'A message from the gay community performed by the san francisco gay mens chorus'

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

When I hear it, I don’t internalize it because I do teach my children to be tolerant and fair. So for me, there is nothing to see here. I assume it is directed towards people who are intolerant and hateful. Unfortunately, I don’t believe the people it is directed will have a change of heart because of a satirical song. They are probably wasting their breath but it is probably very cathartic. 

What are your thoughts about the musicial written by Sohne and Rosser (the same guys who created the song under discussion here) that apparently glamorized/romanticized/justified pedophilia and child rape?  Does that factor into your assessment of the song?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[bsjkki]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

It happens all the time in YM.  We often do activities like basketball or ultimate frisbee or other activities, and the youth would often bring their non-member friends.  The leaders invite them to bring their friends.  No one ever asks if they have their parents permission.  Teenagers are not always the best at updating their parents as to their whereabouts and activities either.  Prayers are offered and spiritual gospel messages are always shared.  Often, missionaries are conveniently there BRTing.  

I know/knew where my teenagers were unless they lied. Then it’s on them.  I have never heard anyone encourage a non member minor to attend behind their parents back. My daughters friends always ask permission. They go to girls camp and activities. I send info to the moms. Usually with an outline of activities.

I think most moms know where their teenagers are.

 

[pogi]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well if it’s being done without parental approval under your leadership, it’s on you, right? 

And as I said, I don’t think there is anything wrong with the youth sharing the gospel without parental permission, just like I don’t think there is anything wrong with Love Out Loud concerts targeting youth.  Even the church approves.

Edited July 10, 2021 by pogi

[smac97]

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

I know/knew where my teenagers were unless they lied. Then it’s on them.  I have never heard anyone encourage a non member minor to attend behind their parents back. My daughters friends always ask permission. They go to girls camp and activities. I send info to the moms. Usually with an outline of activities.

I think most moms know where their teenagers are.

Yeah, the whole subversion-of-parents and "we'll get your kids to go out at night to places you won't like" schtick really comes across as predatory and icky.  And the "Oh, we only meant we would encourage them to go to protests!" line doesn't seem to be working.  That's the problem with using sexual euphemisms and double entendres.  People start looking at everything you say as having actual or potential double meanings.  This song/video was so in-your-face about it that it's kind of difficult to not see the "protest" thing as a pretext.  As plausible deniability.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Peacefully]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

I have been in many a Primary meeting where we do just that…tell the kids or the parents of the kids to ask or invite through the parents of the friends first and push the kids hard to invite parents along.  It is, imo, SOP in any Primary I have been in.   Especially in my Utah wards where nonmembers or inactives are a small minority, getting nonmember or inactive parents’ permission for any church activity was seen as essential to avoid conflict. 
 

It may be different in YW/YMs as I have never held a calling there (Primary…I started teaching when 17 and continued till I couldn’t consistently get to church, so about 30 years as a teacher or leader as I would always volunteer for Primary as soon as we moved in to a ward).

I was YW President last year and we as leaders went through the parents to ask permission to speak to the less active girls. We also encouraged the active YW to speak to the less active girls at school and invite them to activities. None came to the activities, but if they had, I’m sure we would have reached out to the parents afterwards. We also did Zoom meetings during the pandemic and it was required that any meeting invite go to the girls and their parents. I think the church is doing a lot more to make sure parents are aware of what their kids are doing and we as leaders are told to support the parents but not usurp their role. 

[pogi]

13 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I know/knew where my teenagers were unless they lied. Then it’s on them.  I have never heard anyone encourage a non member minor to attend behind their parents back. My daughters friends always ask permission. They go to girls camp and activities. I send info to the moms. Usually with an outline of activities.

I think most moms know where their teenagers are.

 

Do you also pre-read and approve all of their social media posts before they can read them?  Do tell them never to accept or look at a card handed to them by their friend?  Do you tell them to plug their ears when their friends share about the Book of Mormon, or in this case gay stuff you may not approve of?  Because that is how our youth are taught and invited to share the gospel with their peers in our church.  We even help them to set goals and commit them to it.

Edited July 10, 2021 by pogi

[Peacefully]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

What are your thoughts about the musicial written by Sohne and Rosser (the same guys who created the song under discussion here) that apparently glamorized/romanticized/justified pedophilia and child rape?  Does that factor into your assessment of the song?  

Thanks,

-Smac

I’m not familiar with the musical but from your excerpts it sounded like it was in poor taste. It also sounds like they apologized. This song is satirical and if the shoe fits..., but like I said I don’t think the people it is aimed at will get it.

