What is the LGBT policy goal for the Church

[Canadiandude]

2 minutes ago, gopher said:

No, I'm calling for LGBTQ members to refute your claim that they can't be happy in the church.  We often hear from those who aren't happy (and from those that claim to speak on their behalf).  I'd like to hear more from those who understand the unique sacrifices they are asked to make and still remain faithful believers.  It may be a very small group, I don't know.

You hear us fine but you’re not listening.

I made that ‘unique sacrifice’ for literally the majority of my life, and that kind of witness it isn’t yours to summon at your beck n’ call whenever the church is being criticized for its position on 2SLGBTQ+.

If you wanna rainbow human shield as your defence that’s their decision to provide. 
 

Good luck.

[Chum]

There's some overlap here with another issue. Wards tend to be unwelcoming to people who are adverse to strong social gatherings, who don't like being on top of each other or are distressed when repeatedly trapped behind chatty choke-points.

I realize this isn't an exclusively LDS thing but outside the Church, adherents can pick a congregation that fits their reality. Inside the Church you get what you get and I've never seen a ward that wasn't like this.

[HappyJackWagon]

31 minutes ago, rongo said:

This is probably the 800 pound gorilla in the room (gay dating) we get to before the elephant in the room (sex) with this issue. I think if the principles taught by Elder Paul Johnson with the gay dating blow-up at BYU (gay dating is incompatible with the plan of salvation, because it cannot lead towards where they need to be and only leads away), if these principles were reversed (disavowed) --- it would be a titanic change akin to simply not considering homosexuality a sin at all. The camel would mostly be in the tent at that point. 

I understand why gay people and allies feel this is an outrage. I agree with it, and think most of the active church does as well. If we disavow/change this, that will be a huge bombshell. Aside from whether or not it's true, I think that the Brethren's experience stepping on rakes recently leaves them very risk-averse, and hesitant to make waves. Other than the fact that I feel our current understanding is correct, I think that factor also works against a change like that. 

So it sounds like you would agree that there is a double standard when it comes to how the LoC is enforced for straight people versus LGBTQ people.

I suppose it's hard for me to see how consensual handholding could ever be considered a sin. If the church is as afraid of such benign behavior as that, there really isn't much hope for them to be welcoming to LGBTQ people. So again, maybe its time for the church just to admit that it doesn't want LGBTQ people, move on, and let everyone else move on whether they agree or disagree. 

[gopher]

19 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

You hear us fine but you’re not listening.

I made that ‘unique sacrifice’ for literally the majority of my life, and that kind of witness it isn’t yours to summon at your beck n’ call whenever the church is being criticized for its position on 2SLGBTQ+.

If you wanna rainbow human shield as your defence that’s their decision to provide. 
 

Good luck.

wow, that was unnecessary.  You are right, I probably wouldn't listen to you for long with that attitude.  And in this country, we spell it "defense".

I'm referring to those members that are willing to stand as a witness without being compelled or beck n' called.  rainbow shield, that's a good one.

[T-Shirt]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Wards are fairly well packed with members who don't treat LGBTQ folks as the Savior would.

There are some 30,000 wards in the Church.  You can't possibly know this.  In my ward alone, there are at least two transgendered teens and a couple of gay teens.  The are all treated very kindly and respectfully when they come to church.  One of them has changed her name and asked to be referred to as he, him, they or them.  The ward members have been very respectful of this.

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I guess that depends upon what their personal beliefs are. IF they believe that LGBTQ aren't worthy of kindness and welcoming, then probably nothing.

I'm assuming that this discussion is in good faith.  But if this is a way for you to passively/aggressively outline how horrible the apostles and first presidency are then please let me know so I can stop responding and just let you have the last word.

