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

[Scott Lloyd]

58 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Just to clarify: this story doesn’t support USU’s contention that victims of abuse at the hands of homosexuals don’t have a voice, haven’t received compassion, and:or haven’t been morally or legally supported, either here on the board or elsewhere. 

As I said to Calm, these events did not come to light and justice was not served until many years later, would not have been were it not for tenacious prosecution in Great Britain, where this transpired. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I have mentioned an autobiography I read. I don’t recall the title, but the author is Jonathan King. He wrote and recorded a hit song in the sixties called “Everyone’s Gone to the Moon” and had a very successful career as a music producer and promoter and record company executive. 

You can Google his name and probably read about the charges, criminal court case and prison term he served. 

Honestly Scott, I don't see your point.  Have some homosexuals preyed upon others?  I don't think that is up for debate.  Of course that has happened.  Have heterosexuals preyed upon others?  I don't think that is up for debate either.  Of course that has happened.  

So what point are you possibly trying to make here?

[california boy]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There was the case of Joe Paterno’s assistant coach. Don’t recall his name. 

ETA: Oh yeah, Sandusky, I think. 

Sandusky is straight.  Married to a woman, 2 children.  I still don't get your point.  Is anyone allowing pedophiles to speak in church?  Anyone on this board supporting pedophiles?  

[rockpond]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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. 

I wasn’t trying to badger you.  I honestly missed your answer and a yes, no, maybe, or just ignoring me seems easier that what you responded with. But fine...

From your comments it doesn’t really sound like you support the meeting being hosted by a ward and planned/presided over by a bishop, regardless of the day or time. Please correct me if I’m wrong but that’s what I get from what you’ve been saying here.

I think that opinion is likely shared by many church members and I find that to be rather sad.  I don’t see how listening to the feelings and experiences of only our LGBT brothers and sisters who have stayed active in the church really helps us get a broad understanding of the issue. It certainly helps but only takes us part of the way. 

I will, however, admit that I carry my own biases on this and that the entire debate over the propriety of the meeting seems trivial.  Two hours is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of time I have been subjected to false doctrine and personal agendas while attending church over the past four and a half decades. 

[Storm Rider]

4 hours 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. I cannot speak for anyone else, but when I attend church I do not want to be entertained with listening to an excommunicated member under any circumstance.  IF that individual is trying to return to the church then it may be something appropriate for a fireside, but not one of the Church Sunday meetings.

[Storm Rider]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

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

 

 

Are you purposely being obtuse?  Please return and read USU's post.  He stated plainly that he could provide the speakers for an event that was about the pain and abuse that individuals experienced at the hands of gay individuals.  This is not difficult to understand.

I am not agreeing with USU point, which is if we are going to hold meetings about the pain that LGBT members experience from other straight church members should we then hold meetings for straight members that have been victims of LGBT individuals?  

[JulieM]

32 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Are you purposely being obtuse? 

Did you read what I did?  USU responded with:

“Even if I had, I'd never share that personal a matter where nasty jerks could mock me.”

After Alarson asked him:

“How have you been ‘hurt, traumatized and/or brutalized by homosexuals’? “

Who do you think USU was referring to if not us on this board?

[pogi]

5 hours ago, Danzo said:

Although I respect what you are saying, I haven't seen any evidence that doing this will save any lives.

It might or it might not. I don't think anyone really knows (unless you know of a study where people were seriously planning on ending their lives but decided not to after attending one of these meetings).

I think selling these meetings as something that will save lives might be misleading and, by taking away  focus on the proper mental health issues, might be counterproductive.

As far as what I have read (as well as experienced around me),  most suicides are caused by mental health and substance abuse issues.   

If you really want to save lives.  Training in recognizing mental health issues as well as substance abuse will give you the most bang for the buck.

You have pin-pointed the paradigm that needs to shift in society for healing and prevention to occur.  Suicides are ALWAYS caused by mental health issues.  And the mental illness does need to be treated individually.  However, nursing a severely malnourished kid back to health, then sending him back home to his neglectful parents (the source of the malnourishment), is not going to solve the bigger problem.  When you have a leaky pipe, preventing just one drop from hitting the floor is not good enough.  No, you need to stop the leak!  Why is this happening over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again? ........oh, there's a hole in the pipe! 

