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

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, USU78 said:

I likewise am more troubled now than before, notwithstanding I'm wholly unsurprised.  I guess I had a scintilla of hope that something else was going on.

It was a Mormon-shaming meeting.

Sadly, I'll have to agree with you.

 

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 Having the ward gather together during the three-hour block emphasizes the important and necessary nature of what they're going to hear.

I am thinking this is why the time choice.  

Kids are taken care of, people already there.

---

Because I am more comfortable living within rules when expected of me, I would have preferred if the bishop had dismissed Church after SM to hold an early Fireside with the Primary people putting on a program for the kids to keep them occupied.

I realized it is just a difference of appearances, but appearance is a huge part of communication.  It would have stressed the importance of the event, but also avoided the possible misinterpretation by those prone to do so of the Bishop allowing nonChurch agendas to take over church.

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/29/2018 at 11:08 AM, 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.

Went to a meeting yesterday, knows 90% of the presenters and paid attention to their allies, and watched the regular members, but can't remember the name of the ward? 

[JulieM]

30 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I likewise am more troubled now than before, notwithstanding I'm wholly unsurprised.  I guess I had a scintilla of hope that something else was going on.

What were you hoping “was going on”?

[Brian 2.0]

33 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I likewise am more troubled now than before, notwithstanding I'm wholly unsurprised.  I guess I had a scintilla of hope that something else was going on.

It was a Mormon-shaming meeting.

You realize so much of the Book of Mormon consists of stories of "Mormon-shaming meetings". 

It's not uncommon for the Saints to need a little of that from time to time throughout history. 

You just don't agree that this "Mormon-shaming meeting" should or needed to happen. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong. A lot in attendance at the BOM shaming meetings thought they weren't needed at the time. 

[USU78]

11 minutes ago, JulieM said:

What were you hoping “was going on”?

Something, anything else other than "Mormons are judgmental."

[USU78]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

This is not about changing church doctrine and standards.  It is about practicing them. 

Precisely!  Mormon-shaming.

[USU78]

10 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

You realize so much of the Book of Mormon consists of stories of "Mormon-shaming meetings". 

It's not uncommon for the Saints to need a little of that from time to time throughout history. 

You just don't agree that this "Mormon-shaming meeting" should or needed to happen. Maybe you're right. Maybe you're wrong. A lot in attendance at the BOM shaming meetings thought they weren't needed at the time. 

Really?

Find me a spot in the BoM where we are enjoined not to "mourn with those that mourn" and "comfort those in need of comfort," but rather, "celebrate and embrace the sinful life choices of those in a state of unrepentant apostasy."  That's a formal CFR, BTW.

[cinepro]

 

56 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

(Portion bolded for reference)

And I suppose it's the mandatory (if you will) nature of Sabbath meetings as opposed to an optional fireside or workshop that would make me resent being a part of a captive audience, as it were, for something I don't approve of, i.e. including people in the program who have left the Church or who are involved in relationships that are in clear violation of Church teachings.

 

What would you say the odds are that the Bishop received revelation on the content and format of the meeting being what his ward needed to hear?  Any chance at all?

[Brian 2.0]

14 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Really?

Find me a spot in the BoM where we are enjoined not to "mourn with those that mourn" and "comfort those in need of comfort," but rather, "celebrate and embrace the sinful life choices of those in a state of unrepentant apostasy."  That's a formal CFR, BTW.

I'm not making that point, so I don't need to CFR a strawman.

I'm saying IF a body of saints is off course in their views or treatment of others or actions THEN a "Mormon-shaming meeting" may be appropriate. And those such events occurred in the BOM.

Edited January 30, 2018 by Brian 2.0
edit for grammar.

[JulieM]

20 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Something, anything else other than "Mormons are judgmental."

Where was that expressed in the notes posted from the meeting?  

There was no scolding or shaming or judging from what I read.  Only a feeling expressed of “these are our brothers and sisters, let’s get to know them, so we can love them and make them feel welcome”. 

It would be interesting to hear from someone in the audience (a member of the ward) and hear them relate what feelings existed there and if they felt judged or shamed.  

Edited January 30, 2018 by JulieM

[cinepro]

30 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Really?

