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

[Marginal Gains]

5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Tom Christofferson has published a book. I imagine much of what was said could be found in the book.

 

If you’d up and leave the meeting, why would you read and/or recommend Tom’s book if it contains much the same content?

Edited January 29, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[USU78]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When you said it was "apparently coordinated by the (B)rethren," I got the impression it was under the auspices of Church headquarters. Yet the Facebook post said it was sponsored by a single stake.

The Brethren might have given permission for a one-time-only event for research purposes.  What's posted on FB and what's in the correspondence between the Stake and Church headquarters (through regional authority or direct) are likely two very different things.

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Once again, you do not know that those who participated spoke "in favor of -- sin".  

You are judging them without knowing that this took place.

The likelihood would have seemed strong enough for me to stay away.

And that's all I would have done. I'm entitled to determine how I will spend my time on Sunday.

You act as though I would have vandalized the meetinghouse or shouted down the meeting with a bullhorn Antifa style.

[clarkgoble]

30 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

When you said it was "apparently coordinated by the (B)rethren," I got the impression it was under the auspices of Church headquarters. Yet the Facebook post said it was sponsored by a single stake.

The speaker was the brother of Elder Christofferson. Just going by the impression I had from the announcement on Sunday at Church. Our Stake was holding it and it was emphatically meant to be small and intimate so people could ask questions. Our Stake is hardly a liberal stake straining at perceived shackles of orthodoxy. So I do find it significant.

How involved the Brethren are I don’t know. I know it’s an issue several of the youth have been struggling with. There was also apparently a friends suicide (not in our ward) that was a topic of much discussion. 

 

I think it it a real issue and to me I see the brethren truly trying their best to deal with these issues. While last weeks press conference was largely bungled, I personally thought it clear that both Elder Oaks and Pres Nelson care deeply about the people affected. Again though doctrine doesn’t leave a lot of room.

 

Edited January 29, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Marginal Gains]

1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The likelihood would have seemed strong enough for me to stay away.

And that's all I would have done. I'm entitled to determine how I will spend my time on Sunday.

You act as though I would have vandalized the meetinghouse or shouted down the meeting with a bullhorn Antifa style.

I’m not seeing that in anything A Larson has said. I mean, at all. Can you point out what A Larson has said that brought you to that conclusion?

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

If you’d up and leave the meeting, why would you read and/or recommend Tom’s book if it contains much the same content?

Because I think the three-hour worship service ought to be a sanctuary where Church members can be shielded from bombardment with worldly ideologies. We get enough of that the other six days of the week. That's why discussion of politics is generally discouraged if not forbidden in Church classes and sermons.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

3 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

I’m not seeing that in anything A Larson has said. I mean, at all. Can you point out what A Larson has said that brought you to that conclusion?

I've noticed people on this board have a very difficult time comprehending hyperbole.

[USU78]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You act as though I would have vandalized the meetinghouse or shouted down the meeting with a bullhorn Antifa style.

...  and, let's be clear here, no rational person would assume that LDS members would ever do such a thing.  Mormons generally are so worried about offending others or being offputting that they swing 180 degrees upon experiencing anything like pushback.  To "infer" what ALarson "infers" takes gallons of chutzpah and hectares of disingenuousness.

[Brian 2.0]

Has the meeting in question (posted on reddit) been confirmed as happening? And happened as recapped by the reddit poster?

Video proof (which there apparently is somewhere) would be the key, but something more than a reddit post... multiple people on FB that were there? Something?  

I'd love to see the video because if it doesn't contain at least a "Now it's my duty to tell you that the current (possible wink wink) policy of the church is that it is a sin to act on same-sex desires or enter into a same-sex union... that being said, we should always love these people no matter what" then this meeting is not kosher according to church policy. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

The speaker was the brother of Elder Christofferson. Just going by the impression I had from the announcement on Sunday at Church. Our Stake was holding it and it was emphatically meant to be small and intimate so people could ask questions. Our Stake is hardly a liberal stake straining at perceived shackles of orthodoxy. So I do find it significant.

Got it.

 

[Marginal Gains]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've noticed people on this board have a very difficult time comprehending hyperbole.

Well that’s ironic...