The question we need to be asking ourselves is, why? Why is this population at greater risk?  What is causing significantly higher incidence of mental illness and suicide in this population (even among those who are not sexually active)?  Until we address that problem, our pipe is not going to stop leaking.  

We know that religious heterosexual youth have lower risk for suicide then non-religious youth, while religious LGBT youth are at greater risk then non-religious youth.  Hmmmmm..why the inversion?  What is causing this "internalized homophobia" and conflict with sexual identity that leads to suicidal thoughts? Could it possibly be the family/community environment and culture/attitude towards LGBT youth?  Well, that is what studies suggest that I have linked to.  Is "homophobia" (I prefer "homonegativism) an inherited trait, or did they learn it from someone close to them, apply it to themselves, and end up in a self-shaming cycle that doesn't stop until they stop being gay...or dead? 

We know that when LGBT youth receive family and religious community support and acceptance, the risk goes down. So yes, we do have evidence that it works:

Quote

Further, this finding suggests that relationships (parental, and religious community) may be more impacting on deterring a suicide attempt than one’s own gay self-concept, and adds evidence for family-centered approaches such as those being explored by other researchers in the area (e.g., Family Acceptance Project; Ryan, Russell, Huebner, Diaz, Sanchez, 2010). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706071/

Quote

...family support is negatively associated with negative behavioral health outcomes (e.g., Goldbach, Tanner-Smith, Bagwell & Dunlap, 2013) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4706071/

 You are absolutely right, the kids who display suicide risk need individual treatment and care.  But, this needs to be a two pronged approach.  We need to 1) treat mental health illness, and 2) mediate the source/cause of the mental health issues.  

If we want to stop the malnourishment of our children, we need to send them to the hospital for treatment, but more importantly we need to start feeding them better.  It is as simple as that.  

We need a paradigm shift!  Instead of further pathologizing these youth, we need to start looking inward.   Further pathologizing these youth without acknowledging our role will only risk deepening the messages that they already receive, "I am broken. I am the problem. I am just an embarrassment.  Maybe the world is better off without me..."

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by pogi

[Five Solas]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

Their stories are theirs to tell. Your curiosity as to details is worth less than my integrity. That said, I'm reasonably certain I could convince some folks to participate in the appropriate event.

Find me some sponsors, I'll find the venue.

Wow.  You make a previous claim that victims of crime where the perpetrators were gay have no "venue" to "safely" tell their experience.  And when you are rightfully served a CFR, you respond with the above. 

First off, you get zero points for originality, USU78.  Someone else is using this very tactic to marginalize a group of people he doesn't like.  You can read about it here.  You're merely borrowing the idea and applying it to a different group.  This ought to be disturbing to every single participant on the forum.   

Second, you completely failed to provide a reference (or to walk back your earlier comment).  You appear to think an allegation from you requires no evidence be given, as though your word on the matter ought to suffice.  And by dismissing the request as "curiosity" for "details"--you would have your reader suppose your challenger's motive was something other than an interest in evidence, an interest in fairness.  What sort of other interest might that be?  A prurient interest, perhaps?  And you have far too much "integrity" to indulge that...

Your claim was outrageous.  The CFR deserves your answer or your retraction.  I'm confident I'm not the only one who thinks you should be accountable for your words.

--Erik

[cinepro]

6 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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

 

Now that I think about it, disfellowshipped members aren't allowed to pray or give talks in church, so depending on how the married lesbian woman is classified, there may be grounds to consider her participation in a Sunday meeting as inappropriate (even if she hasn't been formally disfellowshipped).

Edited February 2, 2018 by cinepro

[kllindley]

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

You have pin-pointed the paradigm that needs to shift in society for healing and prevention to occur.  Suicides are ALWAYS caused by mental health issues.  And the mental illness does need to be treated individually.  However, nursing a severely malnourished kid back to health, then sending him back home to his neglectful parents (the source of the malnourishment), is not going to solve the bigger problem.  When you have a leaky pipe, preventing just one drop from hitting the floor is not good enough.  No, you need to stop the leak!  Why is this happening over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again? ........oh, there's a hole in the pipe! 

The question we need to be asking ourselves is, why? Why is this population at greater risk?  What is causing significantly higher incidence of mental illness and suicide in this population (even among those who are not sexually active)?  Until we address that problem, our pipe is not going to stop leaking.  

