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

[USU78]

Until a venue is established where the opinions and experiences of those hurt, traumatized and/or brutalized by homosexuals can safely be given air and light without censure and without judgment, such events will be useless.

 

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

I honestly don't see that the Riverton meeting was an attempt to push for change of doctrine or acceptance of SSM. The Reddit post, yes. Completely. Not from the Bishop. 

If I'm wrong and it does turn out that this was the intent, I'll be the first to condemn it. That kind of approach is so destructive to LGBT members who believe in the plan of salvation and the restored Gospel. 

[kllindley]

19 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Until a venue is established where the opinions and experiences of those hurt, traumatized and/or brutalized by homosexuals can safely be given air and light without censure and without judgment, such events will be useless.

 

Are you trying to get banned? Would that help you feel justified in your anger? Am I really welcome at your church?

Edited February 1, 2018 by kllindley

[pogi]

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. 

Yes, you nailed it on the head.  This is not about our critics, it is about saving the lives of our youth who are in jeopardy.  This is about laying an old noxious culture deep down into the grave where it belongs, and where our youth do not belong. This is about our people. This is what a Zion people does for its members in great need. 

I don't take credit for this approach though.  The brethren have been calling for the same adjustment of culture without adjustment of standards. 

While some have voiced valid concerns about a couple of the speakers chosen, and the recording, lets be careful to not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

[cinepro]

For those who are disturbed by the idea of having someone who has "stepped away" from the Church address a ward in such a meeting, may I offer another hypothetical?

The Church is, by all appearances, experiencing a rash of missionaries coming home early from their missions.  Some find that they aren't treated as kindly by other Church members as they might have hoped or expected.

Suppose a Stake had a considerably higher number of early returned missionaries than usual, and the Stake President was concerned that their ongoing participation in the Church might be affected by ill-treatment from other members.  So he asks the Bishops to be especially aware of such situations.

In order to make sure everyone understands what is going on, a Bishop devotes a "fifth Sunday" meeting to discussing the issue with the ward.  As part of the discussion, the Bishop invites a young man who had returned home early from his mission about a decade earlier, and due partly to the way he was treated by others at Church, later fell away and had his name removed from Church records.  This young man shares his experience with the other ward members to help them understand the impact their remarks and behaviors can have.

Would inviting such a person to speak in that context be disturbing to you?

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

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?

I’ve already answered that, and yet you and ALarson keep asking it. I remind you that this board has an asked-and-answered policy. 

I’ll ignore any further asking of that question by you or ALarson. I won’t abide badgering. 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

For those who are disturbed by the idea of having someone who has "stepped away" from the Church address a ward in such a meeting, may I offer another hypothetical?

The Church is, by all appearances, experiencing a rash of missionaries coming home early from their missions.  Some find that they aren't treated as kindly by other Church members as they might have hoped or expected.

Suppose a Stake had a considerably higher number of early returned missionaries than usual, and the Stake President was concerned that their ongoing participation in the Church might be affected by ill-treatment from other members.  So he asks the Bishops to be especially aware of such situations.

In order to make sure everyone understands what is going on, a Bishop devotes a "fifth Sunday" meeting to discussing the issue with the ward.  As part of the discussion, the Bishop invites a young man who had returned home early from his mission about a decade earlier, and due partly to the way he was treated by others at Church, later fell away and had his name removed from Church records.  This young man shares his experience with the other ward members to help them understand the impact their remarks and behaviors can have.

Would inviting such a person to speak in that context be disturbing to you?

Yes. Resigning one’s membership should disqualify anyone from speaking in Church. 

A member of the Church in good standing with whom the young man has shared his story could appropriately recount it if need be. 

[ALarson]

4 hours ago, rockpond said:

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?

I didn't see him answer this elsewhere (that I can remember).  Here's Scott's response to me:

Quote

 

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.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70142-utah-ward-invites-lgbt-speakers-for-2nd-and-3rd-hour/?do=findComment&comment=1209792425

 

 

Edited February 1, 2018 by ALarson

[USU78]

14 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Are you trying to get banned? Would that help you feel justified in your anger? Am I really welcome at your church?

So ... Sauce only for geese? None for ganders?

We're required to be compassionate, but those among us who've been traumatized aren't entitled to your compassion?

I bring this up because of things I've sadly observed, those whose pain has no champion.

Would you be open to such an event? I could find the speakers.

[Brian 2.0]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

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?"

only in as much as they "compel" the saints to keep the sabbath holy or love their neighbor by including the topics in their block meetings.

If the brethren felt that the saints were having difficulty in those matters I don't think there would be any hesitation in putting in the block. 

I guess I still don't understand why it should outside the block IF the topic is something the brethren find the saints in need and it is accordance with what Ballard is saying (not speaking in relation to the Riverton meeting).

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

So ... Sauce only for geese? None for ganders?

We're required to be compassionate, but those among us who've been traumatized aren't entitled to your compassion?

How have you been "hurt, traumatized and/or brutalized by homosexuals"? 

[USU78]

Just now, ALarson said:

How have you been "hurt, traumatized and/or brutalized by homosexuals"? 

Did I say I had? Even if I had, I'd never share that personal a matter where nasty jerks could mock it.

I said I've observed it. Big difference.

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

Did I say I had? Even if I had, I'd never share that personal a matter where nasty jerks could mock it.

I said I've observed it. Big difference.

"Nasty jerks"?   Are you referring to someone here or elsewhere?

 

 

[Daniel2]

36 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Until a venue is established where the opinions and experiences of those hurt, traumatized and/or brutalized by homosexuals can safely be given air and light without censure and without judgment, such events will be useless.

 

USU,

I condemn harm, trauma, and brutality inflicted on others by humans regardless of sexual orientation. 

