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

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

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!   

My objection here has been limited to inviting unrepentant persons to preach to Latter-day Saints about acceptance of their behavior. There must be ways to display love and acceptance without resorting to that.

As I said, I don't know this is what happened here, but the potential for it would have been enough to keep me away from attending the meeting.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Storm Rider]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

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!   

Pogi, this seems more like crossing the line from "This is who I am/we love you" to an advocacy of "We are just like you only different".  There is never, ever a need to accept any form of sin.  There is an absolute need for each of us to learn to love others in spite of their sins.  

In the same manner that we sponsor adulterers time in church meetings - or devote two full meeting times - to get to know them as adulterers so we don't need to sponsor any individual group and their chosen method of rebelling against the laws of God.  

[clarkgoble]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

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.

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?

I'd disagree with your first claim. And as for lost opportunity, I think an opportunity to engage with the non-Mormon press in a way that press was comfortable with and change expectations. I'm not saying that President Nelson have the skills Pres. Hinkley did. That's unfair to expect. But I think they could have done better conveying that they care about the people at odds with the Church while maintaining the importance of following the commandments. To what could reasonably be done, just imagine Hinkley, Monson in his younger days, or Uchtdorf in that press conference. Now as I said, it's unfair to expect Nelson to be those people. That's not his skill. However I'd note that you asked what could "realistically or reasonably be accomplished." All I'm saying is that if you look at the press conference we had and imagine what those other people would have done, there's a place in between that's reasonable yet better than what we got.

Again, lest my words get pulled out of context, I'm not saying this is a huge deal. I am not always performing at my best. I don't expect them to either. However I bet had they waited a week or two to when things weren't so stressful, did some rehearsals for the questions, taken feedback, and practiced, that they would have been a lot better.

Edited January 30, 2018 by clarkgoble

[JulieM]

Just read this posted:

“I was volunteering at Encircle tonight with that Bishop! He's amazing. I asked him about it and they are working on getting approval to share those videos with everyone. Since it was held "during the church block hours", they need to have permissions to share it from the church PR. The other cameraman was the Bishop's friend.

Hopefully we'll be able to see it soon!“

[pogi]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My objection here has been limited to inviting unrepentant persons to preach to Latter-day Saints about acceptance of their behavior. There must ways to display love and acceptance without resorting to that.

As I said, I don't know this is what happened here, but the potential for it would have been enough to keep me away from attending the meeting.

I agree, I would object to that as well.  I highly doubt that a bishop and stake president would both approve of a meeting for the purpose of teaching members to accept sinful behavior.  I think the purpose was to teach Christ-like love for individuals, despite their behavior.  Not to accept their behavior, but to accept them as fallible human beings with a terrible burden.  To empathize with their burden, not with their behavior.  Compassion. 

[Danzo]

46 minutes ago, pogi said:

There is a reason that suicide rates are so high among LGBT youth in our church

Do we have an idea of what the suicide rate is among LGBT youth in our church?

I am unaware of any reliable data.

If we don't then there is no way of knowing whether anything we do has any affect positively or negatively.

[clarkgoble]

4 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Just read this posted:

“I was volunteering at Encircle tonight with that Bishop! He's amazing. I asked him about it and they are working on getting approval to share those videos with everyone. Since it was held "during the church block hours", they need to have permissions to share it from the church PR. The other cameraman was the Bishop's friend.

Hopefully we'll be able to see it soon!“

If that's accurate and informed, then that would strongly suggest permission from the Stake Presidency and potentially Area Presidency. It's not sure of course. Maybe they just assumed they could do this and are in for a very rude awakening. (As is, I'd be shocked if Church PR would approve it - if they do then that's pretty strong evidence the brethren approve) However I think it less likely they'd go to Church PR unless they had an expectation that this all was acceptable.

The reason I suspect PR wouldn't approve, btw, is because even if the Area Presidency approved the idea, there's a high likelihood of someone saying something incorrect that they wouldn't want appearing on a shared video. That's the nature of things when talks aren't preapproved. It's OK for a fireside because the errors don't get propagated as much. A video is a whole other kettle of fish - particularly with a topic like this. You want to make sure the details are correct.

