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

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

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.

Will do.  I will refrain and ban myself from this thread     Thanks for your patience.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

"Bungled" is not my word, I just saw it as awkward for much of it.  Other times it flowed naturally in the sense of them speaking...but it never felt like a press conference to me, but a mix between that and a devotional.  I assume that is what they wanted.

But for me, I don't like the mix.  I don't have a problem if others do, but I can't watch it and come away feeling inspired unfortunately, just anxious.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Calm

[provoman]

From the post “Bottom up revelation is what is going to change the church”

 

The poster sounds as if he/she had no pure or devine intent other than to FORCE a change according to his/her own desires. 

The message of being Christlike is continuously taught. 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour 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.

I think humans confuse objectives all the time.  If we want to show love to our LGBQ members and people of the world, then love them.  Mother Teresa wisely taught, "If you judge people, you have no time to love them."  We do not need to condemn them or teach them that their actions are false to begin a relationship.  I honestly believe that LGBQ people have felt guilt from the moment they began to contemplate expressing those feelings or even thinking about; it is the same response to all sin that each of us has felt.  

If the purpose of this meeting was to express love to our LGBQ members and ex-members then to that - demonstrate that love.  However, if the purpose was to express love and then allowed them to teach us about their homosexuality this bishop/stake president failed miserably by confusing the purpose of the meeting.  This was not an appropriate meeting to replace church; a fireside would have offered a much better experience for all and would allow for more leeway.  

 

[provoman]

Not sure who brought it up, but I tend to think the nature and extent of the meeting was not announced before hand.  Here is why I think so.  I find it hard to believe that, if the nature and extent of the meeting were announced before hand, it would have been discussed on this board or another board. 

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

"Bungled" is not my word, I just saw it as awkward for much of it.  Other times it flowed naturally in the sense of them speaking...but it never felt like a press conference to me, but a mix between that and a devotional.  I assume that is what they wanted.

But for me, I don't like the mix.  I don't have a problem if others do, but I can't watch it and come away feeling inspired unfortunately, just anxious.

For me, the sublime occasion was the meeting televised from the temple beforehand, during which the Brethren spoke directly to the membership. The press conference seemed to be a lot of already asked-and-answered content. It doesn’t take a genius to predict what the response is going to be to  questions pertaining to LGBTQ topics, for example. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Assuming this report is accurate, it sounds like it was largely propaganda for the position that gay marriage ought to be accepted and normalized within the Church.

I think I would have gone home after sacrament meeting.

I agree, I have heard all the angst, listen to each side from those in and out of the Church. As well as within my own family, so much so that there a single action that is demanded, from those in the Gay community. That demand is, "meet our demands" let us make the rules. One very dear friend, served with him in many callings over a 25+ years. Once he "came out" (following 25+ years of marriage and five children) very bluntly told me that within the Gay Community, that is just silly, and setting people up for failure to suggest that they could live the law of Chastity, as required by heterosexual members of the Church.  

He explained how it is not the same dynamic, where young heterosexual couples who date, fall in love, and wait as they are now required to take months of pre-martial counseling classes before getting married in the Temples, and are required to remain Chaste. He went on to say that the way Gay men and women find and fall in love is through bonding sexually, and that to get to this point, this most often takes many partners, and many sexual experiences. 

[sunstoned]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

This is just my .02, but I am not sure what you are calling worldly ideologies or politics.  It seems that this event was meant to open up a dialog. You know, people discussing ideas about inclusion. The way I see it, no one was bombarding anyone.  I am assuming most in attendance were adults, and adults can and should have discussions and share different view points.  That is how we grow.  

Edited January 30, 2018 by sunstoned

[sunstoned]

4 hours 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.

Assuming all this really happened according to the OP.  Then we should defer to the local authorities who are called to lead the stake/ward.  They have the mantel of leadership and are entitled to inspiration for their flock.  I believe it was Oaks who said we shouldn't criticize our leaders. 

[Storm Rider]

12 hours ago, sunstoned said:

Assuming all this really happened according to the OP.  Then we should defer to the local authorities who are called to lead the stake/ward.  They have the mantel of leadership and are entitled to inspiration for their flock.  I believe it was Oaks who said we shouldn't criticize our leaders. 