I haven’t seen any evidence on the board that intentionally or inadvertently dismisses or overlooks any accounts of victimization of such abusive behaviors or practices. 

Have you? If so, where, when, and by whom?

Edited February 1, 2018 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Having people get unbalanced exposure is a risk with any topic, a risk we try to mitigate by teaching correct principles (such as President Ballard’s admonition) and then trusting people to use their own discernment and discretion as they work at applying the principles. 

Regarding your comparison, when Gospel topic essays — authoritative and correlated as they are — are incorporated into Sabbath day instruction, I am less apt to feel manipulated as I might be if I were herded into the cultural hall with the other adult members of the ward and made to sit for two hours while being force-fed someone’s pet social cause or gospel hobby. 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

18 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I didn't see him answer this elsewhere (that I can remember).  Here's Scott's response to me:

 

Which letter in the word “possibly” don’t you understand?

[ALarson]

Just now, Scott Lloyd said:

Which letter in the word “possibly” don’t you understand?

???

I posted that for rockpond to see your response to when I asked you the same question.  Where did I state that I did not understand?

[Daniel2]

17 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Yes. Resigning one’s membership should disqualify anyone from speaking in Church. 

A member of the Church in good standing with whom the young man has shared his story could appropriately recount it if need be. 

I admit it’s foreign to me that people who’ve transitioned to another faith should be prohibited from speaking in one’s own services.

As an LDS missionary, my companions and I were occasionally gratifird when leaders of other Faiths accepted our offers to address their congregations. 

And as a Unitarian, I take pride in the fact that we encourage our youth to attend services of other Faiths during our own church service times to learn how others believe, as well as inviting members of other Faiths to speak from our pulpit.

While censuring others, even from one’s own pulpit, is certainly within the realm of any Faith’s personal prerogatives, it also stikes me as an act of control motivated mostly by fear.

[Daniel2]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Having people get unbalanced exposure is a risk with any topic, a risk we try to mitigate by teaching correct principles (such as President Ballard’s admonition) and then trusting people to use their own discernment and discretion as they work at applying the principles. 

“Unbalanced exposure”...?

As I said.... control motivated by fear.

If your “truths” are so flimsy they can’t stand even the slightest possibility of exposure to opposing opinions that couldn’t be comprehensively addressed in subsequent discussions, that speaks volumes in and of itself.

Edited February 1, 2018 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, USU78 said:

So ... Sauce only for geese? None for ganders?

We're required to be compassionate, but those among us who've been traumatized aren't entitled to your compassion?

I bring this up because of things I've sadly observed, those whose pain has no champion.

Would you be open to such an event? I could find the speakers.

In USU78’s defense, I have to say there have been instances of adult homosexual males preying upon adolescent youth. I’ve even read tha autobiography of one, a famous pop music mogul, who served prison time for having done it and who wrote openly and without regret about it. 

Edited February 1, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, ALarson said:

???

I posted that for rockpond to see your response to when I asked you the same question.  Where did I state that I did not understand?

I guess I misunderstood. I beg your pardon. 

[USU78]

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

USU,

I condemn harm, trauma, and brutality inflicted on others by humans regardless of sexual orientation. 

I haven’t seen any evidence on the board that intentionally or inadvertently dismisses or overlooks any accounts of victimization of such abusive behaviors or practices. 

Have you? If so, where, when, and by whom?

You ignore my point: the inequity where only the politically popular with powerful sponsors and champions get worship services co-opted to air their grievances and pain. And nobody dares offer criticism of those whose careless or malicious abuse leaves scarred victims in their wake.

As to your question: Show me the support group for wives neglected and abandoned, children left with no footing in a world rendered unintelligible by selfish, narcissistic and now long gone but now sexually fulfilled homosexual daddies. When was the last fundraiser for the seduced teeniebopper now adult man with severe emotional and psychosexual scarring? Or his put upon wife and children compelled to endure the inevitable consequences of dad's scars?

Where's the compassion for those folks?

This Riverton event leaves me nothing but cold.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

“Unbalanced exposure”...?

As I said.... control motivated by fear.

If your “truths” are so flimsy they can’t stand even the slightest possibility of exposure to opposing opinions that couldn’t be comprehensively addressed in subsequent discussions, that speaks volumes in and of itself.

“Unbalanced exposure” was not my term, it was Calm’s. I was using it in response to her post. 

Perhaps you need to re-read my post in the context of what I was responding to to better grasp it. 

[Daniel2]

27 minutes ago, USU78 said:

 

28 minutes ago, USU78 said:

We're required to be compassionate, but those among us who've been traumatized aren't entitled to your compassion?

I bring this up because of things I've sadly observed, those whose pain has no champion.

Would you be open to such an event? I could find the speakers.

As my signature states, I believe we should strive for compassion for everyone we meet.

You’vr alluded to pain experienced by some at the hands of homosexuals who had no champion. Please provide examples of such. Consider this a solid CFR.

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I admit it’s foreign to me that people who’ve transitioned to another faith should be prohibited from speaking in one’s own services.

As an LDS missionary, my companions and I were occasionally gratifird when leaders of other Faiths accepted our offers to address their congregations. 

And as a Unitarian, I take pride in the fact that we encourage our youth to attend services of other Faiths during our own church service times to learn how others believe, as well as inviting members of other Faiths to speak from our pulpit.

While censuring others, even from one’s own pulpit, is certainly within the realm of any Faith’s personal prerogatives, it also stikes me as an act of control motivated mostly by fear.

I don’t see it that way. I view it in terms of our Sabbath meetings being a sanctuary from ideological bombardment of which we get plenty the rest of the week. 

I don’t criticize what other faith groups do in this respect, but tolerance is a two-way street.