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

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour 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.

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.

 

Again, I fervently disagree with your assertion that the press conference was bungled. I diametrically disagree, in fact.

Even the expert the Salt Lake Tribune engaged said President Nelson conveyed a favorable impression.

 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

24 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

It wouldln't be the first time that local leaders had gone off the rails.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

14 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

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. 

 

Members of the Church are not entitled to get up in a Church meeting or class and say anything they like whether it conforms to Church teachings or not.

Quote

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.

I've said I wouldn't attend, and I stand by that.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Brian 2.0]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It wouldln't be the first time that local leaders had gone off the rails.

 

We need the video in order to understand if this was off the rails or within the bounds set my policy. Both seem possible.

Are you saying you would have skipped EVEN IF it fell within the bounds set by policy and even received the go-ahead by a higher authority? It's fine if yes. If 2 hours were going completely to genealogy and understanding Family Search, I may skip out. But I wouldn't be doing so of spite for genealogy or what family history researchers are trying to do. Just trying to understand your desire to skip.

[Amulek]

I would be interested in seeing the recordings if those ever come to light. Sounds like it could have been an interesting meeting. 

We had a fifth Sunday lesson about a similar topic quite some time ago, but it was basically just the Stake President talking about how everyone has need of the Atonement and how we have an obligation to love everyone. Nothing controversial. 

[CV75]

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:

 

I think it poor form and very disrespectful towards all involved in this meeting (leaders, presenters, ward members) to turn it into an "open letter." Politicizing it demeans everyone, including the Lord whose Church it is. From the article you posted:

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

If that was the purpose and intent of the meeting, shame of whoever organized and politicized it.

[smac97]

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.  

Don't get me wrong.  I want these things to happen, too.  But I think they need to happen in the right way, including in accordance with the doctrines and policies of the Church.

I am fine with being proven wrong.  I will happily eat crow if this was done properly.

Thanks,

-Smac

[ALarson]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Again, I fervently disagree with your assertion that the press conference was bungled. I diametrically disagree, in fact.

Even the expert the Salt Lake Tribune engaged said President Nelson conveyed a favorable impression.

That was pretty fascinating to read.  But at best, it was a mixed review of the press conference.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Brian 2.0 said:

 

We need the video in order to understand if this was off the rails or within the bounds set my policy. Both seem possible.

 

I agree that we are going from unverified rumor here, and I've said that my comments are assuming arguendo that what has been described to us is accurate.

Quote

Are you saying you would have skipped EVEN IF it fell within the bounds set by policy and even received the go-ahead by a higher authority? It's fine if yes. If 2 hours were going completely to genealogy and understanding Family Search, I may skip out. But I wouldn't be doing so of spite for genealogy or what family history researchers are trying to do. Just trying to understand your desire to skip.

I agree with Smac97 that putting unrepentant people involved in homosexual relationships -- be it gay "marriage" or something else -- in a position to preach to the Latter-day Saints is extremely problematic. As I've already said, that, all by itself, would have been enough to cause me not to attend the meeting.

It's possible, I suppose, that the program content was kept secret until the meeting transpired. Had I felt ambushed by anything said or done there, I would have left while it was in progress.

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Don't get me wrong.  I want these things to happen, too.  But I think they need to happen in the right way, including in accordance with the doctrines and policies of the Church.

I am fine with being proven wrong.  I will happily eat crow if this was done properly.

Thanks,

-Smac

I don't think you'll need to eat crow. What you've said is perfectly reasonable, based on what has been reported on Reddit.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

6 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That was pretty fascinating to read.  But at best, it was a mixed review of the press conference.

 

Be that as it may, nothing in the article communicated to me in any way that they had "bungled" it.

 

 

[Brian 2.0]

12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree that we are going from unverified rumor here, and I've said that my comments are assuming arguendo that what has been described to us is accurate.

I agree with Smac97 that putting unrepentant people involved in homosexual relationships -- be it gay "marriage" or something else -- in a position to preach to the Latter-day Saints is extremely problematic. As I've already said, that, all by itself, would have been enough to cause me not to attend the meeting.

It's possible, I suppose, that the content of the meeting was held in secret until it transpired. Had I felt ambushed by anything said or done there, I would have left while it was in progress.

 

 

 

Got it. Thanks. 

Totally understand your position. 

The content of the preaching from the unrepentant person may come into debate, but it's unlikely it was off-topic relating to the sin they are unrepentant off (the closest, maybe, possibly, you could get was if they ONLY talked about love and not about love between her and her marriage partner, but I HIGHLY doubt it). So we may not need to know the framing of the meeting if indeed this person spoke at the meeting. I'm not sure there is a kosher way to allow the perspective of "why this sin has actually made me happy in my life" [paraphrasing obviously] in a church meeting.

full disclosure: I'm a total apostate now but my big question is if this meeting fell within the bounds of current church policy.

Edited January 29, 2018 by Brian 2.0

[USU78]

This whole thing doesn't add up.