LOL, that is good advice until the prophet says something one does not like and then anyone can dismiss it.  Right?

A local leader is not an island and never has been.  His stewardship falls directly under regional authorities and straight up through the chain of authority to the prophet and the twelve.  A local leader has no authority, zero, to institute new church policy or to abuse his authority by taking his flock into heresy.

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Storm Rider

[smac97]

54 minutes ago, sunstoned said:

Assuming all this really happened according to the OP.  Then we should defer to the local authorities who are called to lead the stake/ward.  They have the mantel of leadership and are entitled to inspiration for their flock.  I believe it was Oaks who said we shouldn't criticize our leaders. 

Assuming your statement hereis genuine and sincere (I hope it is), I agree.  I have qualified my comments for the reasons you present here.

I think this will get sorted out soon.  Apparently there were recordings done, and will be published soon.  That it happened will filter up to the Area Authority, and so on.  

I trust that those in authority will address what has happened as described in the OP.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

42 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

LOL, that is good advice until the prophet says something one does not like and then anyone can dismiss it.  A local leader is not an island and never has been.  His stewardship falls directly under regional authorities and straight up through the chain of authority to the prophet and the twelve.  A local leader has no authority, zero, to institute new church policy or to abuse his authority by taking his flock into heresy.

 

I would not follow a local leader into doing something I clearly knew was wrong. We’ve seen the folly of that with Mountain Meadows. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

This is just my .02, but I am not sure what you are calling worldly ideologies or politics.  It seems that this event was meant to open up a dialog. You know, people discussing ideas about inclusion. The way I see it, no one was bombarding anyone.  I am assuming most in attendance were adults, and adults can and should have discussions and share different view points.  That is how we grow.  

The Church of Jesus Christ is not a debating society and its worship services are not political fora. They are settings for learning and teaching the established doctrines of the gospel and the plan of salvation, for the renewing of covenants and strengthing of motivation to righteousness. People are free to find other settings for political debate if need be. 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[california boy]

3 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I agree, I have heard all the angst, listen to each side from those in and out of the Church. As well as within my own family, so much so that there a single action that is demanded, from those in the Gay community. That demand is, "meet our demands" let us make the rules. One very dear friend, served with him in many callings over a 25+ years. Once he "came out" (following 25+ years of marriage and five children) very bluntly told me that within the Gay Community, that is just silly, and setting people up for failure to suggest that they could live the law of Chastity, as required by heterosexual members of the Church.  

He explained how it is not the same dynamic, where young heterosexual couples who date, fall in love, and wait as they are now required to take months of pre-martial counseling classes before getting married in the Temples, and are required to remain Chaste. He went on to say that the way Gay men and women find and fall in love is through bonding sexually, and that to get to this point, this most often takes many partners, and many sexual experiences. 

I am pretty sure the gay community did not set up this meeting.  Yet they seem to be the constant scape goat when these kinds of events happen.  It gets tiring.

And I am pretty sure one person's opinion of how gays date does not make something true.  You seem to delight in painting those that are gay in the worse possible light lately.  That is a shame.  But you have every right to continue to do so.  Just wondering how this all fits into living the gospel and treating others with respect.  Is this kind of accusations something that church leaders are now encouraging members to do?

Edited January 30, 2018 by california boy

[Marginal Gains]

7 hours 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.

I agree with you here that, by-the-book, this Church service should never have happened with the assigned speakers that reportedly spoke to the congregation.

The interesting thing to me is that it did happen. That it was organised and sanctioned and supported up to Stake Level. This wasn’t just some rogue Bishop acting on his own. The General Authorities now have a problem with Ward and Stake Leaders knowingly ignoring the handbook and doing something that breaches procedure. But if those Ward and Stake Leaders felt inspired that what they were doing was the right thing, then what? Sanction them for following their inspiration rather than the handbook? 

The General Authorities are, assuming this happened unbeknown to them, now in a tight spot. Sanctioning the Stake and Ward leaders will lead to significant public fallout. Not sanctioning them could lead to more instances of this kind of thing.