Quote

But assuming they believe LGBTQ are children of God and therefore worthy of kindness and love, then the first thing they could do is stop treating them differently. Leaders believe SS relationships are a sin. Attraction is apparently OK (or so they say) but any kind of relationship appears to be treated as sin. There is a different criteria and expectation for how a SS couple is allowed to act (even following the law of chastity) versus how a hetero couple can appropriately interact. Treat unmarried couples the same when it comes to dating and LoC. Piece of cake. 

From my perspective, this would require a change in the belief that homosexual romantic relations are a sin in the eyes of God.  That is definitely doctrine and not policy.  However, it could be a change in how we have previously interpreted doctrine, and not a change in doctrine itself so maybe it is more doable than some of us think.

Quote

I suppose it could be harder when dealing with married couples insofar as the LoC distinguishes between married and unmarried. Obviously the church is now adding to that a differentiation between SSM and hetero marriage, but still, there is so much that could be accommodating. Could individuals in a SS relationship hold callings? If the answer is NO, that would be a policy that could change without a change to doctrine. In fact, even though we don't often think about it, most "worthiness" issues in general are treated via policy, not doctrines.

There are very few callings that someone who is not a member can hold.  Same goes for members who are not in good standing.  You are right in that those are policies that could theoretically be changed for those in SS relationships, but considering the doctrine, I can't imagine anyone in a SS relationship who would feel more welcome at church because a change was made that allowed them to hold a calling, when what was being taught about their relationship at church remained the same.  

But I guess you never know.

[rongo]

43 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

So it sounds like you would agree that there is a double standard when it comes to how the LoC is enforced for straight people versus LGBTQ people.

I suppose it's hard for me to see how consensual handholding could ever be considered a sin. If the church is as afraid of such benign behavior as that, there really isn't much hope for them to be welcoming to LGBTQ people. So again, maybe its time for the church just to admit that it doesn't want LGBTQ people, move on, and let everyone else move on whether they agree or disagree. 

Yes, a different standard can fairly be called a double standard. 

If the doctrine in the Proclamation is true, then the Church should do what it can to discourage gay romantic relationships and encourage straight ones. I don't think it's a matter of the Church being "afraid" of gay displays of affection, I think it's along the lines of Elder Johnson's explanation: if we approve and encourage, this only leads people away from God and cannot lead to Him. 

While your "clean break" move on suggestion would provide clarity, it wouldn't be true. The Church wants gay people --- on what it believes to be God's terms. Mileage varies with that, of course, and the free market of people's choices shows what people think about this individually and collectively. 

What makes this a hot topic right now is the explosion of self-identifying gay youth in the Church. I'm absolutely convinced, from my daily interactions with my students, that many of these are not actually gay. They are latching on to a trend. But, for now, they are identifying as such to their friends and families, so what wasn't really much of an issue in the Church now is more prominent. 

ETA: The danger is that too much overt "ally-ship" (overt, prominent social media displays are common, especially among LDS who want to show the world that, hey, I'm not homophobic) might prolong the confusion of these youth who aren't really gay. It's definitely chic and trendy in certain circles, and if people are falling over each other to be gushing, visually/vocally supportive in a virtue signalling way, I think it feeds into this trend. The number of self-identifying gay youth is way out of proportion to the incidence that existed before about 10 years ago. While there are of course bona fide gay people, as there always have been, I think most of the recent explosion is more a cultural and social phenomenon, not a biological one. 

Edited September 29, 2021 by rongo

[Canadiandude]

1 minute ago, gopher said:

wow, that was unnecessary.  You are right, I probably wouldn't listen to you for long with that attitude.  And in this country, we spell it "defense".

I'm referring to those members that are willing to stand as a witness without being compelled or beck n' called.  rainbow shield, that's a good one.

This country?!?

This is the internet. I’ll use the spelling of my glorious, Great White North thank you very much!

or was that an argument for Americentrism? 😉

As for what’s needful, that depends somewhat on one’s perspective right? It seemed needful to me.