Find me a spot in the BoM where we are enjoined not to "mourn with those that mourn" and "comfort those in need of comfort," but rather, "celebrate and embrace the sinful life choices of those in a state of unrepentant apostasy."  That's a formal CFR, BTW.

CFR that the Bishop meant for the meeting to "celebrate and embrace" the lifestyle of the presenters.  As far as I can tell, he only used the words "love and support" and "love and value," and this was being applied to them as people, not to the fact that they may or may not be having homosexual relations.

The great thing about this meeting isn't that it was perfect.  The great thing is that the Bishop tried.  The Church's policies and attitude towards gays and lesbians has been a spiritual disaster for centuries.  And if the press conference with President Nelson was any indication, the leadership at the top have no idea what to do.  So maybe the Bishop didn't make the perfect choice in when to have the meeting, or where to have it, or who to invite to speak, but he did something to try and help bridge the gap between Mormons who are more than happy to not have homosexuals attending their wards and homosexuals who are more than happy to not be attending those wards. 

Because unless the Church is willing to admit that its version of the Plan of Salvation is a total failure when applied to people that don't desire heterosexual marriage (and the children that result) and just write off that entire community (and their families and loved ones), something is going to have to change.

If the Church does decide to try and actually help gays and lesbians, the first thing it's going to have to do is stop calling the Plan of Salvation the "Plan of Happiness" and instead call it "The Plan of Heterosexual Happiness, but Homosexual Life-long Frustration and Depression, Possibly Leading to Suicide but Hopefully They'll Stick it Out and Be Magically Transformed Into Heterosexuals in the Hereafter."

It's a little longer, but more accurate.

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by cinepro

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

What would you say the odds are that the Bishop received revelation on the content and format of the meeting being what his ward needed to hear?  Any chance at all?

Under the circumstances, my gut feeling is that it is more likely a matter of his passion as an activist and his association with the facility where he volunteers spilling over into the attention and energy he gives to his Church calling.

Such a thing could be divinely directed, I suppose. I believe God does work with our innate interests and personal priorities in guiding us to accomplish His purposes.

Whether or not that is what is happening in this instance is not for me to say.

 

Edited January 30, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[USU78]

10 minutes ago, cinepro said:

CFR that the Bishop meant for the meeting to "celebrate and embrace" the lifestyle of the presenters.  As far as I can tell, he only used the words "love and support" and "love and value," and this was being applied to them as people, not to the fact that they may or may not be having homosexual relations.

The great thing about this meeting isn't that it was perfect.  The great thing is that the Bishop tried.  The Church's policies and attitude towards gays and lesbians has been a spiritual disaster for centuries.  And if the press conference with President Nelson was any indication, the leadership at the top have no idea what to do.  So maybe the Bishop didn't make the perfect choice in when to have the meeting, or where to have it, or who to invite to speak, but he did something to try and help bridge the gap between Mormons who are more than happy to not have homosexuals attending their wards and homosexuals who are more than happy to not be attending those wards. 

Because unless the Church is willing to admit that it's version of the Plan of Salvation is a total failure when applied to people that don't desire heterosexual marriage (and the children that result) and just write off that entire community (and their families and loved ones), something is going to have to change.

If the Church does decide to try and actually help gays and lesbians, the first thing it's going to have to do is stop calling the Plan of Salvation the "Plan of Happiness" and instead call it "The Plan of Heterosexual Happiness and Homosexual Life-long Frustration and Depression, Possibly Leading to Suicide but Hopefully They'll Stick it Out and Be Magically Transformed Into Heterosexuals in the Hereafter."

It's a little longer, but more accurate.

I prefer Scott's more moderate offering to my own and hereby amend my prior offerings:

Quote

Under the circumstances, my gut feeling is that it is more likely a matter of his passion as an activist and his association with the facility where he volunteers spilling over into the attention and energy he gives to his Church calling.

To bully and shame into silence those that may have serious reservations about what by all appearances was an advocacy exercise is not a way to win hearts and minds.

And that bolded smart@rsery is unworthy of the revised and amended cinemark.

[pogi]

41 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But consider what she is saying here.  "Now clean, happily married to a woman..."  That sounds an awful lot like advocacy/justification for conduct that is prohibited by

You are questioning the entire meeting based on 7 words.  Somehow that seems rather nit-picky.  I am sure that we could equally nit-pick every sacrament talk and accuse many of terrible optics.  But then we would be blind to the message. 