If the SP, along with local leadership on the ward level, cooked this thing up in order to impose "proper education" on congregants, then the SP, as well as local leadership, has greatly erred and the Church should take appropriate measures to dress them down and ensure this doesn't happen again.

IF, on the other hand, the SP, along with local leadership on the ward level, ran it by regional leadership first in order to get approval, in order to impose "proper education" on congregants, then there is still a problem, since, as has been pointed out before, this is a pretty startling and grossly inappropriate wresting of worship for socio-political purposes.

If, on yet another hand, all congregants had disclosed to them what exactly was up so that they knew what to expect and could opt out, there is still the problem of the famous/infamous LDS non-confrontationalism and obedience.  If leadership says jump, we tend to wonder immediately how high, whether it should be in place, over objects, or for distance.  I myself, and Scott, would have no problem speaking out and/or voting with our feet.  So many would never dream of making a fuss. 

Whoever is responsible, I question their/his wisdom.

[hope_for_things]

3 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:

I have some observations about the dynamics I'm seeing reflected in this and other recent threads on the LGBT topic.    

1. Regardless where people are at with respect to the church's policies on this issue, there seems to be some level of empathy and concern for people who are negatively impacted, i.e. the families and the individuals who've been impacted by suicide.  This is encouraging to me, and gives me hope for the future, and reinforces an important observation that I've seen throughout my life, that Mormons are generally good people that care about others who are suffering.  

2.  The concerns from more orthodox individuals seem to focus around how this empathy is given.  They seem to be very concerned with following the correct procedures and of not making any statements that may contradict the policies and ideology that has been articulated by church leaders.  They still want to show empathy towards those impacted, but this strong sense of loyalty to the church's policies and positions is of primary importance in how this empathy is administered.  

3.  The concerns from less orthodox individuals seem to focus on affirming LGBT individuals no matter where they are at, often in contradiction to the LDS church's policies and public teachings.  The primary emphasis seems to be on the individuals needs as these individuals express them and often this is in conflict with the church's policies and or traditions.  

If you've read Jonathan Height's The Righteous Mind, it talks about these dynamics in great depth as they relate to political and social issues of the day.  I think its important to understand the ways that people look at and relate to an issue from different perspectives.    

Edited January 29, 2018 by hope_for_things

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Be that as it may, nothing in the article communicated to me in any way that they had "bungled" it.

I don't know.  Maybe read it again.  There were both positive and negative assessments. 

I honestly would hate to have to do a press conference, so I try to give them the benefit of the doubt that they did their best.  

(I don't want to contribute to a derail....so won't comment about this further on this thread.)

Edited January 29, 2018 by ALarson

[Brian 2.0]

2 minutes ago, USU78 said:

IF, on the other hand, the SP, along with local leadership on the ward level, ran it by regional leadership first in order to get approval, in order to impose "proper education" on congregants, then there is still a problem, since, as has been pointed out before, this is a pretty startling and grossly inappropriate wresting of worship for socio-political purposes.

I think if this scenario where true, you could argue pretty easily that teaching saints to love sinners, not imposing judgments or prejudices upon people sinning, and really understanding the severe weight of those being tempted by this sin can fall under appropriate education during worship. Depending on how it's framed of course and what was being preached. I don't see a "and this is why same-sex marriage should be legal" talk in the agenda, though if that was even implied I can't see how it would qualify as it wouldn't get approval from regional leadership. 

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, USU78 said:

This whole thing doesn't add up.

If the SP, along with local leadership on the ward level, cooked this thing up in order to impose "proper education" on congregants, then the SP, as well as local leadership, has greatly erred and the Church should take appropriate measures to dress them down and ensure this doesn't happen again.

IF, on the other hand, the SP, along with local leadership on the ward level, ran it by regional leadership first in order to get approval, in order to impose "proper education" on congregants, then there is still a problem, since, as has been pointed out before, this is a pretty startling and grossly inappropriate wresting of worship for socio-political purposes.

If, on yet another hand, all congregants had disclosed to them what exactly was up so that they knew what to expect and could opt out, there is still the problem of the famous/infamous LDS non-confrontationalism and obedience.  If leadership says jump, we tend to wonder immediately how high, whether it should be in place, over objects, or for distance.  I myself, and Scott, would have no problem speaking out and/or voting with our feet.  So many would never dream of making a fuss. 

Whoever is responsible, I question their/his wisdom.

I agree it all seems hinky.

I'm confident we're not getting the full story, but I doubt, even if we were, I would like it any better.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I don't know.  Maybe read it again.  There were both positive and negative assessments. 

I honestly would hate to have to do a press conference, so I try to give them the benefit of the doubt that they did their best.  

(I don't want to contribute to a derail....so won't comment about this further on this thread.)

Even the negative observations were not harsh, and nothing in those comments said the First Presidency collectively "bungled it."

I agree with you about a press conference not being a very agreeable task in the first place and about giving them the benefit of the doubt. I think most observers, even fair-minded non-Mormons, would be inclined to do that.

I was quite proud of them.