[Scott Lloyd]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'd disagree with your first claim. And as for lost opportunity, I think an opportunity to engage with the non-Mormon press in a way that press was comfortable with and change expectations. I'm not saying that President Nelson have the skills Pres. Hinkley did. That's unfair to expect. But I think they could have done better conveying that they care about the people at odds with the Church while maintaining the importance of following the commandments. To what could reasonably be done, just imagine Hinkley, Monson in his younger days, or Uchtdorf in that press conference. Now as I said, it's unfair to expect Nelson to be those people. That's not his skill. However I'd note that you asked what could "realistically or reasonably be accomplished." All I'm saying is that if you look at the press conference we had and imagine what those other people would have done, there's a place in between that's reasonable yet better than what we got.

Again, lest my words get pulled out of context, I'm not saying this is a huge deal. I am not always performing at my best. I don't expect them to either. However I bet had they waited a week or two to when things weren't so stressful, did some rehearsals for the questions, taken feedback, and practiced, that they would have been a lot better.

I clearly remember President Hinckley, and I admired his skills as a communicator. But times were different in his day, and I have to say I'm not persuaded he, under today's circumstances, could have done better than President Nelson and his counselors did in this setting. Nor do I concede that President Nelson is deficient in his own skills at communication or that "a week or two" of "rehearsals" would have made any noteworthy difference.

In the end, it's all a matter of speculation anyway.

[Scott Lloyd]

4 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

If that's accurate and informed, then that would strongly suggest permission from the Stake Presidency and potentially Area Presidency.

Why does it strongly suggest that?

The stake leadership in Boston got pretty far down the road with their plans to shorten the meeting block on their own initiative before the general Church leadership heard about it and immediately slapped them down.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[clarkgoble]

6 minutes ago, Danzo said:

Do we have an idea of what the suicide rate is among LGBT youth in our church?

I am unaware of any reliable data.

If we don't then there is no way of knowing whether anything we do has any affect positively or negatively.

All we know is that Utah suicide rates are roughly commensurate with surrounding regions and highly affected by altitude. There's been a significant uptick the past few years, but again that's true broadly and is unlikely to be due to LDS LGBT issues. That's not to dismiss suicide issues in the least. Just that we have to be careful about being reductive without noting these regional issues. As for what's causing the national and regional increase in suicide there are lots of theories. Some think that it's a side effect on drug use and particularly the types of drugs used. (Synthetics in particular) Others have tried to tie it to the rise of social media on communication and the decrease in face to face socializing and friendship. (I'm more skeptical of that - although it's possible) There are also questions on diet and a few other such matters. It's hard to say right now. I suspect we'll find out that changing drugs is a significant cause in aggregate. (Which tells us nothing about particular cases of course) 

However even if the tendency to lay suicide rate on the Church is unfair, that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't seek to reduce the rate.

Edited January 30, 2018 by clarkgoble

[pogi]

24 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Pogi, this seems more like crossing the line from "This is who I am/we love you" to an advocacy of "We are just like you only different".  There is never, ever a need to accept any form of sin.  There is an absolute need for each of us to learn to love others in spite of their sins.  

In the same manner that we sponsor adulterers time in church meetings - or devote two full meeting times - to get to know them as adulterers so we don't need to sponsor any individual group and their chosen method of rebelling against the laws of God.  

They are just like me only different.  We are all sinners.  Some people in this life have been dealt a heavier burden then others, and therefore need more support, not less support from us Christians.  Not support for the behavior, but support for their heavy burden of internal conflict, from shaming, support against taboo-ism, support against the condemnation and judgments of men, support against the increased risk for mental illness and suicide, support for the person, the individual, the people who probably need it most.

What is the church if not a sponsor for sinners?  Sinners need sponsors.  I certainly benefited from one in addiction recovery.  Sponsorship is not acceptance of behavior.  If adulterers were committing suicide at the same rate that LGBT youth are, I would support a meeting for them too.  

   

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Just read this posted:

“I was volunteering at Encircle tonight with that Bishop! He's amazing. I asked him about it and they are working on getting approval to share those videos with everyone. Since it was held "during the church block hours", they need to have permissions to share it from the church PR. The other cameraman was the Bishop's friend.

Hopefully we'll be able to see it soon!“

I figured, based on what had been posted, that this had been approved by the stake president. One can record meetings in the chapel if the stake president approves it. 