Saying that there are faithful, 2SLGBTQ+ members that could (or worse, should) speak up and argue for your position isn’t much of an argument, and they can speak for themselves as you implied earlier.

No need for a minority summons. I hated that kinda pressure/obligation as a minority within the church- to act as an apologist advocating against my interests and historical equality & security.

[Chum]

16 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

There are some 30,000 wards in the Church.  You can't possibly know this. 

Sure I can. Wards means 2 or more. More than 2 is a safe bet tho.

In our local wards, a trans woman would likely have a fairly terrible experience. It's not like they'd get beat with a sacrament tray but the whispering and parents' sudden concern about their kids welfare would get old fast.

[Chum]

31 minutes ago, T-Shirt said:

One of them has changed her name and asked to be referred to as he, him, they or them.  The ward members have been very respectful of this.

That's cool. In our wards, trans to M might fly, maybe. They'd have to live with the ever present, anti-LGBT pulpit chatter and associated political signaling.

Trans to F, absolutely not. Some established (read influential) members would freak.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Chum

[bOObOO]

1 hour ago, Chum said:

Wards are fairly well packed with members who don't treat LGBTQ folks as the Savior would.  I'd offer that most of us don't know how the Savior would treat LGTBQ members because those Church teachings never seem as clear as the secular stuff = evil lessons.

There is a difference between how people treat others and whether or not they approve of others' behavior or beliefs.  I usually treat everyone with some kindness even if I do not approve of their beliefs or their behavior.  It's easy to be kind.  To anybody.

[rongo]

16 minutes ago, Chum said:

In our local wards, a trans woman would likely have a fairly terrible experience. It's not like they'd get beat with a sacrament tray but the whispering and parents' sudden concern about their kids welfare would get old fast.

The ratio of girls identifying as guys, as opposed to vice versa, is upwards of 99:1. Almost all of the gay youth I've interacted with as a teacher are girls. Gay boys/men stand out and are known, but the big stampede right now are girls self-identifying as gay or as a boy. I think it's safe to say that most wards have at least one or two. 

[Chum]

3 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

It's easy to be kind.

I could see members here insisting their politically influenced, anti LGBT rhetoric contained nothing but kindness.

Seriously. Folks at the pulpit are fully unable to get thru 3 sentences in a row w/o political signalling. Ever. As in ever. As in they couldn't stop if it extinguished their burning body. Treating someone who's trans as ordinary? That doesn't seem to follow.

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Chum said:

That's cool. In our wards, trans to M might fly, maybe. They'd have to live with the ever present, anti-LGBT pulpit chatter and associated political signaling.

Trans to F, absolutely not. Some established (read influential) members would freak.

We had a transitioning man in our ward last year (then the ward boundaries changed).  He (he began wearing dresses to church but had not asked anyone to refer to him by a different name or pronouns last I knew of him) was treated kindly, though to be honest I think most people found it a bit odd.  He was in his 50s so not a youth.  I think people tend to be kinder to youth in those situations, if they are going to be kind at all.

It might have been a different story if he had tried attending RS meetings, I don't know.

[HappyJackWagon]

47 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I'm assuming that this discussion is in good faith.  But if this is a way for you to passively/aggressively outline how horrible the apostles and first presidency are then please let me know so I can stop responding and just let you have the last word.

From my perspective, this would require a change in the belief that homosexual romantic relations are a sin in the eyes of God.  That is definitely doctrine and not policy.  However, it could be a change in how we have previously interpreted doctrine, and not a change in doctrine itself so maybe it is more doable than some of us think.

There are very few callings that someone who is not a member can hold.  Same goes for members who are not in good standing.  You are right in that those are policies that could theoretically be changed for those in SS relationships, but considering the doctrine, I can't imagine anyone in a SS relationship who would feel more welcome at church because a change was made that allowed them to hold a calling, when what was being taught about their relationship at church remained the same.  

But I guess you never know.

