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

[kllindley]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I dislike this kind of junk. It is cruel to everyone involved:

Rank and File Members: Confused at mixed messages.

Those with SSA: Cruel false hope that there is strong possibility of change.

Those watching from the Outside: Potential media circus about the defiant local leader being crushed by Salt Lake.

Local Leaders: Risking callings and membership.

Higher Leaders: Have to waste time cleaning up the mess and get egg all over their faces.

 

Like Scott, this assumes that this is being reported correctly. I would be surprised if everything said was accurate.

If it was from the perspective of giving hope the Church would change, I agree. 

If it was done in the context of love while maintaining the law, I think it's great on all levels. 

[Storm Rider]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

It is not about highlighting their sin, it is about highlighting their burden.  LGBT youth are at heightened risk, they therefore need heightened attention. 

That is the point - we are not disagreeing.  How do you lighten their burden.  You do not do it by telling them it is okay they can sin all they want and everything is just fine.  To love someone does not require that we talk about their sin.  To remove someone's burden you sure as heck don't allow them center stage in an attempt to normalize their sins.  

Edited January 31, 2018 by Storm Rider

[Storm Rider]

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

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

I hate that kind of logic because it is just so off base and so desperate to belittle the argument of others.  No, Marginal Gains, I did not equate child molesters with those in a same sex marriage. What I did do was identify a different type of egregious sin.  

[Tacenda]

3 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I hate that kind of logic because it is just so off base and so desperate to belittle the argument of others.  No, Marginal Gains, I did not equate child molesters with those in a same sex marriage. What I did do was identify a different type of egregious sin.  

This seems to be an ongoing problem Storm. Could you not even mention child molesters at all when the topic is homosexuality?!? So unnecessary.

[Danzo]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This seems to be an ongoing problem Storm. Could you not even mention child molesters at all when the topic is homosexuality?!? So unnecessary.

You just did 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Danzo

[Calm]

Responding to Nehor's comments:

Anytime the Church in general does something seen as positive or even neutral, it is broadcasted by many as a change that will eventually lead to more changes.  Anytime the Church does something seen as negative, the reverse happens, it is retrenchment etc.

I don't think the Church should worry about mixed messages that much because even when they are crystal clear it gets reinterpreted by most (including me) to fit preconceptions, they should therefore just focus on what is needed most.  And yes, part of that is perception of the Church by both members and others.  I just think the ones that are open enough to getting the why's and how's will generally not be tripped up too long by how the extremes rewrite what is going on.  I may be overly optimistic, but it works for me.

This could have worked well as a fireside, especially if they had kept it to the parents and single gays speaking.  Depending on what they say...if they make a point they get the Church's doctrine doesn't line up with gay marriage and they are not looking for validation there, but rather loving, respectful relationships with friends and families, the married speakers could be very positive as well.  I am enough of a rule stickler that having those who are defined as apostates, no matter even if they say the exact thing an apostle would say, speak at a pulpit during the 3 hour block....I think that was inappropriate.  I think in that case it does give a stamp of official approval, which will send a mixed message to some that could have been avoided.  Hopefully all those involved will speak out strongly as Sister Augenstein has about not letting unfulfilled expectations turn the experience negative.

If people learn from the mistakes made here and more similar, but within the rules gatherings take place, I see it as a good thing.  I can also see several ways it could go sideways if people of less good intent step in to rule the story or if those involved become less cautious rather than a wee bit more in how they intertwine their charitable work and their Church work.  Hopefully it can be a win-win, but I think that will take some work to not let the story get away from those participating and church leadership.

Edited January 31, 2018 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

5 hours 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. 

Now this is logic that makes no sense given what has already been stated about shame versus guilt.  It is okay to shame Latter-day Saints, but it is NOT okay to shame others.  Got it.  

[Storm Rider]

4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Can bishops and stake presidents receive inspiration for their wards or stakes that contradict policies enacted by leadership in Salt Lake? Does God reveal specific instructions to different groups of Saints adapted to the circumstances in which they find themselves...?

No.  That is the path of apostasy - "I know more and better than the prophet and therefore I am going to do what I want to do".  Lucifer did the same thing in heaven and was cast out for it.

[Storm Rider]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This seems to be an ongoing problem Storm. Could you not even mention child molesters at all when the topic is homosexuality?!? So unnecessary.

And it would be great if no one used stupid logic in an attempt to shame others.  Also, go back to my initial post - I identified two different types of sins.  The POINT of my entire comment was that there is not need to talk about individual sins when it comes to loving one another.

[Tacenda]

11 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

And it would be great if no one used stupid logic in an attempt to shame others.  Also, go back to my initial post - I identified two different types of sins.  The POINT of my entire comment was that there is not need to talk about individual sins when it comes to loving one another.