We know that religious heterosexual youth have lower risk for suicide then non-religious youth, while religious LGBT youth are at greater risk then non-religious youth.  Hmmmmm..why the inversion?  What is causing this "internalized homophobia" and conflict with sexual identity that leads to suicidal thoughts? Could it possibly be the family/community environment and culture/attitude towards LGBT youth?  Well, that is what studies suggest that I have linked to.  Is "homophobia" (I prefer "homonegativism) an inherited trait, or did they learn it from someone close to them, apply it to themselves, and end up in a self-shaming cycle that doesn't stop until they stop being gay...or dead? 

We know that when LGBT youth receive family and religious community support and acceptance, the risk goes down. So yes, we do have evidence that it works:

 You are absolutely right, the kids who display suicide risk need individual treatment and care.  But, this needs to be a two pronged approach.  We need to 1) treat mental health illness, and 2) mediate the source/cause of the mental health issues.  

If we want to stop the malnourishment of our children, we need to send them to the hospital for treatment, but more importantly we need to start feeding them better.  It is as simple as that.  

We need a paradigm shift!  Instead of further pathologizing these youth, we need to start looking inward.   Further pathologizing these youth without acknowledging our role will only risk deepening the messages that they already receive, "I am broken. I am the problem. I am just an embarrassment.  Maybe the world is better off without me..."

 

Very well written and insightful. We need to be more proactive as a community at combating shame. That is the root of the problem. The more we continue to believe that sexual attractions or feelings of any type are too sensitive to talk about openly, the more we will continue to grant then power to discourage and isolate vulnerable youth as well as adults. 

One minor point of disagreement is that we don't generally talk about mental illness as something caused by the environment. Doing so tends to further reinforce the stigma of mental illness. Environmental stressors and social pressure definitely exacerbate mental illnesses like depression and anxiety, but they are not the cause. 

[USU78]

2 hours ago, JulieM said:

Did you read what I did?  USU responded with:

“Even if I had, I'd never share that personal a matter where nasty jerks could mock me.”

After Alarson asked him:

“How have you been ‘hurt, traumatized and/or brutalized by homosexuals’? “

Who do you think USU was referring to if not us on this board?

Why would you assume "us" is the appropriate pronoun?

What would the response have been had I declared myself an abuse victim?

[USU78]

57 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Wow.  You make a previous claim that victims of crime where the perpetrators were gay have no "venue" to "safely" tell their experience.  And when you are rightfully served a CFR, you respond with the above. 

First off, you get zero points for originality, USU78.  Someone else is using this very tactic to marginalize a group of people he doesn't like.  You can read about it here.  You're merely borrowing the idea and applying it to a different group.  This ought to be disturbing to every single participant on the forum.   

Second, you completely failed to provide a reference (or to walk back your earlier comment).  You appear to think an allegation from you requires no evidence be given, as though your word on the matter ought to suffice.  And by dismissing the request as "curiosity" for "details"--you would have your reader suppose your challenger's motive was something other than an interest in evidence, an interest in fairness.  What sort of other interest might that be?  A prurient interest, perhaps?  And you have far too much "integrity" to indulge that...

Your claim was outrageous.  The CFR deserves your answer or your retraction.  I'm confident I'm not the only one who thinks you should be accountable for your words.

--Erik

Why continue this when we've been asked not to in this here thread,?

[JulieM]

27 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Why would you assume "us" is the appropriate pronoun?

Who then were you referring to?  Who are the “nasty jerks”?

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/70142-utah-ward-invites-lgbt-speakers-for-2nd-and-3rd-hour/?do=findComment&comment=1209792596

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by JulieM

[kllindley]

Just in case anyone doubts the importance of what pogi and I are saying about distinguishing between guilt and shame. . . .

https://www.lds.org/blog/the-biggest-barrier-to-our-connection-with-god?cid=HP_TU_30-1-2018_dOCS_fBLOG_xLIDyL232_

[ALarson]

13 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Are you purposely being obtuse? 

Not at all and that's why I asked USU78 to clarify.  He started making claims and then referred to "nasty jerks" that mock.  Who do you think he was speaking of when he wrote "nasty jerks"?  

He's been issued a CFR that he did not answer with any sources supporting his claims.  Scott came in and tried to help but has also not posted anything that support his claims.  Quite honestly, his behavior was a bit bizarre and I was trying to give him a chance to explain.