 

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, Brian 2.0 said:

I think if this scenario where true, you could argue pretty easily that teaching saints to love sinners, not imposing judgments or prejudices upon people sinning, and really understanding the severe weight of those being tempted by this sin can fall under appropriate education during worship. Depending on how it's framed of course and what was being preached. I don't see a "and this is why same-sex marriage should be legal" talk in the agenda, though if that was even implied I can't see how it would qualify as it wouldn't get approval from regional leadership. 

Teaching Saints to love sinners..oh gosh..you are right.. Jesus wouldn't like that.  Perhaps the whole thing is ripe for better understanding..not imposing will...but these are you brothers and sisters and members of a the same church..

Clean up the attitude. Your previous attack post is a thread ban offense.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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. 

Barry Manilow isn't exactly someone I'd say was hiding it. He never admitted it, but then neither did Liberace. Yeah he didn't quite do the wink and smile of Liberace but I think everyone assumed Manilow was gay. The bigger question was why he didn't admit it at a time when most of his fellow musicians in pop music were admitting it. More interesting examples would be people in music areas where it's not quite as much a norm. So when say a heavy metal musician like Rob Halford of Judas Priest came out in the 90's that was a big deal and unexpected. Then you had say something similar with one the band members of Metallica that didn't go nearly as well. But when say George Michael of Wham came out as gay in the early 90's I don't think anyone particularly cared. And Manilow finally admitted it decades after anyone would care.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

I'd still have questions especially about the recording. But I'll confess I just don't know Church policy there. I know some wards used to tape Sacrament for shut-ins to watch and then that practice was stopped.  So I can't say much here. From the outside speaking out of ignorance, I admit whether the cameras were "official" or not seems like a difference without a difference. 

To the content, without knowing the content it's hard to say much. It could be done well and cautiously but also could be done poorly promoting a problematic liberal theology. (Speaking theologically not politically) Hard to have an opinion. Heaven knows there are good wards and bad wards and good stakes and bad stakes. The Stake President signing off on it doesn't mean much to me without knowing if he sought permission higher up and what the area presidency thought.

3 hours ago, Brian 2.0 said:

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.

I can't see chastity being treated like the Word of Wisdom for a wide variety of reasons - temple covenants being only one part.

But I certainly agree that regardless of how people differ over occasional screw up morally - especially for single people - there's a huge different for institutionalizing it via marriage.

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Even the negative observations were not harsh, and nothing in those comments said the First Presidency collectively "bungled it."

I think they bungled it from a PR perspective in that I don't think what they were trying to communicate came off. Especially to the non-Mormon press. They were awkward and not relaxed. I think it's completely understandable but as I said in the other thread I think having waited a week would have been wise. I certainly got what they were trying to communicate. However to the degree the press conference was targeting the press, I don't think it worked.

Quote

Even the expert the Salt Lake Tribune engaged said President Nelson conveyed a favorable impression.

Which expert? The stuff I read from the Trib seemed much more mixed at best.

Edited January 30, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Scott Lloyd]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I think they bungled it from a PR perspective in that I don't think what they were trying to communicate came off. Especially to the non-Mormon press. They were awkward and not relaxed. I think it's completely understandable but as I said in the other thread I think having waited a week would have been wise. I certainly got what they were trying to communicate. However to the degree the press conference was targeting the press, I don't think it worked.

Which expert? The stuff I read from the Trib seemed much more mixed at best.

As I have already said in this thread, even the most negative commentary in the Tribune article did not convey that they had collectively "bungled" the news conference.

With the exception of you (and Calm, who chimed in to agree with you after your post on a prior thread) I have not encountered any faithful and active Church member who agrees that the First Presidency "bungled" the news conference. There may have been some in the secular press or in the public at large who didn't like some of what they heard, but that is not the fault of the Brethren, who were at the same time congenial and candid in their expressions.

[Scott Lloyd]

I see a glaring procedural problem with inviting unrepentant people involved in a gay "marriage" or other homosexual relationship to speak in a church class or meeting. As I understand the procedure of Church disciplinary councils those who are disfellowshiped or excommunicated may not participate openly in public Church meetings. It stands to reason that those who are openly engaging in behavior that warrants Church discipline ought not be engaged to speak about their actions in Church gatherings.

[sunstoned]

4 hours 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.

I think that some people in order to protect their "testimony" feel the need to limit their exposure to new/different ideas.

[Brian 2.0]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I see a glaring procedural problem with inviting unrepentant people involved in a gay "marriage" or other homosexual relationship to speak in a church class or meeting. As I understand the procedure of Church disciplinary councils those who are disfellowshiped or excommunicated may not participate openly in public Church meetings. It stands to reason that those who are openly engaging in behavior that warrants Church discipline ought not be engaged to speak about their actions in Church gatherings.

 

If the unrepentant are speaking regarding marriage or homosexual activities (which seem true according to accounts) I agree 100% with the "problem" when set up against current church policy and practices. 

That's doesn't necessarily make it "wrong" from a moral standpoint out the gate, but those championing the meeting might want to be comfortable with the position of championing the meeting DESPITE the fact that it was against current church policy and practices... because that very well might be the case.