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Brian 2.0 said:

Has the meeting in question (posted on reddit) been confirmed as happening? And happened as recapped by the reddit poster?

Video proof (which there apparently is somewhere) would be the key, but something more than a reddit post... multiple people on FB that were there? Something?  

I'd love to see the video because if it doesn't contain at least a "Now it's my duty to tell you that the current (possible wink wink) policy of the church is that it is a sin to act on same-sex desires or enter into a same-sex union... that being said, we should always love these people no matter what" then this meeting is not kosher according to church policy. 

Everything I've said here has been assuming arguendo that what was described in the Reddit post is accurate. I recognize that it might not be.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

We attended a Riverton ward today (don't remember the name.) They combined the SS and RS/PH, so the meeting was 1:45 long. I took a rough count. About 250 - 300 people. There were two cameras recording the meeting.

Problem No. 1: As I understand things, Church meetings are generally not supposed to be recorded.

Quote

The bishop started out by saying they were going to talk about loving and accepting LGBTQ people. A member of the SP gave the opening prayer.

Wonderful.

Quote

First speaker: A gay man who had married a woman and has a child. They are now divorced. He tried to make it work, but he is gay. Did everything he could, but he is gay. Loves the church and its teachings, (but he is gay and that is never going to change.) In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen (ItNoJC,A)

Okay.  This is helpful.

Quote

Second speaker: A gay man. Teaches at BYU. Did everything he cold to not be gay. Dated women for 10 years, attended temple weekly, read scriptures, prayed, wrote in journal, but he is gay. He is the happy gay mormon (for now) who is content to remain single (for now) and help gay people accept themselves and help family members and friends accept them. (ItNoJC,A).

Okay, this is helpful.

Quote

Next speaker, the mother of a gay teen who took his life. His struggles and the unkind ways he was treated. (ItNoJC,A).

Okay.  This is helpful.

Quote

Next speaker, the husband of the above woman. Same basic thing. Very raw and gut wrenching. (ItNoJC,A).

Okay, this is helpful.

Quote

Next speaker, a gay woman married to a woman. Her wife was also there and she made 3 or 4 references to her wife. Talked about her amazing mother who rejects her wife and their marriage. Read several letters to her mother (some of them not sent) seeking to re-establish their previously close relationship. (ItNoJC,A).

Problem No. 2: This is {EDIT TO ADD: potentially} deeply problematic.  As wonderful as this woman is in other respects, she is in a state of avowed and open an unrepentant transgression.  It may be apostasy.  Having her address the Saints in Church is not appropriate.

Quote

Musical number by two gay men.

Presumably no problem (it would depend, I suppose, on the standing of the two men).

Quote

Next speaker: A lesbian woman married to a woman. Told of her upbringing and her struggles with prescription drugs and her self loathing because -- she is gay. Now clean, happily married to a woman and has a child. (ItNoJC,A).

Problem No. 3: This is {EDIT TO ADD: potentially} deeply problematic.  See No. 2 above.

Quote

Next speaker: The mother of the above woman. She was TBM but has come to love and understand and accept her child. Talked about her faith journey. She is still in the church. (ItNoJC,A).

Presumably no problem (again, it would depend on the standing of this woman).

Quote

Last speaker: Bishop. We are out of time, but he gives some scripture references about loving and accepting. The meeting ends 4 minutes overtime.

Okay, this is helpful.

Quote

Just wanted to get this on the record. This will happen more and more in the future in more places.

Actually, I think no, it won't.  If this is true, then there has been a serious breach of the Church's policies (and, I think, doctrines) by a bishop, with the apparent approval of the stake presidency (since "a member of the SP gave the opening prayer").

We don't allow polygamists to come to Church meetings and use the Church's time and facilities and resources to present an apologetic defense of their brand of disobedience to the principles of the Restored Gospel.  

We don't allow live-in boyfriend/girlfriends to do such things.

We don't allow avowed apostates to do such things.

Quote

Bottom up revelation is what is going to change the church.

I really don't think so.