I will take it back then. But in the past this has occurred, I'm sorry if I got you mixed up with someone else. I will go back and read your initial post. 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Tacenda

[Storm Rider]

I have been reading about Mother Teresa of late and some of her quotes are very inspired in my opinion.  One of her quotes is, "The biggest disease today is not leprosy or tuberculosis, but rather the feeling of being unwanted.” 

What I really appreciate in this meeting is the desire of the bishop is to demonstrate and express love for God's children that are self-identified as LGBTQ.  What concerns me is that we should allow Church meetings to be reserved for church, which this could have easily fit into.  I have often talked about those who are lonely while surrounded by others and the need to be able to see those in pain while they quietly bear their burdens in silence.  These issues of feeling unloved, unwanted, and loneliness are not unique to any single group.  Focusing on the this need for learning to love as the Savior loves is of primary importance.  

This meeting could have highlighted a congregations members who have felt that loneliness, that sense of not belonging, and had an array of speakers....including our members that self-identify as LGBTQ.  This is an area where each of us can improve.  Though this bishop sought to focus solely on the LGBTQ community the need is far broader and significantly more broad than this small subset of our Church community and our social communities.  

[Storm Rider]

1 minute ago, Tacenda said:

I will take it back then. But in the past this has occurred, I'm sorry if I got you mixed up with someone else. I will go back and read your initial post. 

Tacenda, the fault was not yours and it is not a big deal.  I love you and always have appreciated your comments.  The other participant just focused on one part  of my comment.  It was why I responded as I did to his comment.  

[provoman]

8 hours ago, pogi said:

Absolutely.  Thanks for asking.

First of all, let me explain to you what toxic shame is.  It is the core belief that if people knew who the real me really is, they wouldn't accept me.  Guilt = I have made a mistake.  Toxic shame = I am a mistake. 

The amount of toxic shame that I felt as a porn addict probably pales in comparison to the shame that someone might feel who suffers with gay identity crisis in the church.  IF anyone feels the toxic shame of "if they really knew the real me, they wouldn't accept me." it is gay youth!  That message they receive NEEDS to change!

I don't know if you have noticed, but the messages on pornography and their delivery has changed significantly over the years.  The leaders have learned, and are continuing to learn and understand the role of toxic shame in addiction.  Instead of messages like this: "Brothers, how could you do this to your poor wives who love you? How could you let them down like this by partaking in such smut, such gross sin?  You are bearers of the holy priesthood, so act like it.  Don't look at such filth.  When temptations come, simply walk away.  It is that simple.  Stop disappointing your loved ones."

They now give messages like this: "Brothers, we understand the burden of addiction, and we are here to help you through this burden and trial.  We will not let you bear it alone.  In many ways you may be a victim of this terrible disease, but that should not diminish the accountability you have to find healing.  Let us find healing together."

Do you see the difference?  Slowly but surely, the message is changing.  It still needs work, but the work has started at least.   

 

Thank you for the response. Regarding the Church teaches on homosexuality - thoughts, desires, conduct - do you see/hear a message that induces toxic shame? 

Do you think the Doctrine of male/female divinely appoint roles; marriage only between man and a woman; homosexual conduct is sin, can be taught in ways to that promote adherence to the Doctrine and reduce toxic shame?

Edited January 31, 2018 by provoman

[pogi]

54 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

How do you lighten their burden.  You do not do it by telling them it is okay they can sin all they want and everything is just fine.

I agree.  Are we talking about the same meeting?

57 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

To love someone does not require that talk about their sin.

I couldn’t have found recovery without that kind of listening love.  I needed to experience being accepted and loved despite my sin...huge!

However, I agree that church may not be the best forum for that.  The purpose of this meeting was not to talk about their sin though.  Being gay is not a sin. It was about their experiences as gay people in the church. 

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

To remove someone's burden you sure as heck don't allow them center stage in an attempt to normalize their sins.  

Most speakers were not actively gay, so I don’t know what you mean about normalizing sin.

But yes, giving a taboo subject center stage is exactly what is needed to remove the burden of toxic shame.

[carbon dioxide]

On 1/29/2018 at 12:15 PM, ALarson said:

Wow.  You wouldn't have even stayed and given yourself the chance to hear their very personal experiences?  Even if you disagreed with some of what they may state, you would have simply just "gone home" and not even tried to listen?

And, like it or not.....gay marriage is becoming more "accepted" by members of the church (and by the general public).    This is especially true regarding the youth's acceptance as many of them have friends or family members who are gay.

Smoking pot is becoming more accepted by the public but that does not mean one has to accept it.

[Storm Rider]

8 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

Smoking pot is becoming more accepted by the public but that does not mean one has to accept it.

That acceptance of gay marriage is normalizing sin.  That is a problem - it results in individuals being incapable of recognizing sin when it stares them in the face.  That is the problem with normalizing any sin.  