[Gray]

11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

This is just my .02, but I am not sure what you are calling worldly ideologies or politics.  It seems that this event was meant to open up a dialog. You know, people discussing ideas about inclusion. The way I see it, no one was bombarding anyone.  I am assuming most in attendance were adults, and adults can and should have discussions and share different view points.  That is how we grow.  

IMO, it doesn't get more worldly than prejudice against gay people. Maybe that's the problem with worldly - it can mean whatever you like because all ideas and doctrines are in "the world"

[Tacenda]

14 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Will do.  I will refrain and ban myself from this thread     Thanks for your patience.

Noooo....stay Jeanne, we need your insight/input!

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

I agree with you here that, by-the-book, this Church service should never have happened with the assigned speakers that reportedly spoke to the congregation.

The interesting thing to me is that it did happen. That it was organised and sanctioned and supported up to Stake Level. This wasn’t just some rogue Bishop acting on his own. The General Authorities now have a problem with Ward and Stake Leaders knowingly ignoring the handbook and doing something that breaches procedure. But if those Ward and Stake Leaders felt inspired that what they were doing was the right thing, then what? Sanction them for following their inspiration rather than the handbook? 

The General Authorities are, assuming this happened unbeknown to them, now in a tight spot. Sanctioning the Stake and Ward leaders will lead to significant public fallout. Not sanctioning them could lead to more instances of this kind of thing.

There are a lot of meetings that the top leaders are unaware of. I remember going to an adult meeting at night where a man came and spoke about the prophet Joseph Smith, and the ring that Joseph wore, the eternity ring. He then set up a table where we could buy a replica.

Now the church has told members to refrain from selling products like this to members through church meetings. But things do happen w/o them in on it.

Curious what the fall out will be from this bishop and stake president's ward, which is in Riverton where I use to live, it could have been where I would have gone, haha.

[JulieM]

19 hours ago, Brian 2.0 said:

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

 

Have you (or anyone) watched it yet and returned with more information?

ETA:

Here’s what they wrote with a bit more info (so they were in attendance too):

 

“Today we had the most wonderful meeting in church on how to better love and support our lgbtq brothers and sisters! We heard from gay members who are in the church, gay members who have stepped away from the church and families with gay children of which one of these families who spoke lost their gay son to suicide. The focus was to help us understand that all of these people and their individual spiritually guided situations need our unconditional love and support. Over 150 extra people came to our meeting from the lgbtq community with their loved ones and families. This was besides our ward members. The cultural hall was packed and not an eye was dry from the love that was shared in this room. The meeting was filmed and if anyone desires a copy to share with their ward or to give ideas on how to create a meeting like this for your ward please let me know! I will forever be grateful for the spirit and love that was felt today!”

Edited January 30, 2018 by JulieM

[clarkgoble]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

Most negative commentary in the Trib. https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2018/01/17/commentary-patriarchy-is-alive-and-well-in-the-mormon-church-witness-new-leaders-response-to-tribunes-question/

Other interesting Trib take: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2018/01/19/mormon-land-historian-discusses-the-new-lds-leadership-and-the-question-everyone-is-buzzing-about-what-about-women/

 

As I've said, by "bungled" I mean something quite specific. If you saw the press conference as primarily focused on Mormons then you're completely right of course. I think all of us who don't have particular policies we're agitating for change over are presisposed to be favorable to the brethren. Further we're not really needing to be convinced of much. If the press conference was primarily focused on non-Mormons, speaking their language, and communicating a particular message to them then it just didn't succeed. In that case the Trib isn't even the group you should be looking at.

Now of course one could simply say that any critical commentary was by someone already biased against Mormons. At which point one must ask how on earth we could decide how the press conference worked. By and large though if you look at the response of non-Mormons who were familiar with it, it wasn't positive. 

Do I think that a big deal? No. There will be lots of opportunities in the future. Further the reality is that our views and broader's society's are in conflict. But there was a lost opportunity there I believe.

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

The General Authorities now have a problem with Ward and Stake Leaders knowingly ignoring the handbook and doing something that breaches procedure. But if those Ward and Stake Leaders felt inspired that what they were doing was the right thing, then what? Sanction them for following their inspiration rather than the handbook? 

Big if. Since we don't know it seems pointless to speculate on. We'll just end up projecting our biases on things.

