What is the LGBT policy goal for the Church

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This has been my second-hand experience as well.  I personally know an endowed member who had multiple affairs over a few years time, while serving in leadership positions in the church, continuing to attend the temple, etc.  He was caught by his wife but was sincerely remorseful and began the repentance process.  He was not excommunicated but was instead disfellowship for a year (and had to do a few other things during that year) before he was again a member in good standing.

The first stake president who called me told me and my wife that if I ever transgressed the law of chastity in any way while a bishop, I would be excommunicated. 

I'm surprised that this man who had held leadership positions was approved for reinstatement after one year. In my experience, the First Presidency usually wants years before considering approval if the man was in a leadership position. 

[bluebell]

To answer the OP, I think what a lot of lgtbq+ people want is validation.  Not exactly validation that their lifestyle choices are ok (but I'm sure most would celebrate that) but validation that the church is a hard place for them, that some of the doctrines hurt, and some of the things that leaders have said and continue to say hurt.

I think that the lgtbq+ population is like skin that has been burned in the past.  It's slowly starting to heal but it is still incredibly sensitive and easily re-hurt.  I think they react to the hurt in purely emotional ways (just like we all do in those kinds of situations) that don't always make sense or seem reasonable from a logical or outside perspective.

They have baggage that hasn't been removed yet and until the church is able to do that (not by changing doctrine but by validating the existence of the baggage), it's never going to go away for a lot of them.  

For some capitulation is the only recourse for reunion but I think for others the bar is a lot lower than we realize.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, Chum said:

Noting here that the framing of this hints that excommunication is common, if not the norm.  In my experience it is vanishingly rare.  I've never known anyone excommunicated for adultery nor has anyone I know ever mentioned they heard of it. I knew one brother who was disfellowshipped, however but it was decades ago.

I know many. A great many.

A lot of it is leader roulette. I think that overall, it is becoming "vanishingly rare," as you say, and that is also encouraged with recent handbook changes. 

The stake president jokingly called me his "hanging judge." I had by far the most instances of formal discipline, but also the most reinstatements and rebaptisms. For some reason, people who had kept things secret for years (sometimes intending to take it to their graves) told me that they felt ready to resolve things and get square with God and the Church. Often, we would talk about likely or possible outcomes from their visit with the stake president (the stake president used to approve jurisdiction and the range of possible outcomes; this has largely been standardized by the recent handbook changes. For example, endowed people, male or female, are at the stake level now, but formerly, he could choose to have it be at the ward level. But this limited the possible outcomes), and I helped them prepare for and see the value of excommunication or disfellowshipment. We would work together to get through this; no one would be tossed into the gutter and left for dead. 

[JLHPROF]

8 minutes ago, Chum said:

Noting here that the framing of this hints that excommunication is common, if not the norm.  In my experience it is vanishingly rare.  I've never known anyone excommunicated for adultery nor has anyone I know ever mentioned they heard of it. I knew one brother who was disfellowshipped, however but it was decades ago.

It does seem to be the case.  I know more people excommunicated for apostasy than sin.
That does seem to send the message that it doesn't matter what you do or commandments you break as long as you keep quiet about anything in opposition to the Church.

[Chum]

8 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It does seem to be the case.  I know more people excommunicated for apostasy than sin.
That does seem to send the message that it doesn't matter what you do or commandments you break as long as you keep quiet about anything in opposition to the Church.

This seems a fairly cynical take.  I think it's more about the possibility of redemption and spiritual restoration. If one is has positioned the Church as their enemy, they're likely outside of the reach of in-Church help.

I mean if someone is viscerally repulsed by me, they aren't likely to accept my counsel. Not that I'm admitting that happens a lot.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Chum

[Chum]

11 minutes ago, rongo said:

I know many. A great many.

Maybe you know all of them.

[bOObOO]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

To answer the OP, I think what a lot of lgtbq+ people want is validation.  Not exactly validation that their lifestyle choices are ok (but I'm sure most would celebrate that) but validation that the church is a hard place for them, that some of the doctrines hurt, and some of the things that leaders have said and continue to say hurt.

I think that the lgtbq+ population is like skin that has been burned in the past.  It's slowly starting to heal but it is still incredibly sensitive and easily re-hurt.  I think they react to the hurt in purely emotional ways (just like we all do in those kinds of situations) that don't always make sense or seem reasonable from a logical or outside perspective.