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by ALarson

[ALarson]

9 hours ago, USU78 said:

Why would you assume "us" is the appropriate pronoun?

You used "us" first and it was not clear what you were claiming.  

You stated:

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

(I won't derail further, but it's odd that you now act like you have no idea what people are talking about when it was YOU who brought all of that up here and then couldn't back it up.)

[ALarson]

14 hours ago, Rain said:

This was my last stake, but not my last ward. I texted a friend in the ward, but she heard nothing about what happened. 

All she knows it that in the last stake conference they touched on love and acceptance of people who are LGBT. Since the SP has been in he has had to deal with that a lot - loving people. I won't go into all that. He is a good man. I don't know who from the SP attended this ward. 

Messaged another friend in the Parkway ward,  but she hasn't replied back yet. 

 

 

That is a good possibility in this ward. Either this ward on one more ward had an awful lot of seniors in it. I'm just not sure the ward extended where I think it does or if that was another one.  My experience with the seniors in this area was a lack of tech understanding for many of them. 

That's a good question. This stake had some great service going on. There were a number of charitable leaders in the stake and they pulled many volunteers from within to volunteer out of the stake. (It was one of the reasons I struggled here when I first came because it was so easy to get people to volunteer there). So the Augusteins easily could have had a number of people volunteering with them or its possible that many of the people were already involved with some other things that are closer to home. 

Thanks for your response, Rain.  This is all so interesting to read.  To me, it's obvious that these leaders (stake and ward) and the members were really doing a great service and actually trying to make a difference.  I find that to be extremely admirable and something more of us should be doing (if we follow the counsel of Elder Ballard and others regarding our gay brothers and sisters).

Edited February 2, 2018 by ALarson

[kllindley]

4 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.

I didn't say anything about your idea of the meeting.  I absolutely would attend to offer what support I can, but that is off topic.  

I was genuinely concerned about your frustration in this whole thing.  It sounded like you were having a really hard time with the nature of the conversation.  While I don't apologize for my belief that as a Church we need to do better, I don't think it should be done in a way that shames anyone or minimizes other suffering.  Feel free to PM me if you need to.  

[Scott Lloyd]

15 hours ago, california boy said:

Honestly Scott, I don't see your point.  Have some homosexuals preyed upon others?  I don't think that is up for debate.  Of course that has happened.  Have heterosexuals preyed upon others?  I don't think that is up for debate either.  Of course that has happened.  

So what point are you possibly trying to make here?

Just helping USU78 out. You say it’s not up for debate, but USU was given a CFR, so I was saying what I know. 

But it has been pointed out it’s a thread derail, so I intend to abide by the request not to discuss it further. 

[Storm Rider]

13 hours ago, JulieM said:

Did you read what I did?  USU responded with:

“Even if I had, I'd never share that personal a matter where nasty jerks could mock me.”

After Alarson asked him:

“How have you been ‘hurt, traumatized and/or brutalized by homosexuals’? “

Who do you think USU was referring to if not us on this board?

I think I was on his post before the nasty jerks comment  - What it sounded like to me is that he knows individuals who have been abused by gay individuals.  It did not sound like he personally had such experiences, but that was only my conclusions based on his comments.  

What surprised me is that his post seemed clear to me and yet AL still kept pushing, still kept commenting as if he had not read any of USU's responses.  

We can all get a bit testy with others - understanding one another solely on the written word is not easy.  This medium where individuals are often writing with their initial reactions and without taking the time to question and understand each post prior to responding - it is just not conducive to that caliber of conversation. 

And I think USU was talking about us on this board.  His perception appears be that he thinks that his comments and his participation is, at best, not respected and he would not trust us with his own personal experiences of any kind.  I get it - I think we all get that.  This Board does not consist of our best friends and none of us is going to feel comfortable sharing highly personal things with each and every participant.  

Edited February 2, 2018 by Storm Rider

[pogi]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

Just in case anyone doubts the importance of what pogi and I are saying about distinguishing between guilt and shame. . . .

https://www.lds.org/blog/the-biggest-barrier-to-our-connection-with-god?cid=HP_TU_30-1-2018_dOCS_fBLOG_xLIDyL232_

This!!!  Excellent article.  The author, obviously taking her lead from John Bradshaw.