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I know/knew where my teenagers were unless they lied. Then it’s on them.  I have never heard anyone encourage a non member minor to attend behind their parents back. My daughters friends always ask permission. They go to girls camp and activities. I send info to the moms. Usually with an outline of activities.

I think most moms know where their teenagers are.

 

Me too.

Plus, for those kinds of activities, parents have to sign permission forms for kids to attend.   

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Peacefully said:

Quote

What are your thoughts about the musicial written by Sohne and Rosser (the same guys who created the song under discussion here) that apparently glamorized/romanticized/justified pedophilia and child rape?  Does that factor into your assessment of the song?  

I’m not familiar with the musical but from your excerpts it sounded like it was in poor taste. It also sounds like they apologized.

Yes.  For connecting homosexuality to pedophilia.  For apparently romanticizing pedophilia.

And all that happened almost exactly a year ago (July 2020).  So why are we now getting a not-very-sly redux of the same theme in July 2021?  I get that it was the SFGMC that performed the song, but I would have thought that Sohne and Rosser, having apologized for playing that angle with their musical, and having shut it down and scrubbed it from YouTube and streaming outlets, might have also thought to pull this song from circulation.

1 minute ago, Peacefully said:

This song is satirical and if the shoe fits..., 

"If the shoe fitst" means what in this context?  I'm not sure I understand your point.

1 minute ago, Peacefully said:

but like I said I don’t think the people it is aimed at will get it.

I guess I'm curious whom you think the musical was "aimed at."  

But no biggie if you don't want to answer.

Thanks,

-Smac

[pogi]

48 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

It’s my first exposure to the term as well. 
 

But it seems to me it could apply to the rationalization that SeekingUnderstanding is attempting with his contrived comparison of the song to the “baseball baptisms” of yesteryear — which nobody I’m aware of today approves of anyway, if they’ve even heard of them or remember them. 

As I said previously, we have had much more time to refine our message and delivery, but we are not without our missteps (like baseball baptism).  So give them a little slack, they are still newbies in the game relatively speaking.  It wasn’t long ago that their community didn’t even feel safe to come out of the closet let alone actively be a part of a movement. 
I don’t think I ever heard any apologies over baseball baptisms either, or...anything...ever, for that matter.  

[Peacefully]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  For connecting homosexuality to pedophilia.  For apparently romanticizing pedophilia.

And all that happened almost exactly a year ago (July 2020).  So why are we now getting a not-very-sly redux of the same theme in July 2021?  I get that it was the SFGMC that performed the song, but I would have thought that Sohne and Rosser, having apologized for playing that angle with their musical, and having shut it down and scrubbed it from YouTube and streaming outlets, might have also thought to pull this song from circulation.

"If the shoe fitst" means what in this context?  I'm not sure I understand your point.

I guess I'm curious whom you think the musical was "aimed at."  

But no biggie if you don't want to answer.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think the song is aimed at hateful bigots, but in my experience, bigots don’t recognize or won’t admit they are bigots. 

[Scott Lloyd]

40 minutes ago, pogi said:

I am afraid it is bigger than me, or my ward, and I was never the YM President.  This is systemically engrained in our youth to invite, to teach, to share BoM verses and conference messages and Mormon videos on social media - and pass-along cards.  Show me any official statement that youth should seek parental permission from all of their social media friends before clicking “post” or “send” or “submit”, or before inviting them to a game of ball.   I have never heard the caveat of receiving parental permission officially taught except in baptisms and missionary discussions.  I have heard it heavily pushed to teach and invite and share, however.  I will also add this happened on a stake level.  Our YM groups were so small in the stake that we would combine wards.

It’s not only common sense but ingrained in the administrative practice of the Church that we don’t go behind parents’ backs when dealing with their youth. Maybe it’s the sort of thing one ought to do without being explicitly commanded in the spirit of doing many things by one’s own free will and choice and thereby bringing to pass much righteousness. 
 

I can visualize an earnest leader of youth making an informal courtesy contact to parents and saying something along this line: “We enjoyed having XX at our youth activity Tuesday at the Church of Jesus Christ on Pioneer Road. I want you to know he/she is welcome to join us anytime, and I would like you to be aware of his/her whereabouts. If you have any questions or concerns that I can answer, I’d be happy to do that.”

Whether or not such a thing is explicitly mandated in the handbook, I doubt it would be forbidden. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

It happens all the time in YM.  We often do activities like basketball or ultimate frisbee or other activities, and the youth would often bring their non-member friends.  The leaders invite them to bring their friends.  No one ever asks if they have their parents permission.  Teenagers are not always the best at updating their parents as to their whereabouts and activities either.  Prayers are offered and spiritual gospel messages are always shared.  Often, missionaries are conveniently there BRTing.  