I disagree. While it is definitely the way the church treats it, there is no doctrine or scripture that would state that romantic (but chaste) relationships are a sin.

With callings, there are definitely some that could be held be someone who isn't worthy of a temple recommend. That's really what we're talking about because there is no longer an automatic disciplinary council for LGBTQ relationships. People without recommends can hold callings in primary, sunday school, library, music, YM/YW. In fact there are really only a few ward callings that require a person have a TR. But on the broader level of worthiness  and participation, that is all policy. It's essentially a rule the church leadership chooses to follow at any given time but if we look back we can find examples of which sins made a person unworthy and which did not. IMO the doctrine would be that because we all sin, we are all unworthy, but we can become acceptable to God through the atonement. Beyond that, enforcement of worthiness boundaries are temporary policies even if they are rooted in leadership's understanding of a particular doctrine.

[bOObOO]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

The ratio of girls identifying as guys, as opposed to vice versa, is upwards of 99:1. Almost all of the gay youth I've interacted with as a teacher are girls. Gay boys/men stand out and are known, but the big stampede right now are girls self-identifying as gay or as a boy. I think it's safe to say that most wards have at least one or two. 

Although some girls self identify as gay I think most of them are just usual girls the way girls usually are.  They don't have a problem with liking other girls and there is no good reason they should have a problem with that.  In my younger days it was common for girls like that to be called tomboys.  tomboys not because they wanted to have sexual intercourse with other girls, just acted a lot more like boys than some other girls.  Now some people are calling them gay because of how they sometimes act like boys and how more comfortable they are with girls, and the girls are calling themselves gay because of what other people call them that and think that is what girls like them should be called.  

[HappyJackWagon]

54 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yes, a different standard can fairly be called a double standard. 

If the doctrine in the Proclamation is true, then the Church should do what it can to discourage gay romantic relationships and encourage straight ones. I don't think it's a matter of the Church being "afraid" of gay displays of affection, I think it's along the lines of Elder Johnson's explanation: if we approve and encourage, this only leads people away from God and cannot lead to Him. 

While your "clean break" move on suggestion would provide clarity, it wouldn't be true. The Church wants gay people --- on what it believes to be God's terms. Mileage varies with that, of course, and the free market of people's choices shows what people think about this individually and collectively. 

What makes this a hot topic right now is the explosion of self-identifying gay youth in the Church. I'm absolutely convinced, from my daily interactions with my students, that many of these are not actually gay. They are latching on to a trend. But, for now, they are identifying as such to their friends and families, so what wasn't really much of an issue in the Church now is more prominent. 

ETA: The danger is that too much overt "ally-ship" (overt, prominent social media displays are common, especially among LDS who want to show the world that, hey, I'm not homophobic) might prolong the confusion of these youth who aren't really gay. It's definitely chic and trendy in certain circles, and if people are falling over each other to be gushing, visually/vocally supportive in a virtue signalling way, I think it feeds into this trend. The number of self-identifying gay youth is way out of proportion to the incidence that existed before about 10 years ago. While there are of course bona fide gay people, as there always have been, I think most of the recent explosion is more a cultural and social phenomenon, not a biological one. 

I always appreciate your thoughtful replies.

There's a lot I could say about the Proclamation being neither scripture or doctrine but I'll just leave it as a statement of church policy.

If a gay person can't be in any kind of gay relationship (even a chaste one) then I don't think the church wants gay people. It might begrudgingly accept SSA people who don't act in any way like a gay person, but I think that's a different and problematic standard.

And lets not forget the B in LGBTQ. Especially for youth, I think coming to understand their own sxualty can be confusing and there may be some errors for those who claim to be gay. Whether that's because attraction can be fluid or because it's a process of discovery and understanding, I think there are many who can claim an attraction to male and female. They may end up in a hetero relationship that is acceptable to the church. If that's the case, I don't think the church accepts them as Bi- it accepts them in a hetero relationship.