Quote

Selected by his fellow mental health professionals, John Bradshaw is “One of the 100 Most Influential Writers on Emotional Health in the Twentieth Century.” His insights on childhood and family relationships, and particularly the long-term effect of the issues abuse, neglect, addiction, co-dependency, trauma, & emotional instability, have revolutionized our perception of emotional healing and interpersonal dynamics.

As I like to point out, it all started in the garden of Eden. Adam partook of the fruit of knowledge making him vulnerable to moral imprinting, for better or worse. Lucifer took the first opportunity to distort his sense of self-worth through moral shaming.  "You have done it now!  You have ruined the plan of God!  God will never accept you like this.  Look at your filthy nakedness. ....hide yourself!"  Isolation.  Shame is one of the greatest tools of the adversary.  The message that Adam received from Lucifer is this, "I will accept you as you are...God will not.  You are better off with me."  For a while, he believed it.  He hid from God.  That is the root of all this.

Unfortunately, many unwittingly become tools of the adversary in whispering moral shame into the ears of the children of God, hoping that it will inspire them to change.  This needs to stop.  It is counterproductive to God's plan.   

Edited February 2, 2018 by pogi

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, pogi said:

This!!!  Excellent article.  The author, obviously taking her lead from John Bradshaw.

As I like to point out, it all started in the garden of Eden. Adam partook of the fruit of knowledge making him vulnerable to moral imprinting, for better or worse. Lucifer took the first opportunity to distort his sense of self-worth through moral shaming.  "You have done it now!  You have ruined the plan of God!  God will never accept you like this.  Look at your filthy nakedness. ....hide yourself!"  Isolation.  Shame is one of the greatest tools of the adversary.  The message that Adam received from Lucifer is this, "I will accept you as you are...God will not.  You are better off with me."  For a while, he believed it.  He hid from God.  That is the root of all this.

Unfortunately, many unwittingly become tools of the adversary in whispering moral shame into the ears of the children of God, hoping that it will inspire them to change.  This needs to stop.  It is counterproductive to God's plan.   

Yes! It started with Lucifer. I've come to believe that shame is a tool if the devil to control people. 

The Father's response to Adam and Eve is so key. It isn't: get out of my sight. He doesn't support the idea of Adam hiding.  There is definitely consequences. Leaving Eden, needing to repent and accept the atonement. But the whole process is motivated by love and a desire for Adam and Eve to return. 

At the same time, God doesn't celebrate their transgression. He doesn't encourage them to run around naked with Pride. He doesn't tell them to make their weaknesses their identity. 

Shame and pride are really more closely related than it might seem. 

[pogi]

56 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Yes! It started with Lucifer. I've come to believe that shame is a tool if the devil to control people. 

The Father's response to Adam and Eve is so key. It isn't: get out of my sight. He doesn't support the idea of Adam hiding.  There is definitely consequences. Leaving Eden, needing to repent and accept the atonement. But the whole process is motivated by love and a desire for Adam and Eve to return. 

At the same time, God doesn't celebrate their transgression. He doesn't encourage them to run around naked with Pride. He doesn't tell them to make their weaknesses their identity. 

Shame and pride are really more closely related than it might seem. 

This is so weird how much we think alike.

[Rain]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

Yes! It started with Lucifer. I've come to believe that shame is a tool if the devil to control people. 

The Father's response to Adam and Eve is so key. It isn't: get out of my sight. He doesn't support the idea of Adam hiding.  There is definitely consequences. Leaving Eden, needing to repent and accept the atonement. But the whole process is motivated by love and a desire for Adam and Eve to return. 

At the same time, God doesn't celebrate their transgression. He doesn't encourage them to run around naked with Pride. He doesn't tell them to make their weaknesses their identity. 

Shame and pride are really more closely related than it might seem. 

I remember when one of my  sons came to me and confessed something he had done wrong.  I was pretty sure what was going on before.  When he confessed I first felt this great peace come over me and then joy.  Joy! It felt so right, but it seems like an odd thing.  I felt joy because I knew that he was finally taking responsibility for his actions and by coming to me he could turn around and make it right. We discussed consequences.  We discussed future plans, but he went away with knowing I loved him and would help him go through those consequences.

I have thought back on it again and again about how we go to Heavenly Father and how he responds to us when we approach him in sincere repentance and how he never says, "I told you so".  How grateful I am that the Spirit was with me at that moment to help me understand not only how to respond correctly with my child, but to get a much better grasp of the whole process for myself.