 

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well if it’s being done without parental approval under your leadership, it’s on you, right? 

 

1 hour ago, pogi said:

And as I said, I don’t think there is anything wrong with the youth sharing the gospel without parental permission, just like I don’t think there is anything wrong with Love Out Loud concerts targeting youth.  Even the church approves.

I think there’s a distinction to be drawn between youth informally discussing their beliefs among friends and a planned activity such as you have described with religious trappings and overtones. With the latter, I would deem it advisable to make sure parents are in the loop and that an abundance of caution would be prudent. 
 

And it seems like a simple enough thing. You’ve been such a stickler on obeying pandemic rules, I should think you could manage a little thing like this. 
 

Regarding the Love Loud concert, I recall the Church endorsing it one time but that has been several years ago now, with a lot of water flowing under the bridge since then. Meanwhile, the guy who organizes it has had enough nasty stuff to say about the Church, I don’t think I’d feel comfortable having any of my kids attend his event, certainly not without my awareness. 

Edited July 10, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

35 minutes ago, pogi said:

As I said previously, we have had much more time to refine our message and delivery, but we are not without our missteps (like baseball baptism).  So give them a little slack, they are still newbies in the game relatively speaking.

Openly taunting parents about undermining their influence and their authority goes far beyond any slack I’m willing to give. Any effort to “refine” such a “message” would be tantamount to putting lipstick on a hog. 

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I think the song is aimed at hateful bigots, but in my experience, bigots don’t recognize or won’t admit they are bigots. 

This is where we run into definitional issues.  It seems like "hateful bigots" has grown to encompass anyone and everyone who does not immediately and reflexively capitulate to, accept, endorse, ratify and celebrate anything that "gay" people insist upon.

See, I think there are a lot of really decent people who, on principled grounds, disasgree with many or some aspects of what we think of as "gayness."  I think fewer and fewer people find an individual's inborn and involuntary attraction to people of the same sex to be the issue.  Instead, concerns and objections seem to be more about fundamentally re-defining the bedrock of society (marriage).  Being coerced to celebrate and endorse sexual behaviors that contravene religious/moral beliefs.  Having strangers you've never met blithely and summarily accusing you of being a "hateful bigot" because your views don't perfectly align with theirs.  

We were told "live and let live."  We were told "if you don't want gay marriage, don't have one."  Well, that was then.  Now, it's "we're 'coming' to 'convert' your children, to subvert your role as parent in their lives, to persuade them to do things you don't like, and to go places 'at night' that you won't approve of, and there's nothing you can do about it."

I agree that there are bigots in the world.  But I question, a lot, the legitimacy of that accusation when weaponized for rhetorical advantage.  When it is used to silence and expel from the public sphere.  When it is used by strangers who don't have a measure of the person being accused of that awful thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

[teddyaware]

This thread provides compelling evidence that the Church is eventually going to split into at least two major factions, one of which will exit the Church and reject the 15 as living prophets of God.

[pogi]

54 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I think there’s a distinction to be drawn between youth informally discussing their beliefs among friends and a planned activity such as you have described with religious trappings and overtones. With the latter, I would deem it advisable to make sure parents are in the loop and that an abundance of caution would be prudent. 

I agree that anytime adults are directing activities and mingle together with children, parent approval should be sought.  Especially when the parents may disapprove of messages being taught.  That simply is not happening.  I am beyond confident that the stake I was in was not unique.

The ward I am in now has different dynamics with much higher population of Saints in ward boundaries and fewer non-member youth, so our boys don’t bring any friends probably because they don’t have any nonmember friends near by.

In regards to the “informal” interactions, you see no problem with gay adults coaching kids to share gay messages and videos on social media to try and convert their friends to the truth?  Or having gay adults give gay pass-along cards to kids to pass out to their friends, or give them gay indoctrinating books and pamphlets that they sign with their gay testimony inside?  You would be ok with gay leaders coordinating these youth missionary efforts to convert Mormon children?  Setting goals with and committing them to give away gay propaganda books and cards or share their testimony on gay issues - then following up to see how they are doing and assist in their efforts?  These efforts are only casual and informal in setting, but they are highly coordinated and directed by church leadership.

My nephew is serving a mission right now.  Boy things have changed!  I can’t believe how much of their efforts are on social media these days.  We frequently get videos of their social media campaigns replete with song, dance, youth humor, HIGHLY targeted toward a youth audience with no caption saying “parental permission required before viewing.”

