been known. It was first noted when the press would report a suicide and there would be a large spike of copycats.

I'd think indirect means of preventing suiciding my having people care and most importantly emphasizing how good life can be is far, far superior to talking about suicide directly. Unless one has training in such things. (I'd add my pet peeve that this also applies to mass killings that often end with suicide that are poorly reported these days - a tragic combination of the need for sensationalism due to collapse of advertising combined with poorly trained reporters)

I totally agree. Thank you for pointing this out. I posted above that I have not clearly differentiated between the two meetings. Our Ward's mental health meeting was focused on better understanding the nature and proper treatment of mental health issues of depression and anxiety. It was not specifically "suicide prevention." 

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Dealing with suicide is very tricky. How you talk about it mattes a lot otherwise well intentioned people may actually prime copy-cat suicides. i.e. talk about people committing suicide due to homosexuality and pressure in the church and you may actually make it more likely depressed people on spur of the moment commit suicide. This psychological effect has long been known. It was first noted when the press would report a suicide and there would be a large spike of copycats.

Have you ever read Malcolm Gladwell's "The Tipping Point?" He has a whole chapter on the Micronesian suicide epidemic among teenage boys. Fascinating. And like you said, when there is prominent news coverage of a suicide, suicides spike and even single car (car hits stationary object) accident deaths spike (and come down again when the coverage recedes). Murder-suicides lead to a temporary spike in fatal car crashes involving multiple cars. Psychologists have called this "tacit permission," or a subtle "nudge" towards suicide in prone people when there is attention given to other suicides. 

I actually think a lot of this is going on with teen suicide in general, not just LGBTQ suicide.