I'm sure the brethren know by now. If they have a problem I'm sure the Stake President will be receiving a call and possibly a release. If not then nothing will happen.

The reality is that SP do things they aren't supposed to do. Sometimes much more serious than this. I'd not read too much into a single event.

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Guest]

8 hours ago, california boy said:

I am pretty sure the gay community did not set up this meeting.  Yet they seem to be the constant scape goat when these kinds of events happen.  It gets tiring.

And I am pretty sure one person's opinion of how gays date does not make something true.  You seem to delight in painting those that are gay in the worse possible light lately.  That is a shame.  But you have every right to continue to do so.  Just wondering how this all fits into living the gospel and treating others with respect.  Is this kind of accusations something that church leaders are now encouraging members to do?

Forgive me if it seemed I implied that the meeting was set up by the Gay community. It was not my intent to do so, nor was I expressing my personal feelings on the matter. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

I agree with you here that, by-the-book, this Church service should never have happened with the assigned speakers that reportedly spoke to the congregation.

The interesting thing to me is that it did happen. That it was organised and sanctioned and supported up to Stake Level. This wasn’t just some rogue Bishop acting on his own. The General Authorities now have a problem with Ward and Stake Leaders knowingly ignoring the handbook and doing something that breaches procedure. But if those Ward and Stake Leaders felt inspired that what they were doing was the right thing, then what? Sanction them for following their inspiration rather than the handbook? 

The General Authorities are, assuming this happened unbeknown to them, now in a tight spot. Sanctioning the Stake and Ward leaders will lead to significant public fallout. Not sanctioning them could lead to more instances of this kind of thing.

First, I'm not sure it was approved on a stake level. All we are told in the OP is that a counselor in the stake presidency gave the opening prayer. He could have been a member of the ward who didn't know any better than anyone else attending the class what was to transpire.

That said, I reiterate that this would not be the first time that local leaders, on either a ward or stake level, had acted inappropriately and needed correction.

Which leads to my third point. It is not unheard of for a stake presidency to be corrected by the general Church leadership, even on a matter of some visibility. It was just over two years ago that a stake presidency in Boston took it upon themselves to shorten the three-hour block of meetings to two hours. As soon as this went public, the general leadership of the Church summarily corrected them and the so-called "experiment" was canceled immediately. Here's the thread we had here about this incident.

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

10 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would not follow a local leader into doing something I clearly knew was wrong. We’ve seen the folly of that with Mountain Meadows. 

My first sentence of that statement was being facetious.  

We teach over and over and over again that no one should follow any leader blindly and that we individually have a responsibility to gain our own testimony if a leader is speaking the truth or not.  Our critics play the game that only results that LDS are damned if they do and damned if they don't while they smugly sit back and throw fiery darts. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

Now of course one could simply say that any critical commentary was by someone already biased against Mormons. At which point one must ask how on earth we could decide how the press conference worked. By and large though if you look at the response of non-Mormons who were familiar with it, it wasn't positive. 

I dare say the non-Mormons who cared enough to speak publicly about it are by and large the ones who are already mad at the Church over this or that matter and were already predisposed to speak negatively.

Quote

Do I think that a big deal? No. There will be lots of opportunities in the future. Further the reality is that our views and broader's society's are in conflict. But there was a lost opportunity there I believe.

Lost opportunity to do what? What do you think realistically or reasonably could have been accomplished by a news conference that wasn't accomplished in this instance?

Edited January 30, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

21 hours 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.

Therefore they are unworthy of our love?  That seems to be the point of this meeting...to teach Christ like love, yes, even for the sinner. This was not some pro-gay marriage propaganda program. 

Do you understand how many members are engaged in violations of the law of chastity?  How many porn addicts speak in church every Sunday?  As a pornography addict, I felt terrible shame. The taboo nature of the subject is a tool of toxic shaming.  We don't need to approve of their lifestyle, but we do need to understand and accept people who violate the law of chastity, in love.  

There is a reason that suicide rates are so high among LGBT youth in our church...it is NOT because of meetings like this one!  That is all I know.  I see this meeting as a very powerful example of loving the sinner and not the sin.  That seems to be the point of this meeting to me.  This meeting is suicide prevention at its finest!