Popular Post smac97 Posted June 26, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted June 26, 2018 Wow: Quote The conductor of the San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus will lead the Mormon Tabernacle Choir in a special event in Mountain View, California tonight. “That’s a headline no one ever thought they would read. Well, it’s true,” Tim Seelig, the chorus’ conductor wrote in a Facebook post. “Tonight, I am the guest conductor for the encore in an amphitheater seats 21,000. Most importantly, I’ll be doing it as an out, proud, gay man – and be introduced as the conductor of the SAN FRANCISCO GAY MEN’S CHORUS. In addition, a group of our singers will be joining the chorus (MoTab) during its rehearsal this afternoon, introduced as SFGMC and sing a song with them. We’ll be wearing our ‘Love Can Build A Bridge’ t-shirts with the rainbow logo!” The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been the subject of protests by LGBTQ rights groups over its policies which include staunch opposition to same-sex marriage, branding married same-sex couples “apostates.” The LDS Church, however, has also supported non-discrimination policies in Utah that include LGBTQ people in housing and employment. ... “We have no delusions about changing the course of the Mormon religion. Nor does this wipe away the pain inflicted on the LGBTQ community over the years. We are going into this with eyes wide open,” Seeling wrote of tonight’s event. “There may be a young closeted Mormon in the audience or who finds out about tonight’s concert and may see a glimmer of hope. That’s enough for us. That’s enough for us. In this 40th season alone, we will have performed at First Baptist Church, Greeneville, SC., St. Ignatius Catholic Church in SF and now for the Mormons. Building bridges.” This strikes me as . . . very cool. Thanks, -Smac 12 Link to comment
Vanguard Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Wow: This strikes me as . . . very cool. Thanks, -Smac Wow. That is very cool. : ) Link to comment
CV75 Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 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. 2 Link to comment
Popular Post HappyJackWagon Posted June 26, 2018 Popular Post Share Posted June 26, 2018 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. 5 Link to comment
Alan Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 This is absolutely appalling. What is happening to my church? Link to comment
JAHS Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 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. 3 Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 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. 1 Link to comment
hope_for_things Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 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. 2 Link to comment
smac97 Posted June 26, 2018 Author Share Posted June 26, 2018 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 2 Link to comment
Tacenda Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 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
JAHS Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 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
HappyJackWagon Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 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? 2 Link to comment
HappyJackWagon Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 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. 1 Link to comment
smac97 Posted June 26, 2018 Author Share Posted June 26, 2018 (edited) 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 June 26, 2018 by smac97 3 Link to comment
smac97 Posted June 26, 2018 Author Share Posted June 26, 2018 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 2 Link to comment
JAHS Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 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
jkwilliams Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 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. 3 Link to comment
Jeanne Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 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
Calm Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 (edited) Edited to stay on topic and avoid debate Edited June 26, 2018 by Calm Link to comment
JAHS Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 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
HappyJackWagon Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 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 2 Link to comment
JAHS Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 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. 1 Link to comment
Jeanne Posted June 26, 2018 Share Posted June 26, 2018 (edited) 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 June 26, 2018 by Jeanne Link to comment
smac97 Posted June 26, 2018 Author Share Posted June 26, 2018 (edited) EDITED to stay on topic and avoid debate. Edited June 26, 2018 by smac97 Link to comment
smac97 Posted June 26, 2018 Author Share Posted June 26, 2018 (edited) EDITED to stay on topic and avoid debate. Edited June 26, 2018 by smac97 Link to comment
Recommended Posts