They have baggage that hasn't been removed yet and until the church is able to do that (not by changing doctrine but by validating the existence of the baggage), it's never going to go away for a lot of them.  

For some capitulation is the only recourse for reunion but I think for others the bar is a lot lower than we realize.

If that is all they want, validation that identifying as LGBTQ+ is challenging and hard to handle, while they struggle to be chaste as we teach they should be, and not give in to their temptations to sin, then it sure would be nice if they would just say that.

Most members I know and know of would readily admit that it must be challenging and difficult for LGBTQ+ folks to be as they are while struggling to be as they should be, resisting their temptations to sin.  I think we could even tell them it's okay and good to love other people of the same sex as well as the opposite sex and that all God expects is that they not have sexual relations with anyone other than a spouse of the opposite sex.  Love is always good and never bad, whoever or whatever someone loves.

[Duncan]

It would be nice to know what God actually thinks about this because he appears to be silent on the issue of homosexuality or SSM. The church flips flops on policies, as if God changed his mind. People seem to think gay people mean they will rape your kids, i.e. I know some camps that had gay youth and they couldn't have it overnight because they thought the gay youth would rape another youth, that's beyond crazy. pedophilia and homosexuality are not the same thing but people equate the two. You're more likely to be raped or molested by a married male in a position of power than a 15 yr girl. Elder Holland said they have talked and talked and talked but the underlying issue is God never said anything and you wonder why. What happens to gay people in the next life, why does homosexuality exist in the first place-homosexuality isn't the same as adultery one is a orientation, one isn't. Why are some people so vengeful against homosexuality? they aren't gay why does it matter to them? I think that people want things so black and white, everyone is straight. People have said before, straight people can get married and have sex, homosexual members can't without formal discipline. I think God made homosexuality how "Christian" people claim to be, life isn't so black and white, not everyone can't be put into charts and boxes. 

Some are lost because they are different. They feel as though they don’t belong. Perhaps because they are different, they find themselves slipping away from the flock. They may look, act, think, and speak differently than those around them and that sometimes causes them to assume they don’t fit in. They conclude that they are not needed.

Tied to this misconception is the erroneous belief that all members of the Church should look, talk, and be alike. The Lord did not people the earth with a vibrant orchestra of personalities only to value the piccolos of the world. Every instrument is precious and adds to the complex beauty of the symphony. All of Heavenly Father’s children are different in some degree, yet each has his own beautiful sound that adds depth and richness to the whole.

This variety of creation itself is a testament of how the Lord values all His children. He does not esteem one flesh above another, but He “inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; … all are alike unto God."

Elder Wirthlin

[rongo]

22 minutes ago, bluebell said:

To answer the OP, I think what a lot of lgtbq+ people want is validation.  Not exactly validation that their lifestyle choices are ok (but I'm sure most would celebrate that) but validation that the church is a hard place for them, that some of the doctrines hurt, and some of the things that leaders have said and continue to say hurt.

The Church (via Church leaders, orchestrated Education Week and Time Out for Women talks and other high-profile things) is giving validation in spades. 

I don't think validation is enough for most. 

For those up in arms (oops! Sorry about the martial imagery  ) about Elder Holland's talk, wait and see what actually happens at BYU. Dollars to doughnuts the Y will be rainbow lit again next year, uncontested by admin, the gay dating protests will go on bigger than ever, etc. While I think his thoughts and remarks were genuine expressions of his heart, it would only be a sea change at BYU if anything actually changes. There is a lot of inertia in the way of that happening, and I don't know that enough of the Brethren feel as strongly as Elder Holland about it. 

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

The first stake president who called me told me and my wife that if I ever transgressed the law of chastity in any way while a bishop, I would be excommunicated. 

I'm surprised that this man who had held leadership positions was approved for reinstatement after one year. In my experience, the First Presidency usually wants years before considering approval if the man was in a leadership position. 

I can't speak to that.  

I only know that what happened was what the wife was hoping for, and it seemed to be the best for their family, and for him.

[rongo]

Just now, bluebell said:

I can't speak to that.  

I only know that what happened was what the wife was hoping for, and it seemed to be the best for their family, and for him.