I think this was a poor idea (having people not living covenants and living in what the Church defines as apostasy). I think the intention to have a meeting designed to help people be more loving and empathetic is wonderful, but I don't think this was gone about the right way. I worry, too, that this bishop and others can get carried away with a feeling of celebrity and a sense of importance (cause warriors, etc.). It is a fine line and a slippery slope, and it's hard to know you're slipping when you are. 

I think the Brethren are going to monitor this very carefully and step in if/when needed. 

Thinking about faithful gay members of my ward, I don't think they would have been happy about or comfortable with this. Some of these are those who really struggle with it, and wish they could live that way, but they choose to walk the covenant path. One of them said to the stake president that the prospect of living a long life resisting that is daunting, but she's willing to do it and that it is worth it. She is very empathetic to those in her boat, but she is also fiercely protective of the Church. 

I think this sort of thing actually tends to accelerate the way out for people concerned with this, rather than help them stay true to the Church. Giving a bully pulpit and a soapbox for people living in a state of apostasy (as defined by the Church) doesn't do anyone any good, except for those hoping to drive tangible change in the Church.

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree, I would object to that as well.  I highly doubt that a bishop and stake president would both approve of a meeting for the purpose of teaching members to accept sinful behavior.  I think the purpose was to teach Christ-like love for individuals, despite their behavior.  Not to accept their behavior, but to accept them as fallible human beings with a terrible burden.  To empathize with their burden, not with their behavior.  Compassion. 

I find it hard to see a purpose in inviting unrepentant individuals involved in a same-sex marriage or other homosexual relationship to preach to a meeting of Church members that would not imply excusing or tolerating the sinful behavior.

[Danzo]

13 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

All we know is that Utah suicide rates are roughly commensurate with surrounding regions and highly affected by altitude. There's been a significant uptick the past few years, but again that's true broadly and is unlikely to be due to LDS LGBT issues. That's not to dismiss suicide issues in the least. Just that we have to be careful about being reductive without noting these regional issues. As for what's causing the national and regional increase in suicide there are lots of theories. Some think that it's a side effect on drug use and particularly the types of drugs used. (Synthetics in particular) Others have tried to tie it to the rise of social media on communication and the decrease in face to face socializing and friendship. (I'm more skeptical of that - although it's possible) There are also questions on diet and a few other such matters. It's hard to say right now. I suspect we'll find out that changing drugs is a significant cause in aggregate. (Which tells us nothing about particular cases of course) 

However even if the tendency to lay suicide rate on the Church is unfair, that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't seek to reduce the rate.

Well, It would be helpful for those in these discussions that they are making arguments based on faith or speculation and not actual data.

I personally believe that exercising faith, repenting of ones sins, entering in to and keeping covenants like baptism and having access to the Holy Ghost promote peace of mind and provide the hope that would reduce suicides and improve mental health.

Many hear seem to be arguing the opposite.  exercising faith, repenting of ones sins, entering in to and keeping covenants like baptism and having access to the Holy Ghost, degrade mental health and promote suicide.

I admit my believes are based on faith, but it would be refreshing for the others in this discussion to admit likewise.

 

Until there is anything close to reliable data on the subject we will just have to go by what we believe

(I don't think Utah is  a proxy for active, practicing LDS)

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Danzo

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

If that's accurate and informed, then that would strongly suggest permission from the Stake Presidency and potentially Area Presidency. It's not sure of course. Maybe they just assumed they could do this and are in for a very rude awakening. (As is, I'd be shocked if Church PR would approve it - if they do then that's pretty strong evidence the brethren approve) However I think it less likely they'd go to Church PR unless they had an expectation that this all was acceptable.

The reason I suspect PR wouldn't approve, btw, is because even if the Area Presidency approved the idea, there's a high likelihood of someone saying something incorrect that they wouldn't want appearing on a shared video. That's the nature of things when talks aren't preapproved. It's OK for a fireside because the errors don't get propagated as much. A video is a whole other kettle of fish - particularly with a topic like this. You want to make sure the details are correct.

Maybe they’d release an edited version for PR?  

We don’t know what was said yet (unless there’s someone who’s been more specific that was there).  But, I have to believe that much or most of it was in keeping with supporting the church’s beliefs and teachings on this.