I agree that it's a hot button topic and I don't know the reason for the increased numbers. Are some jumping on a social bandwagon? There probably are some. Do many more youth feel confident and supported enough that they won't be bullied or disowned, and that's why they come out now? Maybe. I suspect there will need to be some significant studies to determine the "why" of increase.

[Chum]

14 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It might have been a different story if he had tried attending RS meetings, I don't know.

That's be a hoot here. I'd pay real money to see it.

Now I'm thinking - calling to primary teacher. But them we'd have to rebuild after the rioting and that seems like a lot of work.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Although some girls self identify as gay I think most of them are just usual girls the way girls usually are.  They don't have a problem with liking other girls and there is no good reason they should have a problem with that.  In my younger days it was common for girls like that to be called tomboys.  tomboys not because they wanted to have sexual intercourse with other girls, just acted a lot more like boys than some other girls.  Now some people are calling them gay because of how they sometimes act like boys and how more comfortable they are with girls, and the girls are calling themselves gay because of what other people call them that and think that is what girls like them should be called.  

This is different. Hairstyles, dress habits, growing leg hair, asking to be called "Simon" instead of "Samantha." This isn't the tomboys of yore. They also date each other, carousel-style. 

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Although some girls self identify as gay I think most of them are just usual girls the way girls usually are.  They don't have a problem with liking other girls and there is no good reason they should have a problem with that.  In my younger days it was common for girls like that to be called tomboys.  tomboys not because they wanted to have sexual intercourse with other girls, just acted a lot more like boys than some other girls.  Now some people are calling them gay because of how they sometimes act like boys and how more comfortable they are with girls, and the girls are calling themselves gay because of what other people call them that and think that is what girls like them should be called.  

I don't think you understand this issue.

[bOObOO]

22 minutes ago, Chum said:

I could see members here insisting their politically influenced, anti LGBT rhetoric contained nothing but kindness.

Seriously. Folks at the pulpit are fully unable to get thru 3 sentences in a row w/o political signalling. Ever. As in ever. As in they couldn't stop if it extinguished their burning body. Treating someone who's trans as ordinary? That doesn't seem to follow.

Someone who is trans is not ordinary.  Ordinary people do not trans.  They are comfortable with the sex they are ordinarily considered to be and are not interested in having surgery to transform their sexual organs to that of the opposite sex.

Still not hard to be kind to someone with such strange notions about themselves or their body.  And there is no difference in being as kind to a girl as I am to a boy.  Everyone can be kind indiscriminately.  Even to people with strange beliefs and behaviors.

[bOObOO]

2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't think you understand this issue.

I think you think I don't understand.  But I do understand even if you don't think I do..

[bOObOO]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

This is different. Hairstyles, dress habits, growing leg hair, asking to be called "Simon" instead of "Samantha." This isn't the tomboys of yore. They also date each other, carousel-style. 

The term "date" usually refers to people setting a time and date on a calendar to go out and do something together.  And yes girls often like to set dates to hang out with each other, either in pairs or larger groups of girls.  I don't know what you mean by carousel style but not all girls are into carousels as much as some others.  Some prefer hotdogs and baseball.

[Chum]

2 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

Someone who is trans is not ordinary.  Ordinary people do not trans.

Spot on. I believe rationalizations like that will preserve the thinking that trans members aren't as valued as we are. Not in every way, just in ways that matter. I wasn't sure if we'd still be having this conversation in 40 years but that could help make sure of it.

[bOObOO]

2 minutes ago, Chum said:

Spot on. I believe rationalizations like that will preserve the thinking that trans members aren't as valued as we are. Not in every way, just in ways that matter. I wasn't sure if we'd still be having this conversation in 40 years but that could help make sure of it.

The value of a person is relative to that person's potential to become as much like our Father in heaven as possible, and in that all of us are equal in value.  Even the extraordinary people, as well as the ordinary.  Think about that for the next 40 years.