There is room, of course, for "bottom up" innovations in the Church.  See, e.g., here:

Quote

The historical importance of stakes in the Church is exemplified by the stake-level innovations that have been adopted throughout the Church. Family home evenings and the Welfare program began as programs of the Granite Stake in Salt Lake City in the early 1900s. The "Home Evening" program was designed to help parents develop closer relationships with their children. The suggested format for these weekly family meetings included prayer, music, scripture reading and gospel instruction, discussion of family concerns, recreational and cultural activities, and refreshments. The Granite Stake Welfare plan was designed to promote temporal well-being by stressing home industry and cooperation. Stake committees were appointed to promote gardening, the development of canneries, livestock raising, and the establishment of new industries. This program foreshadowed the work of President Harold B. Lee as president of the Pioneer Stake during the Great Depression, which led to the establishment of a Churchwide Welfare program. Other Church programs that originated in stakes include the seminary program for high school students, stake missionary work, systematic stake supervision of temple and genealogical work, and a variety of youth programs.

So clearly the Brethren are open to local members and leaders coming up with ideas which, when ratified by the General Authorities, can be deployed regionally or throughout the Church.

However, the General Authorities have alread spoken on the issues here.  Many times.  At length.  With great clarity.  

The "bottom up revelation" being contemplated above is {EDIT TO ADD: apparently or potentially} at odds with the counsel we already have in hand.

So no, I don't think the General Authorities are going to stand for letting local leaders undermine the position of the Church in this way.  This is not "bottom up revelation."  This is, possibly, the formative beginnings of rebellion and apostasy.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 29, 2018 by smac97

[ALarson]

20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm entitled to determine how I will spend my time on Sunday.

You act as though I would have vandalized the meetinghouse or shouted down the meeting with a bullhorn Antifa style.

You must have missed where I stated this in response to you:

Quote

Of course, that is your prerogative and I do respect your right to not listen as well.

 

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Including speakers on the program who were  in a gay or lesbian "marriage" and thus were unabashedly engaged in apostasy and violating the law of chastity would have been the deal killer for me.

 

I think it really would have depended on what they said and how their perspective was introduced.  I have seen a meth addict be asked to share his experience in a 5th Sunday lesson.  He was not "recovered."  I felt that him talking about his experience and how other member's actions helped and hurt him was very helpful to the ward.  Of course, if it had been a personal testimonial for legalized recreational marijuana use, I can see that being highly inappropriate.  

[kllindley]

41 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Interesting that this was supported at a Stake Level. That’s an escalation. Good for the local leaders reaching out like this. I applaud them. The FP who declined to respond to the letter from the parent of a youth suicide victim could learn a thing or two from these local leaders. Unfortunately those local leaders will likely get a slapped wrist or worse.

I don't think that it's much of an escalation.  In 2010, I helped organize a Fireside that was supported by area leadership.  It was sponsored by one Stake, but promoted throughout the area.  The leadership involved at the time reported that some members of the 12 had expressed support.  (I don't know if this support was before or after the event.)

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Thanks cinepro for posting this.  Tacenda posted it on the other thread, but I think this deserves its own space.  I am so encouraged this took place!

I hope the video gets posted.  I'd love to see it and listen to the words of those who spoke.

I think every ward could possibly have such a meeting.  I have learned that very few people are not touched in some way by having a family member or a friend or associate who is gay.  Having these family members and friends actually speak to members....(making it real and personal and putting a face to this issue)....could be so beneficial in so many ways.  I believe that anything we can do to open up communication and listen is wonderful and a huge step in right direction.

 

We've come a long, long way since those days. I'm ashamed if I played any part to hurting those who are gay. I just remember a rumour going around about a girl in our school that was gay. I hope I didn't say anything offensive or be apart of any of it. This was in High School.

I know I had a big crush on someone who turned out gay, this was as a 7th grader and then later went to a high school dance with someone that later came out gay. His best friend who was gay also, committed suicide, both LDS. This was back in the early 80's. 

There are so many gays that have hidden it for many years. Barry Manilow recently came out of the closet. He's been with the same guy for years. 

I read not too long ago that there are large numbers of LDS gays. Can't verify it, but did read it somewhere. 

[kllindley]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Problem No. 2: This is deeply problematic.  As wonderful as this woman is in other respects, she is in a state of avowed and open an unrepentant transgression.  It may be apostasy.  Having her address the Saints in Church is not appropriate.