One case I know, a disfellowshipped bishop was told that he was facing a minimum of five years before the First Presidency would consider reinstatement. This was not what the wife hoped for, and didn't seem to them to be best for him or his family. They finally told the stake president to stop writing them about it (he had already met with a seventy). I told him that he wasn't helping his case by pressing them, and that it would be best to accept it and work on what needed to be worked on, and to be patient. 

[Fether]

39 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

how do we conclude with absolute certainty that SSM is against the laws of God?

This is where prayer comes in, and why the church won’t budge without direct revelation.

[bluebell]

27 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

It does seem to be the case.  I know more people excommunicated for apostasy than sin.
That does seem to send the message that it doesn't matter what you do or commandments you break as long as you keep quiet about anything in opposition to the Church.

Or does it send the message that it often doesn't matter what you do, or what you say, or how loudly you say it.  What matters is whether or not you are willing to repent and stop.

I've never known anyone excommunicated for apostasy that was excommunicated during the repentance process.  I've only know those who were excommunicated because they refused to repent, because they believed they had nothing to repent of.

[bluebell]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

One case I know, a disfellowshipped bishop was told that he was facing a minimum of five years before the First Presidency would consider reinstatement. This was not what the wife hoped for, and didn't seem to them to be best for him or his family. They finally told the stake president to stop writing them about it (he had already met with a seventy). I told him that he wasn't helping his case by pressing them, and that it would be best to accept it and work on what needed to be worked on, and to be patient. 

I know in this case, the family and the husband in particular were completely willing to go through whatever repentance process was recommended.  But that didn't stop them from hoping for a specific outcome.

This was more than 4 years ago and the family is doing wonderfully, with the husband and wife closer than ever.

[bluebell]

29 minutes ago, rongo said:

The Church (via Church leaders, orchestrated Education Week and Time Out for Women talks and other high-profile things) is giving validation in spades. 

I don't think validation is enough for most. 

These talks, outside of formal church meetings and without any church authority, are not the kind of validation from the church I'm talking about.  These forms of validation are from people speaking personally, but not for the church, and that is what a lot of lgtbq+ members are yearning for. 

TOFW is a book tour put on by Deseret Book, where popular authors speak and sell their books, none of which have the authority to speak for the church.  I personally really enjoy TOFW, but I know what it is, and what it isn't. 

And saying 'we love you but...' is not the validation they are looking for either.  

I know that some people really chafe at the idea of validating anyone they disagree with.  Usually it's because they don't know how to do it.  They don't know how to validate feelings without implying that the person is right for feeling them. 

Whether someone personally sees value in validation or not though, that doesn't change that for most people who have been hurt in some way, it is the first step towards reconciliation.

Edited August 27, 2021 by bluebell

[JLHPROF]

28 minutes ago, Chum said:

This seems a fairly cynical take.  I think it's more about the possibility of redemption and spiritual restoration. If one is has positioned the Church as their enemy, they're likely outside of the reach of in-Church help.

That's probably a more positive way of phrasing things.  But it's true.  Mindset matters more than actions when it comes to repentance.

But one could also argue if you are consciously choosing to continue in an action then that's basically the same thing as open rebellion.

[teddyaware]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Be like other churches for crying out loud. Other churches, not all, don't excommunicate someone that is in a same sex marriage but still teach that it is wrong and let those that attend maybe glean from their teachings rather than cut them off entirely. I listened to this Mormon Land podcast last night where this is mentioned. Plus, it speaks about the Catholic church owned schools that wouldn't keep students out that are same sex married. Yet they don't condone it. 

That's all that is needed basically, and I think the LGBTQ+ crowd will hopefully be able to live as you and I do, and not feel discriminated against, as if just being them is such a thing as to be condemned and shown the door. Stormin', I hope you listen to the podcast and see what I mean. I don't believe that LGBTQ+ are asking to be sealed in the temple. But for the sake of so many impressionable young LGBTQ+ out there, we need to stop the flow of suicides stat. And anything that will do that is the right direction. And it can be done, w/o allowing SSM couples to get sealed in the temple.