I would think that a good portion of the video would be a wonderful PR move for the church leaders to release as evidence or a show of how they actually do love those who are gay and welcome them and want to listen to them.

It will be interesting to watch what happens from here with this.

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

All we know is that Utah suicide rates are roughly commensurate with surrounding regions and highly affected by altitude. There's been a significant uptick the past few years, but again that's true broadly and is unlikely to be due to LDS LGBT issues. That's not to dismiss suicide issues in the least. Just that we have to be careful about being reductive without noting these regional issues. As for what's causing the national and regional increase in suicide there are lots of theories. Some think that it's a side effect on drug use and particularly the types of drugs used. (Synthetics in particular) Others have tried to tie it to the rise of social media on communication and the decrease in face to face socializing and friendship. (I'm more skeptical of that - although it's possible) There are also questions on diet and a few other such matters. It's hard to say right now. I suspect we'll find out that changing drugs is a significant cause in aggregate. (Which tells us nothing about particular cases of course) 

However even if the tendency to lay suicide rate on the Church is unfair, that doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't seek to reduce the rate.

True. And I think the Church leaders have demonstrated deep concern about this matter in the recent past and continue to demonstrate it.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900007805/lds-church-will-boost-suicide-prevention-efforts-with-website-for-local-leaders.html

Edited January 30, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

6 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I find it hard to see a purpose in inviting unrepentant individuals involved in a same-sex marriage or other homosexual relationship to preach to a meeting of Church members that would not imply excusing or tolerating the sinful behavior.

You don't see the potential benefit of trying to understand their experiences and perspective of internal struggles that too frequently lead to suicide?   If we close our ears, how can we ever make a difference? 

I wouldn't read too far into the possible implications. People can draw whatever creative conclusions they want when the intent is not directly stated.  What are the possible implications of not addressing these issues?  Tolerance of suicide?

 

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

You don't see the potential benefit of trying to understand their experiences and perspective of internal struggles that too frequently lead to suicide?   If we close our ears, how can we ever make a difference? 

 

 

I think it quite possible to understand said experiences and perspective in ways that avoid the spectacle of having unrepentant individuals preach to Church members and appear to be advocating acceptance of the sin, not just the sinner. As was pointed out here, we don't do that with unrepentant adulterers or those involved in other forms of sin.

Quote

I wouldn't read too far into the possible implications. People can draw whatever creative conclusions they want when the intent is not directly stated.  What are the possible implications of not addressing these issues?  Tolerance of suicide?

As has been stated here, this is being addressed in ways other than turning over the pulpit at our worship services to unrepentant sinners. And, as has been stated, there is no reliable information that justifies the conclusion that the Church's doctrines and standards on homosexuality lead to higher than average rates of suicide. It is overwrought hyperbole to imply that maintaining those standards and values amounts to tolerance of suicide.

[Storm Rider]

38 minutes ago, pogi said:

They are just like me only different.  We are all sinners.  Some people in this life have been dealt a heavier burden then others, and therefore need more support, not less support from us Christians.  Not support for the behavior, but support for their heavy burden of internal conflict, from shaming, support against taboo-ism, support against the condemnation and judgments of men, support against the increased risk for mental illness and suicide, support for the person, the individual, the people who probably need it most.

What is the church if not a sponsor for sinners?  Sinners need sponsors.  I certainly benefited from one in addiction recovery.  Sponsorship is not acceptance of behavior.  If adulterers were committing suicide at the same rate that LGBT youth are, I would support a meeting for them too.  

   

We seem to be talking past one another and avoiding my point.  The vast majority of what you have stated is what I support and advocate.  Do you think we should dedicate both the Gospel Doctrine and RS/P meetings to adulterers, or maybe those with tendencies to molest children so that members get a better understanding of their lives?  If not, then where are you drawing the line?  Who is acceptable and who is not?

If we are all sinners then why highlight one specific group's sin?  

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think it quite possible to understand said experiences and perspective in ways that avoid the spectacle of having unrepentant individuals preach to Church members and appear to be advocating acceptance of the sin, not just the sinner. 

Unless you’ve watched the video or read a transcript, how do you know this was a “spectacle”?  And that “unrepentant sinners” preached to church members “advocating acceptance of the sin”?