Now let me pick out my favorite parts and show you the core of the messages:

Quote

 

The bishop started out by saying they were going to talk about loving and accepting LGBTQ people [not sin]. A member of the SP gave the opening prayer.

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

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

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

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

Next speaker, a gay woman...Talked about her amazing mother who rejects her wife and their marriage. Read several letters to her mother (some of them not sent) seeking to re-establish their previously close relationship. (ItNoJC,A).

Musical number by two gay men.

Next speaker: A lesbian woman... Told of her upbringing and her struggles with prescription drugs and her self loathing because -- she is gay. (ItNoJC,A).

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

Last speaker: Bishop. We are out of time, but he gives some scripture references about loving and accepting.

 

There were 250-300 members in attendance.  I wish we could hear their thoughts and feelings on the meeting.  Somehow, I would be willing to bet that the majority found it to be uplifting and inspirational, and I bet they sustain their local leaders in providing the experience.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

What is the limiting principle here?  Is there one?

   I have addressed this in other responses.  "LGBT youth are at heightened risk, they therefore need heightened attention."

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

My concern is that the meeting described in the OP was used, to some extent, to rationalize / justify / excuse / advocate for same-sex marriage.  And even if that was not the case, I am also concerned that this sort of meeting, if replicated elsewhere, could easily and quickly devolve into attempts to rationalize / justify / excuse / advocate for same-sex marriage.

I would like to see your data for suicides rates "among LGBT youth in our church."  CFR, please.

I fully support the concept of loving the sinner and not the sin.  That is not the basis for my concern.

Thanks,

-Smac

I am sure the participants were prepared in advance as to what the meeting was about.  If someone took the occasion to justify/excuse/rationalize...well, it happens.  But we can't be afraid to let sinners speak because of fear that they MIGHT justify/excuse/rationalize.

And, yes, there have been meetings in church where porn addicts have been allowed to share their experiences of shame etc. We had a special porn meeting in my ward with a recovering addict who openly shared his experiences of shame, etc.  Liberating from the taboo!

As far as your CFR goes, I have already clarified that it is not specific to our church alone.  I can show you general risk for LGBT youth in general, and the increased risk if their religious convictions cause conflict with their sexual orientation, leading to "internalized homophobia".  Would that suffice?  I think you have already seen that link in the other thread though.

I understand you concern of wanting to keep the optics of the message pure, but sometimes sometimes there are things more important than optics.  I am sure the local leadership sought inspiration and guidance in this meeting.  Surely, they took it to the Lord.  I have a feeling that it was an overall positive experience that led to greater understanding and Christ-like love and acceptance of the sinner.  

[USU78]

20 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

I'm not making that point, so I don't need to CFR a strawman.

I'm saying IF a body of saints is off course in their views or treatment of others or actions THEN a "Mormon-shaming meeting" may be appropriate. And those such events occurred in the BOM.

CFR the bolded.

[JulieM]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Under the circumstances, my gut feeling is that it is more likely a matter of his passion as an activist and his association with the facility where he volunteers spilling over into the attention and energy he gives to his Church calling.

Such a thing could be divinely directed, I suppose. I believe God does work with our innate interests and personal priorities in guiding us to accomplish His purposes.

Whether or not that is what is happening in this instance is not for me to say.

 

Scott, were you touched at all when you read the actual notes from the meeting?  When you read the words the Bishop spoke to his congregation?

What did you feel as you read through it?  I would really like to know if it had an impact on you.

Edited January 30, 2018 by JulieM

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Scott, were you touched at all when you read the actual notes from the meeting?  The words the Bishop spoke to his congregation?

What did you feel as you read through it?  I would really like to know if it had an impact on you.

I sensed his heartfelt sincerity and concern.

[Brian 2.0]

4 minutes ago, USU78 said:

I prefer Scott's more moderate offering to my own and hereby amend my prior offerings:

To bully and shame into silence those that may have serious reservations about what by all appearances was an advocacy exercise is not a way to win hearts and minds.

Passion and activism for a cause spilling into his church calling isn't necessarily a bad thing. The passion and activism would need to be misguided first.

Someone who's passionate and an activist regarding adoption or emergency preparedness are welcome additions to callings. It even makes them appropriate for certain callings. 