Here's is the heading and link: https://www.sltrib.com/podcasts/mormonland/

How Jeffrey Holland’s talk on LGBTQ issues could have consequences for BYU | Episode 196

Latter-day Saint apostle Jeffrey R. Holland addressed Brigham Young University faculty and staff this week, urging them to be committed to the school’s “unique mission” and the church that sponsors it. He made headlines for criticizing faculty members who challenge teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, including its stance on same-sex marriage. The popular apostle even questioned why a BYU valedictorian would choose his 2019 commencement address to come out as gay. If maintaining the faith’s policies on LGBTQ issues ends up costing the school some “professional associations and certifications,” Holland said, “then so be it.”On this week’s show, Michael Austin, a BYU alumnus and executive vice president for academic affairs at the University of Evansville, a Methodist school in Indiana, discusses the reverberating ramifications of the speech and how it could impact the Provo school’s academic research, professional ties, athletic alliances, classroom interactions and more.

I really had a good chuckle over your first line! Yeah that’s the ticket, just be like all the other apostate churches that are abandoning the law of chastity, and the solemnity of God’s holy commandment that men are to leave their father’s and mothers and cleave unto their wives with whom they are commanded to become one flesh (in holy imitation of the ideal marital relationship that’s enjoyed by our heavenly parents) and all will be well in Zion!.

BALONEY! Just as Elder Holland said, no matter what we do to pacify and indulge our critics it will never be good enough, for the only thing that ever will be good enough will be to utterly reject every holy principle and doctrine  that has heretofore characterized the Latter-Day Saints.  And as sure as shooting, even the rejection of  living prophets, priesthood authority, and the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon will never be enough. Only a complete and utter rejection of the faith and the disbandment of the Church organization will suffice. How do I know? Because that’s what Satan wants and he “inspires” his followers to seek the same.

What a great prescription for the future success of the Church— start taking advice and counsel from those who no longer believe the Church is true yet somehow believe they know best.

Edited August 27, 2021 by teddyaware

[bluebell]

58 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I can't speak for others, but this seems to be the linchpin. And, as you say, if it is a sin, then it doesn't (shouldn't) matter what activists want. If it is not a sin, then we have some serious wrestling to do with the idea of prophetic fallibility (which is nothing new). Considering the multitude of different opinions -- many claiming some connection to God in coming to their opinion -- how do we conclude with absolute certainty that SSM is against the laws of God?

Speaking for myself, I haven't concluded that yet.  I am willing to sit with the church and our leaders and support them as they work out this issue more closely because I have faith that if God does condone SSM in some way, He will get His leaders to that realization. 

And if He doesn't condone it, I have faith that my loyalty to His church through these hard times (when the answer isn't known yet for so many) will ultimately increase the amount of God that His church is able to do on the earth.

 

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

I really had a good chuckle over your first line! Yeah that’s the ticket, just be like all the other apostate churches that are abandoning the law of chastity, and the solemnity of God’s holy commandment that men are to leave their father’s and mothers and cleave unto their wives with whom they are commanded to become one flesh (in holy imitation of the ideal marital relationship that’s enjoyed by our heavenly parents) and all will be well in Zion!.

BALONEY! Just as Elder Holland said, no matter what we do to pacify and indulge our critics it will never be good enough, for the only thing that ever will be good enough will be to utterly reject every holy principle and doctrine  that has heretofore characterized the Latter-Day Saints.  And as sure as shooting, even the rejection of  living prophets, priesthood authority, and the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon will never be enough. Only a complete and utter rejection of the faith and the disbandment of the Church organization will suffice. How do I know? Because that’s what Satan wants and he “inspires” his followers to seek the same.

What a great prescription for the future success of the Church— start taking advice and counsel from those who no longer believe the Church is true yet somehow believe they know best.

so, mourn with those that mourn and love thy neighbor is no good to you ?

the just past Mission President here gave a talk once and he said that the Church has to go the way of the world otherwise it'll be irrelevant,. The Church is updating itself, getting rid of practices, rooting out dumb ideas etc. 

[OGHoosier]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

 

I know that some people really chafe at the idea of validating anyone they disagree with.  Usually it's because they don't know how to do it.  They don't know how to validate feelings without implying that the person is right for feeling them. 

I do struggle with this, and I would like to learn better how I could do this. Much of the dialogue on validating feelings (not to mention the connotations of the word "validate" in the first place) seems to imply that validation and endorsement are inseparable.

39 minutes ago, rongo said:

The Church (via Church leaders, orchestrated Education Week and Time Out for Women talks and other high-profile things) is giving validation in spades. 

I don't think validation is enough for most. 