We would absolutely never taunt that “we are coming for your children”...we just do it.  Not a brilliant move on their part. But I don’t see how the reality of on the ground conversion effort on their part is any worse than ours in subverting parents.

Edited July 10, 2021 by pogi

[Scott Lloyd]

7 minutes ago, pogi said:

I agree that anytime adults are directing activities and mingle together with children, parent approval should be sought.  Especially when the parents may disapprove of messages being taught.  That simply is not happening.  I am beyond confident that the stake I was in was not unique.

My point, which I’m not sure you’ve grasped, is that whenever and wherever this is NOT happening, the onus is on the local leadership. And that it does not strike me as a difficult thing for a responsible leader to carry out. 

[Scott Lloyd]

13 minutes ago, pogi said:

In regards to the “informal” interactions, you see no problem with gay adults coaching kids to share gay messages and videos. …

Of course I would disapprove of that!
 

You’ve rather badly misconstrued my meaning. When I said “informal” I had in mind casual and harmless interactions between friends in a peer group. 

Edited July 10, 2021 by Scott Lloyd

[pogi]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My point, which I’m not sure you’ve grasped, is that whenever and wherever this is NOT happening, the onus is on the local leadership. And that it does not strike me as a difficult thing for a responsible leader to carry out. 

That’s fine.  The outrage just seems imbalanced.  They taunt us with one song in jest, and it’s all out Armageddon.  When we really do have leaders targeting youth, and it’s a slap on the wrist.  Oh well, I guess that’s on them...moving on!  Where is the outrage?

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Of course I would disapprove of that!
 

You’ve rather badly misconstrued my meaning. When I said “informal” I had in mind casual and harmless interactions between friends in a peer group. 

So your ok if we do it to their kids but outraged if they do it to our kids?  

[bluebell]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

Still asking what the difference is.  The message of the song is”We’ll convert your children to tolerance “.  How is the Gay Men’s Chorus doing their message of tolerance differently than how the Church does it?   

I think the main (and biggest) difference is that the song says they will convert the children against the specific wishes of the parents, while the church's policy is that children cannot be converted without parental consent, because the parent/child bond is sacred.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

When we really do have leaders targeting youth, and it’s a slap on the wrist.  

We have “leaders targeting youth?” In defiance of or without the knowledge of their parents? Seriously? If you have personal knowledge of such a thing, don’t you think you should bring it to the attention of Church authorities immediately so it can be dealt with? 
 

Otherwise, I think you are trying desperately to find a functional equivalence here and not having much success at it. 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 minutes ago, pogi said:

So your ok if we do it to their kids but outraged if they do it to our kids?  

Do what to their kids? Threaten to indoctrinate them without the knowledge or approval of their parents. 

You’re being a but premature here I condemning a functional equivalence you’ve not yet been able to establish. 

[Peacefully]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This is where we run into definitional issues.  It seems like "hateful bigots" has grown to encompass anyone and everyone who does not immediately and reflexively capitulate to, accept, endorse, ratify and celebrate anything that "gay" people insist upon.

See, I think there are a lot of really decent people who, on principled grounds, disasgree with many or some aspects of what we think of as "gayness."  I think fewer and fewer people find an individual's inborn and involuntary attraction to people of the same sex to be the issue.  Instead, concerns and objections seem to be more about fundamentally re-defining the bedrock of society (marriage).  Being coerced to celebrate and endorse sexual behaviors that contravene religious/moral beliefs.  Having strangers you've never met blithely and summarily accusing you of being a "hateful bigot" because your views don't perfectly align with theirs.  

We were told "live and let live."  We were told "if you don't want gay marriage, don't have one."  Well, that was then.  Now, it's "we're 'coming' to 'convert' your children, to subvert your role as parent in their lives, to persuade them to do things you don't like, and to go places 'at night' that you won't approve of, and there's nothing you can do about it."

I agree that there are bigots in the world.  But I question, a lot, the legitimacy of that accusation when weaponized for rhetorical advantage.  When it is used to silence and expel from the public sphere.  When it is used by strangers who don't have a measure of the person being accused of that awful thing.

Thanks,

-Smac

They are playing on the “gay agenda” which was a real thing, remember Anita Bryant, and other scare tactics used over the years. It uses shock value, but so do other satires such as “A Modest Proposal”, but the message is positive “ WE'LL CONVERT YOUR CHILDREN...
WE'LL MAKE THEM TOLERANT AND FAIR.“