So it's not the passion or activism per say, it's what he's passionate or an activist for that seems to bother you.

Are you assuming he's passionate about bullying and shaming? Why can't he be passionate and an activist for treating everyone in their midst with love and understanding and that's the passion he brought to the meeting.

Are you claiming the bishop was bullying and shaming people?

[rongo]

It sounds to me like this bishop has a hobby horse, and he is dedicating a significant amount of his time to it (serving at the Encircle House, arranging this meeting, etc.). It has all the earmarks of a Bishop Reel (and the aftermath of that), and that's what concerns me. There's an opportunity cost involved, and I wonder what bishop's duties are on the back burner or fall to the wayside because of his passion and dedication to this issue. 

I will be watching the 1, 3, 6 month, 1 year and beyond with interest. I don't think we've heard the last of Bishop Augenstein. I won't be surprised to have him be an anticipated guest on Mormon Stories. 

[pogi]

47 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Precisely!  Mormon-shaming.

  If inspiring, teaching, leading, and encouraging others to live their standards is toxic shame...then Mormons are the masters of it!

There is a difference between inspiring healthy guilt (I made a mistake), and toxic shame (I am a mistake).

The one leads to reconciliation and fellowship, the other leads to hiding and isolation.  

[Brian 2.0]

11 minutes ago, USU78 said:

CFR the bolded.

Jacob 2. All of the chapter pretty much supplies the CFR request, but here is a snippet.

13 And the hand of providence hath smiled upon you most pleasingly, that you have obtained many riches; and because some of you have obtained more abundantly than that of your brethren ye are lifted up in the pride of your hearts, and wear stiff necks and high heads because of the costliness of your apparel, and persecute your brethren because ye suppose that ye are better than they.

14 And now, my brethren, do ye suppose that God justifieth you in this thing? Behold, I say unto you, Nay. But he condemneth you, and if ye persist in these things his judgments must speedily come unto you.

15 O that he would show you that he can pierce you, and with one glance of his eye he can smite you to the dust!

16 O that he would rid you from this iniquity and abomination. And, O that ye would listen unto the word of his commands, and let not this pride of your hearts destroy your souls!

17 Think of your brethren like unto yourselves, and be familiar with all and free with your substance, that theymay be rich like unto you.

18 But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.

19 And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ ye shall obtain riches, if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.

20 And now, my brethren, I have spoken unto you concerning pride; and those of you which have afflicted your neighbor, and persecuted him because ye were proud in your hearts, of the things which God hath given you, what say ye of it?

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

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. 

Could you share a link to studies that show that religious LGBT people are more likely to commit suicide?

As far as I know mental illness and Substance abuse (these are not mutually exclusive) are the biggest risk factors,

Being LGBT, I know has a strong correlation as well, but I don't recall religion being a risk indicator.

[Scott Lloyd]

16 minutes ago, Brian 2.0 said:

Passion and activism for a cause spilling into his church calling isn't necessarily a bad thing. The passion and activism would need to be misguided first.

I never said it was a bad thing. In fact I think I said it could be just the opposite.

And I agree with your second sentence. Any potentially good thing can be misguided or misapplied.

Quote

Someone who's passionate and an activist regarding adoption or emergency preparedness are welcome additions to callings. It even makes them appropriate for certain callings. 

Yes. And I think I said as much.

Quote

 

So it's not the passion or activism per say, it's what he's passionate or an activist for that seems to bother you.

Are you assuming he's passionate about bullying and shaming? Why can't he be passionate and an activist for treating everyone in their midst with love and understanding and that's the passion he brought to the meeting.

Are you claiming the bishop was bullying and shaming people?

 

You were referring to my quote, but it seems to be USU78 (who quoted me) whom you are addressing here, so I'd best leave it to him to respond.

I will only point out that misapplying a good thing  (as per your comment above) can easily result in bullying (not that I'm claiming that's what the bishop here was doing or intended to do).

Edited January 30, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Thinking]

I think that some of the reactions in this thread are an indication of why dealing with the LGBT issue is so difficult for the Church. If the Church stays the course, it risks losing members. If the Church gives in by way of a claimed revelation, it risks losing members. Will the Church choose a course that loses the fewest members or will it choose what it thinks is right and let the consequences follow?