I have hope that validation is enough for most, but I also believe that what we are dealing with is a broader clash of worldviews. Some have argued that in certain spheres the amorphous "LGBTQ+ advocacy" movement has taken the role of a rival religion - not in the sense of a belief system but rather that of a community with unifying symbols, figureheads, and an eschatological and hamartiological outlook. Think of the concept of American civil religion. If this theory is correct, then the conflict might be irreducible and unavoidable to a certain degree. 

[OGHoosier]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

the just past Mission President here gave a talk once and he said that the Church has to go the way of the world otherwise it'll be irrelevant

I hope to high heaven that this is a paraphrase. 

[MrShorty]

29 minutes ago, Fether said:

This is where prayer comes in, and why the church won’t budge without direct revelation.

As I tried to hint, though, prayer and inspiration seem rather unreliable on this issue. There are a lot of people claiming that they have prayed about LGBT issues and felt inspired by God to believe/do something quite different from what our prophets and apostles are telling us. When I need to choose, should I choose to follow what I think God is trying to tell me, or should I choose to follow the prophets against my personal inspiration?

I agree that the Church won't budge without direct revelation. One reaction I had to the "If, no" part of your comment looks like this. As starkly as a reversal on this issue would shine the spotlight on prophetic fallibility, is the Church even able to receive such a revelation? Whether SSM is a sin or not, maybe the Church CANNOT receive such a revelation because it doesn't have the stomach to deal with prophetic fallibility.

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I hope to high heaven that this is a paraphrase. 

most of it isn't but the "way of the world" is, but it's the gist of what he said

[bluebell]

17 minutes ago, OGHoosier said:

I do struggle with this, and I would like to learn better how I could do this. Much of the dialogue on validating feelings (not to mention the connotations of the word "validate" in the first place) seems to imply that validation and endorsement are inseparable. 

I really like this article about validating without agreeing, as well as this one too.  Both are short and easy reads.

Validation is really just letting someone know that you understand why they are feeling or reacting like they are, even if you don't agree or feel the same way.  That can be hard, but I believe it's always possible.   It's a practical application of empathy and learning to "mourn with those who mourn" even we are not ourselves mournful. 

(Is mournful even a word?  I might have made that up).

I love that validation (and empathy) is a skill and just like any other skill, it can be learned and honed.  There's hope for all of us if we put some effort into it.  

[CV75]

58 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

As I tried to hint, though, prayer and inspiration seem rather unreliable on this issue. There are a lot of people claiming that they have prayed about LGBT issues and felt inspired by God to believe/do something quite different from what our prophets and apostles are telling us. When I need to choose, should I choose to follow what I think God is trying to tell me, or should I choose to follow the prophets against my personal inspiration?

I agree that the Church won't budge without direct revelation. One reaction I had to the "If, no" part of your comment looks like this. As starkly as a reversal on this issue would shine the spotlight on prophetic fallibility, is the Church even able to receive such a revelation? Whether SSM is a sin or not, maybe the Church CANNOT receive such a revelation because it doesn't have the stomach to deal with prophetic fallibility.

I do not accept that fear of prophetic fallibility is a barrier for Church leaders to overcome in seeking revelation, or speaking out on (as with their recent urging to vaccinate, etc.) on any topic. Such fear (or other bias) typically manifests as denial or avoidance of the topic, and a stronger barrier would be a lack of awareness of the topic. But Church leaders have been quite deliberate and forthright in addressing LGBTQ issues. Their fallibility, according to the complaints, is over how they express themselves, manage situations and roll out decisions and policies.

Disagreement or disappointment with doctrine is not a sound basis by which to assess another's fallibility or to fear it.

I might add that fear of prophetic fallibility is at the root of individuals receiving contrary revelation: if someone wants something bad enough, and feels that fallibility prevents Church leaders from agreeing to it, they may well receive what they deem to be revelation. I would never tell someone to not believe or act on such personal revelation. They are fallible too, but I still have confidence that as they move forward in good faith, the Lord will steer them along the right path. It would be nice for them to extend the same confidence to our leaders.

On the whole, what can we do but follow our net personal inspiration? This gets to how someone within the covenant community of saints behaves and acts when they receive such precious personal revelation that contradicts the prophets. This does not render their prayer and inspiration unreliable; it just renders them fallible.

Edited August 27, 2021 by CV75