Jump to content

So Now For Something *Totally* Unexpected...


smac97

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

Wow:

This strikes me as . . . very cool.

Thanks,

-Smac

Yes, building bridges while respecting the boundaries on either side is good news! Indeed, bridges cannot be built without understanding those boundaries.

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I have mixed feelings about this kind of thing. While I think it's great the church is trying to be inclusive by having a gay guest conductor, it strikes me as a cynical PR move. Like they know they have a problem looking unwelcoming to the LGBT community so they provide window dressing so they can go back and say "see, we don't discriminate. We even had a gay conductor lead MoTab.

IOW- it strikes me as a PR move and not any kind of move towards greater understanding or welcome. It seems like a hollow gesture. But I guess it's still better than nothing...I guess...

IMO, for the church to make any strides with the LGBT community or any individuals sympathetic to it, they will need to do much more than these empty photo-op gestures.

D....d if they do,  d....d  if they don't.

Link to comment
13 minutes ago, JAHS said:

D....d if they do,  d....d  if they don't.

Not really. They just need to back up their photo op with real openness and inclusion. Without that, this kind of event is just window dressing and everyone knows it. They might get a little respect for window dressing, but not much.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I have mixed feelings about this kind of thing. While I think it's great the church is trying to be inclusive by having a gay guest conductor, it strikes me as a cynical PR move. Like they know they have a problem looking unwelcoming to the LGBT community so they provide window dressing so they can go back and say "see, we don't discriminate. We even had a gay conductor lead MoTab.

IOW- it strikes me as a PR move and not any kind of move towards greater understanding or welcome. It seems like a hollow gesture. But I guess it's still better than nothing...I guess...

IMO, for the church to make any strides with the LGBT community or any individuals sympathetic to it, they will need to do much more than these empty photo-op gestures.

I have similar mixed feelings.  The one historical precedent that gives me some hope on this measure, is the history around polygamy.  You could make the argument that the 1890 manifesto was a PR move and the rhetoric around polygamy in the public sphere at that point was all just for PR purposes, but then gradually we became a church that divorced itself from polygamy.  Maybe I'm just being too hopeful, but I wonder if history might just repeat itself with respect to LGBT issues.  

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I have mixed feelings about this kind of thing. While I think it's great the church is trying to be inclusive by having a gay guest conductor, it strikes me as a cynical PR move. Like they know they have a problem looking unwelcoming to the LGBT community so they provide window dressing so they can go back and say "see, we don't discriminate. We even had a gay conductor lead MoTab.

I understand.  To be honest, my initial reaction was a little similar, though the other way.  "Most importantly, I’ll be doing it as an out, proud, gay man..." sort of comes across that way.

But let's give this a chance.

35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

IOW- it strikes me as a PR move and not any kind of move towards greater understanding or welcome. It seems like a hollow gesture. But I guess it's still better than nothing...I guess...

IMO, for the church to make any strides with the LGBT community or any individuals sympathetic to it, they will need to do much more than these empty photo-op gestures.

The Church has already done "much more" than "photo-op gestures."  

Again, let's give this a chance.

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I understand.  To be honest, my initial reaction was a little similar, though the other way.  "Most importantly, I’ll be doing it as an out, proud, gay man..." sort of comes across that way.

But let's give this a chance.

The Church has already done "much more" than "photo-op gestures."  

Again, let's give this a chance.

Thanks,

-Smac

I agree the church has made many inroads, but I also know it's not enough. I think the policy about them being apostates and not able to have their children get baptised until they denounce their parent's lifestyle and eighteen is or was enough to make some take their lives, IMO. It needs to go away.

I think the church is worried that the LGBTQ will want to also get sealed in the temple, I believe that is the crux to the policy, since SSM came to be. I think that is their reasoning, they worry about that. So I see how they are between a rock and a hard place here. 

I watched the documentary "Believer", paid $15 bucks to have HBO for the month, don't normally have it. And in the doc Dan Reynolds said the church reached out to him and they talk. So that tells me the church leaders are trying to do what's right to help the LGBTQ feel loved, but they are really in a bind since their doctrine doesn't co-incide. It will take another revelation, and meetings to get something changed I guess.

Link to comment
53 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Not really. They just need to back up their photo op with real openness and inclusion. Without that, this kind of event is just window dressing and everyone knows it. They might get a little respect for window dressing, but not much.

Depends on your definition of "inclusion".  "They" (whoever this "they" is you are talking about) are not going to change any policies backed up by established church doctrines.
Any gay member can be an active temple recommend holding member of the church, so long as they stay celibate. That is as inclusive as they are going to get. 

Link to comment
45 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I understand.  To be honest, my initial reaction was a little similar, though the other way.  "Most importantly, I’ll be doing it as an out, proud, gay man..." sort of comes across that way.

But let's give this a chance.

The Church has already done "much more" than "photo-op gestures."  

Again, let's give this a chance.

Thanks,

-Smac

Can you share what the church has already done that is significant? I can think of a couple of things, like the mormonandgay website (which virtually no one at church seems to know about) and supporting anti-discrimination legislation in Utah (from which they are exempt). I'm sure I must be forgetting some stuff. What have they done beyond the occasional PR gesture?

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Depends on your definition of "inclusion".  "They" (whoever this "they" is you are talking about) are not going to change any policies backed up by established church doctrines.
Any gay member can be an active temple recommend holding member of the church, so long as they stay celibate. That is as inclusive as they are going to get. 

You're asking who "they" are yet you seem to know perfectly well based on the rest of the comment that I'm referring to Church leadership.