You are making a lot of judgements about those who spoke before you even know details here.

I think we should reserve judgement until we can watch the video or hear more about what was said.

Edited January 30, 2018 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Unless you’ve watched the video or read a transcript, how do you know this was a “spectacle”?  And that “unrepentant sinners” preached to church members “advocating acceptance of the sin”?

You are making a lot of judgements about those who spoke before you even know details here.

I think we should reserve judgement until we can watch the video or hear more about what was said.

I've already said that my comments assume arguendo that what has been stated in the OP is accurate and have allowed that it might not be. I have also limited my objection to turning over the pulpit or the lectern to people who are engaged in a homosexual relationship and have indicated no intention to repent.

I stand by that objection.

ETA: I like what Storm Rider just posted:
 

Quote

 

Do you think we should dedicate both the Gospel Doctrine and RS/P meetings to adulterers, or maybe those with tendencies to molest children so that members get a better understanding of their lives?  If not, then where are you drawing the line?  Who is acceptable and who is not?

If we are all sinners then why highlight one specific group's sin?  

 

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I've already said that my comments assume arguendo that what has been stated in the OP is accurate and have allowed that it might not be. I have also limited my objection to turning over the pulpit or the lectern to people who are engaged in a homosexual relationship and have indicated no intention to repent.

I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens with this from here.  I try to reserve judgement of others when we know so little about what was actually said.  

I hope this can be a step towards showing more love for LBGT members  (as expressed by President Nelson in the press conference towards gay members of the church) and an actual indication that many want to hear what they have to say and listen.  They do have a voice here.  As long as they’re not openly preaching against the church, I think it’s great to see this.

If they did say anything in open rebellion, I’ll agree with you.  

But I’m going to wait to pass judgement on them.

Edited January 30, 2018 by JulieM

[provoman]

The flack directed at Scott is very curious. He had restated his position thoroughly. 

 

It is curious to me because, I consider Scot a “true blue”. Never, as I recall, have I see Scott attribute inappropriate/unapproved motives to a leadership position in the Church.  It is also curious in that at times people are all too willing to attribute unapproved motives to a member of Church leadership. But Scott, Smac and others have been quite clear as to their opinions - based on the information provided - as to the propriety and/or level of authorization this meeting recieved. I am sure why it is so difficult to consider that this meeting was not known of beyond the local level.

 

Based on what little information is provided, I believe it is likely this tupe of meeting was not approved or denied beyond the local level. I also believe the members were not told before hand what the meeting would encompass - I think it it had been there would have been an uproar from both sides. The latest suggest the approval from Church PR is needed to distribute the recordings. That suggest to me it was not know before hand about the recording - recordings meetings is almost an absolute prohibition. 

There are LOTS of important details missing. Scott has made a well reasoned case as to his position. And atributing any unChristlike motive to Scott’s position is without merit.

[Marginal Gains]

 

34 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

We seem to be talking past one another and avoiding my point.  The vast majority of what you have stated is what I support and advocate.  Do you think we should dedicate both the Gospel Doctrine and RS/P meetings to adulterers, or maybe those with tendencies to molest children so that members get a better understanding of their lives?  If not, then where are you drawing the line?  Who is acceptable and who is not?

If we are all sinners then why highlight one specific group's sin?  

You’re equating people in a same sex marriage with child molesters?

Edited January 30, 2018 by Marginal Gains

[pogi]

1 hour ago, Danzo said:

Do we have an idea of what the suicide rate is among LGBT youth in our church?

I am unaware of any reliable data.

If we don't then there is no way of knowing whether anything we do has any affect positively or negatively.

I don't have numbers specific to our church, but we do have reliable data that shows increased suicidality among religious LGBT youth in general who face internal faith conflicts, self-acceptance issues, and "internalized homophobia".  In other words, they hate the gay part of themselves.  They shame themselves to death.  Where did they learn that?  Who taught them shame?  We NEED to fix that message that these youth are receiving.  That is our burden!  Unfortunately, too many wards understand this too late.  When I was secretary of the young men's, one of our boys that I loved dearly killed himself.    

We shouldn't resist doing good because we don't have any reliable way of measuring results.  Anti-shame messages are good. Period.