 

Problem No. 3: This is deeply problematic.  See No. 2 above.

 

Actually, I think no, it won't.  If this is true, then there has been a serious breach of the Church's policies (and, I think, doctrines) by a bishop, with the apparent approval of the stake presidency (since "a member of the SP gave the opening prayer").

We don't allow polygamists to come to Church meetings and use the Church's time and facilities and resources to present an apologetic defense of their brand of disobedience to the principles of the Restored Gospel.  

We don't allow live-in boyfriend/girlfriends to do such things.

We don't allow avowed apostates to do such things.

I really don't think so.

There is room, of course, for "bottom up" innovations in the Church.  See, e.g., here:

So clearly the Brethren are open to local members and leaders coming up with ideas which, when ratified by the General Authorities, can be deployed regionally or throughout the Church.

However, the General Authorities have alread spoken on the issues here.  Many times.  At length.  With great clarity.  

The "bottom up revelation" being contemplated above is manifestly at odds with the counsel we already have in hand.

So no, I don't think the General Authorities are going to stand for letting local leaders undermine the position of the Church in this way.  This is not "bottom up revelation."  This is, possibly, the formative beginnings of rebellion and apostasy.

Thanks,

-Smac

Usually, I'm pretty much on board with ya.  But I do disagree here.  Sounds like this could have been done very well and appropriately.  Again that would depend on how the women were introduced and what they said.  But I hope it continues to happen.  

[Brian 2.0]

I just would love to know the framing of it. That's where the rubber meets the road. 

We generally don't give "passes" to things, especially relating to the Law of Chastity... but you have a "don't run faster than ye are able" scripture that you could use to frame a "it's a sin, yes... but don't let it kill you. Everyone sins so just do your best and don't freak out when you do." It would be humorous to me if members in general started treat same-sex behavior in a ward member akin to a ward member who drinks coffee (i.e. it's not that big of deal) 

Same sex marriage is totally different deal because your are committing to sin basically. That's a no go at this point policy and doctrine wise.

[Tacenda]

44 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Maybe it was supported at a stake level, but I didn't get that from the OP. Only that a member of the stake presidency gave the opening prayer.

The bishop coordinated it, he volunteers at the Encircle house in Provo. The house that even Steve and Barbara Young helped get started.

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Usually, I'm pretty much on board with ya.  But I do disagree here.  Sounds like this could have been done very well and appropriately.  Again that would depend on how the women were introduced and what they said.  But I hope it continues to happen.  

That the bishop organized it and someone in the SP was aware of it does sound like it was set up in accordance the right way (the cameras not being part of the official set up, which would have been a clear violation I believe, keeps it open), the way the Reddit poster presented it makes it seem in violation, but the bias obviously present in promoting it as an event to be publicized, etc. likely would influence them to leave out nuances in favour of more traditional approaches.

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, cinepro said:

This was posted over on reddit, and there appears to be enough corroborating "evidence" that I am inclined to believe it actually happened.  Obviously, if the video becomes available in the future that would be pretty good proof. If anyone here is in the Riverton area, please let us know if you heard anything. The poster clarified that this took place in the cultural hall, if that makes any difference:

 

 

Absolutely awesome. 

[Jeanne]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

The bishop coordinated it, he volunteers at the Encircle house in Provo. The house that even Steve and Barbara Young helped get started.

This explains a lot and just wow....it is so time!!  Seems like Steve and Barbara may be a part of God's plan..for us to finally all understand.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Jeanne

[Brian 2.0]

This Instagram poster seems to indicate they were there and have the video avail to give out copies. I don't know this person and their account is private, but I was able to read this post.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BehSkrMnTXnMHpnsfkJuoprAxU2E2mJF5cXAWQ0/?igref=ogexp&utm_source=fb_www_attr

 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Are you saying they don't have a voice or a personal perspective to share? 

I'm not sure how you envision them, but they are not evil.  I think it's great they would be willing to actually come and open up and speak about their experience.

Not to mention they are of the same religion...!   They have every spiritual right to be a part of a religious group and be included. 

Scott...you would have not been able to handle it...you would have stayed for the pure reason of curiosity..and you would revel in your righteousness.