Policies continually change. Policies are the way in which a current understanding codifies church doctrine, but of course understanding of doctrine continually changes as well.

The exclusion policy so horrible that little else will matter as long as it continues as the current policy.

Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I agree the church has made many inroads, but I also know it's not enough.

I'm reminded of the lyrics to a song from The Greatest Showman:

Quote

All the shine of a thousand spotlights
All the stars we steal from the night sky
Will never be enough
Never be enough
Towers of gold are still too little
These hands could hold the world, but it'll
Never be enough
Never be enough
For me

Never, never
Never, never
Never, for me
For me...

😀

In this, the Age of Perpetual Outrage, there will always be someone insisting that someone else is doing something wrong.

Quote

I think the policy about them being apostates and not able to have their children get baptised until they denounce their parent's lifestyle and eighteen is or was enough to make some take their lives, IMO. It needs to go away.

Let's put that debate aside, shall we?  Let's have one moment where we can set aside our differences and allow some measure of unity.

Quote

I watched the documentary "Believer", paid $15 bucks to have HBO for the month, don't normally have it. And in the doc Dan Reynolds said the church reached out to him and they talk. So that tells me the church leaders are trying to do what's right to help the LGBTQ feel loved, but they are really in a bind since their doctrine doesn't co-incide. It will take another revelation, and meetings to get something changed I guess.

Yep.  Sometimes the Lord asks us to do difficult things, to accept difficult things.  John 6 is a pretty good example of this.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Link to comment
8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Can you share what the church has already done that is significant? I can think of a couple of things, like the mormonandgay website (which virtually no one at church seems to know about) and supporting anti-discrimination legislation in Utah (from which they are exempt). I'm sure I must be forgetting some stuff. What have they done beyond the occasional PR gesture?

Sigh.  Let's put aside the debates, shall we?  For just this thread?

Thanks,

-Smac

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're asking who "they" are yet you seem to know perfectly well based on the rest of the comment that I'm referring to Church leadership.

Of course I knew that, I was trying to be funny. Doesn't work sometimes on a discussion board.

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Policies continually change. Policies are the way in which a current understanding codifies church doctrine, but of course understanding of doctrine continually changes as well.

The exclusion policy so horrible that little else will matter as long as it continues as the current policy.

What would you describe as being more inclusive? 

Link to comment
Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

You're asking who "they" are yet you seem to know perfectly well based on the rest of the comment that I'm referring to Church leadership.

Policies continually change. Policies are the way in which a current understanding codifies church doctrine, but of course understanding of doctrine continually changes as well.

The exclusion policy so horrible that little else will matter as long as it continues as the current policy.

I like what the choir director said, that he feels by doing this they are offering a glimmer of hope to gay LDS members. And it is a nice gesture on the part of the church to show love for gay people in and out of the church. I don't expect the church to change its doctrines anytime soon, but I doubt the current policy of excluding kids will endure. I hope not, anyway. 

Link to comment

Hoping this is just a wonderful beginning..that somehow this good news and inclusion will back track policy and other deeper things involved.  But it is not damned..it IS good news...wow..10 years ago this was not ever deemed possible.  I give credit to the church and subtle changes..hopefully this is like I say..the beginning.

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Hoping this is just a wonderful beginning..that somehow this good news and inclusion will back track policy and other deeper things involved.  But it is not damned..it IS good news...wow..10 years ago this was not ever deemed possible.  I give credit to the church and subtle changes..hopefully this is like I say..the beginning.

People use the word "inclusion" a lot, without really defining exactly what they mean. If it means changing members and church leaders attitudes about how gays are treated generally, I think a lot can be continue to be done in that regard.
If it means changing church core doctrines that have been in place for centuries,  I don't think much of that is going to happen. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, JAHS said:

People use the word "inclusion" a lot, without really defining exactly what they mean. If it means changing members and church leaders attitudes about how gays are treated generally, I think a lot can be continue to be done in that regard.
If it means changing church core doctrines that have been in place for centuries,  I don't think much of that is going to happen. 

For starters, "inclusion" would mean "not actively excluding". Excluding gays and their children from saving church ordinances is expressly exclusionary. Removing that hideous policy and allowing, for example, children to be baptized, would be "inclusive". It's not that hard to understand :) 

Link to comment
8 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For starters, "inclusion" would mean "not actively excluding". Excluding gays and their children from saving church ordinances is expressly exclusionary. Removing that hideous policy and allowing, for example, children to be baptized, would be "inclusive". It's not that hard to understand :) 

You are asking a child to take on the covenants of baptism and agree to and defend the doctrines of the church and when he learns that the relationship his parents have is a sin and his parents tell him they are not living in sin, it puts a lot of stress and confusion in their minds on who to follow. His parents are not going to agree that what they are doing is wrong and they will teach him that at home while at church he is learning and expected to support just the opposite.
The church would first have to reverse the doctrine which isn't going to happen any time soon. If the child is not baptized then he doesn't feel obligated to agree totally with what the church teaches about this subject but he can still attend for all the other good reasons.  That is as inclusive as it can be. 

Link to comment
39 minutes ago, JAHS said:

People use the word "inclusion" a lot, without really defining exactly what they mean. If it means changing members and church leaders attitudes about how gays are treated generally, I think a lot can be continue to be done in that regard.
If it means changing church core doctrines that have been in place for centuries,  I don't think much of that is going to happen. 

My hope is that they will eventually mean inclusion with ta change in doctrine.  You are right.  Inclusion can mean many things..but to include in gospel or spiritual inclusion should mean at least the inclusion of little children. I am willing to see this with optimism.

Edited by Jeanne
Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...