There is a huge divide between expressing love for God's children and presenting their sins as acceptable and normal.  Loving sin is not normal for a disciple of Christ.  Just as we do not need to address the sin of another, we don't need to highlight as it being good and wholesome.  Sin is not wholesome - sin is the choice of the natural man, but it is an enemy of God. 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Storm Rider

[Brian 2.0]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

Now this is logic that makes no sense given what has already been stated about shame versus guilt.  It is okay to shame Latter-day Saints, but it is NOT okay to shame others.  Got it.  

Shame wasn't my word, "Mormon shaming meeting" is what the person I was responding to call this meeting hence my quotes. I don't know where one draws the line between "shaming" and "calling the saints to task", the distinction seems in the eye of the listener oftentimes. I don't think either of those things are what this meeting was myself. But EVEN IF it was a calling to task meeting then that has plenty of precedence. 

[Marginal Gains]

4 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

That acceptance of gay marriage is normalizing sin.  That is a problem - it results in individuals being incapable of recognizing sin when it stares them in the face.  That is the problem with normalizing any sin. 

 

I suppose that’s debatable.

Consensual relations within a marriage is only a sin because the Church refuses to accept same sex marriage as legitimate. But the Church picks and chooses which sins to call out and which sins to turn a blind eye to. For instance, obesity through overeating or sugar addiction is a sin. It’s against the principles laid out in the Word Of Wisdom. So is eating meat on a regular basis. But one regularly sees carnivores and overeaters in the Temple. So the Church as an institution has normalised sin already. Where is the consistency?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Marginal Gains said:

 

I suppose that’s debatable.

Consensual relations within a marriage is only a sin because the Church refuses to accept same sex marriage as legitimate. But the Church picks and chooses which sins to call out and which sins to turn a blind eye to. For instance, obesity through overeating or sugar addiction is a sin. It’s against the principles laid out in the Word Of Wisdom. So is eating meat on a regular basis. But one regularly sees carnivores and overeaters in the Temple. So the Church as an institution has normalised sin already. Where is the consistency?

At the risk of taking this thread into a derail, I will dispute the above. Those things have not been defined by the Lord or his prophets as sinful. Only those portions of the Word of Wisdom covered in the temple recommend interview are. Much of the Word of Wisdom is still just that, a “word of wisdom”; that is, merely advisory in nature (see the opening verses of Doctrine and Covenants 89). You might have your personal opinions regarding what Section 89 says, but insisting they are binding on others is gospel hobbyism. 

And now, if you are going to make this into a protracted argument, I suggest you start a new thread rather than derail this one. 

Edited January 31, 2018 by Scott Lloyd

[Gray]

15 hours 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. 

It's chock-full of Mormon shaming! 1 Ne 16:2

[Gray]

10 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

No.  That is the path of apostasy - "I know more and better than the prophet and therefore I am going to do what I want to do".  Lucifer did the same thing in heaven and was cast out for it.

You're mixing up the prophet with God.

[provoman]

To the points of “Mormon shaming” in the BOM:

 

Did those ose instances involve people whose current lifestyle was in direct oppositing to the standards and Doctrine of the Church preaching?

OR were those instances by Prophets or those who had recently had a Heavenly Vision with direct to preach repentance?

I am willing to say that any “shaming” unto repentance in the BOM was voiced by a Prophet, Missionary, or someone recently called by Divine revelation to preach.

[Gray]

5 minutes ago, provoman said:

To the points of “Mormon shaming” in the BOM:

 

Did those ose instances involve people whose current lifestyle was in direct oppositing to the standards and Doctrine of the Church preaching?

OR were those instances by Prophets or those who had recently had a Heavenly Vision with direct to preach repentance?

I am willing to say that any “shaming” unto repentance in the BOM was voiced by a Prophet, Missionary, or someone recently called by Divine revelation to preach.

Those who fall short of loving and caring for their LGBT brothers and sisters are living a lifestyle in direct opposition to the standards of the gospel.

[kllindley]

17 minutes ago, provoman said:

To the points of “Mormon shaming” in the BOM:

 

Did those ose instances involve people whose current lifestyle was in direct oppositing to the standards and Doctrine of the Church preaching?

Of course not. I don't think anyone was claiming or pretending otherwise.

20 minutes ago, provoman said:

OR were those instances by Prophets or those who had recently had a Heavenly Vision with direct to preach repentance?

I am willing to say that any “shaming” unto repentance in the BOM was voiced by a Prophet, Missionary, or someone recently called by Divine revelation to preach

You mean like an ordained and set apart Bishop?

[Brian 2.0]

The thing we'll probably never know without the video, and may not have known even with the video, is if the intention of the meeting was purely to increase love and understanding of LGBT people DESPITE the sins they may be committing, or if it was to increase love and understanding of LGBT people in an effort to hopefully get the members to see the actions of these LGBT people as NOT sinful.