What is the LGBT policy goal for the Church

[Chum]

15 minutes ago, bOObOO said:

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.

This may not be the comfort - to LGBT members who hear endless political/anti-lgbt rhetoric from the pulpit - that you think it is.

[Chum]

1 minute ago, bOObOO said:

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.

That's nice. How does that make trans folks feel welcome while listening to ceaseless political/anti-lgbt pulpit messaging Every. Single. Sunday.?

[bluebell]

44 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

 

Like I said, I do agree that it is currently an interpretation of doctrine and not explicit doctrine, so there is room on that one, if our leaders saw it the same way.  I don't know that they do see it that way right now, but you never know what changes the future will bring.

Quote

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.

That could be.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

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.

I see a problem with this unfortunately.  I love the idea in general, but if I was asked by a couple if they should go public, I am more prone to tell them it is not a good idea.  I think in general having one’s life in the public eye is more often a negative when it comes to relationships…the public becomes a third ‘partner’ more or less.  Anyone choosing to be a public role model needs to consider if what they hope to give to the world is worth the risk of personal loss.

Public scrutiny will come with standing as a witness.  Lots of judgments, good and bad, thrown their way.  Increased attention, maybe increased of time spent engaging with others in the discussion rather than on the relationship…probably tons of other stuff that goes along with public status, even in the limited way a small community or not that well known of a couple.  This in itself may create enough stress to disrupt a relationship.  Couple that with the standard “mixed marriages are doom” expectation many have…going public seems like taking on a massive burden to me.

The constant refrain “your relationship is doomed” from critics and even some friends and loved ones who accept this belief may be loud and long enough that it eventually gets absorbed into the couple’s viewpoint or of at least one of them and they shift from viewing frustrations and conflict as caused by personal habits or issues that could be worked on and resolved to viewing such conflict as ultimately rooted in unchanging identities, meaning no resolution.  
 

If someone isn’t fully aware of why they are unhappy about something in a relationship or their life or have a generalized sense of unhappiness, they may start looking around for reasons and latch on to the ‘shiny’ one and then interpret everything through that filter.  Humans are very capable of seeing patterns that don’t actually exist.  I have a great personal example where I assumed it was my husband causing my almost daily bout of anger in the late afternoon when it turned out to be hypoglycemia caused by lack of sleep…anger that disappeared when I stopped eating sugar. I stopped labeling my frustrations as unresolvable and figured out how to work with my husband to fix many of the issues and accepted the cost of living with the rest as worth the benefits of the relationship…but another month or two of anger and the conflict that came with it, I could have easily been divorced rather than married 40 years.

This is common enough of a human response people are counseled not to hang out with those who focus on the negative if they are having issues as if we allow a wedge in, provided by ourselves or another, we may often bring the whole house down.
 

Back to those acting as witnesses….

Conflict and stress rises with public attention and for some, this leads to breakups.  Others, they come to see a pattern that isn’t there because they are told it is there over and over as they engage with others including skeptics and they start to see their experiences through that filter.  The prediction of doom has become a self fulfilling prophecy.  This gives reinforcement to the belief mixed orientation relationships are doomed and thus may add converts to the claim, a backfire for the purpose of the witness as well as a tragedy for the marriage itself.

Not that this will happen to every mixed marriage couple who stands as a witness, but I think probability of increased stress and even conflict is high enough anyone who asks a couple to stand as a witness or who is considering doing it themselves…they need to seriously consider the risks of holding oneself up as an example to the world.  I think it would be less stressful if a large number of such couples spoke out at once rather than having one as a ‘spokesperson’ or even a few, but I can see several reasons why that might be difficult to organize.

Of course, the “mixed marriages are doomed” trope will not go away until it gets challenged enough with examples of those marriages working.  Even if 70% divorce as one study claims, that is still a success rate of 30%…not great, but certainly not a “doom”.  If successful examples are out in public, new couples can see what contributes to success and make their own relationship more resilient.  Expectations for success contribute to success just as expectations for failure contribute to failure.

Edited September 29, 2021 by Calm

[Peacefully]

6 hours 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. 

Unfortunately, I tend to agree with you on this. 

[california boy]

9 hours 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.

Be careful what you wish for.  There have been a bunch of poster gay/straight marriages like Josh Weed who went around giving firesides and talking about how great it was that they could marry.  What happens when those marriages fail publicly?  After being fed the line that gay/straight marriages can work, how do  you think the youth that attended those firesides will feel about that?  I think the statistics are that 80% of those marriages fail if I am remembering right.  If that is the case, then 80% of the time the youth will see those poster marriages fail and the Church's encouraging such marriages as being extremely bad advice.

ETA.  I see Calm already questioned the wisdom of your idea.  

Edited September 30, 2021 by california boy

[mfbukowski]

On 9/29/2021 at 11:11 AM, CV75 said:

Oh, is #3 the artificial gamete idea, where an advanced divine technology generates human life from the cells of single individuals (e.g., Eve generated from Adam), same-sex couples or single-sex councils (“the Gods”), or taking it a step further, artificial DNA (the dust of the earth) in a way that also maintains the direct connection between the spiritual and natural creations and their mutual likenesses, including the record they bear and the covenants they keep (from baptism through marriage) as set forth in the books of Genesis, Abraham and Moses? Maybe not, just thought I'd ask.

I was just talking about thinking of any scientific solution as answering a spiritual problem. Science is not sinful, nor can it magically make some activity thought to be sinful, righteous.  Science is about HOW things work, and mechanics. It's neutral regarding the spirit. 

Spirituality otoh, is about WHY things work , not HOW and is directly connected to purpose and intent, and why the same act's purpose in one context might be righteous and in another context, evil.

Laban's murder was not counted as sinful, even though the same act- the same behavior when seen "objectively" ie: killing someone with a sword" is virtually always among the worse sins possible.

So HOW Jesus was actually conceived has nothing to do with the spiritual significance of the fact that he WAS conceived to bring about the immortality and eternal life of humanity 

So IF God uses cloning to create his Son, that does not mean that cloning or other "genetic magic" used by two men to make a baby is automatically spiritually righteous.

Because Adam ate the forbidden fruit, it does not follow that we will "fall" because we eat an apple.

The same act can have good or evil consequences depending on context, meaning, and purpose.

HOW the deed was done is irrelevant to its INTENT and PURPOSE 

So all this conversation about HOW to make a baby has nothing to do with whether or not it is righteous to use that method 

Clearer?

Edited September 30, 2021 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I was just talking about thinking of any scientific solution as answering a spiritual problem. Science is not sinful, nor can it magically make some activity thought to be sinful, righteous.  Science is about HOW things work, and mechanics. It's neutral regarding the spirit. 

Spirituality otoh, is about WHY things work , not HOW and is directly connected to purpose and intent, and why the same act's purpose in one context might be righteous and in another context, evil.

Laban's murder was not counted as sinful, even though the same act- the same behavior when seen "objectively" ie: killing someone with a sword" is virtually always among the worse sins possible.

So HOW Jesus was actually conceived has nothing to do with the spiritual significance of the fact that he WAS conceived to bring about

So IF God uses cloning to create his Son, that does not mean that cloning or other "genetic magic" used by two men to make a baby is automatically spiritually righteous.

Because Adam ate the forbidden fruit, it does not follow that we will "fall" because we eat an apple.

The same act can have good or evil consequences depending on context, meaning, and purpose.

HOW the deed was done is irrelevant to its INTENT and PURPOSE 

So all this conversation about HOW to make a baby has nothing to do with whether or not it is righteous to use that method 

Clearer?

I'm sorry, I was just trying to be a (funny) wise guy  (is that the right emoji?)

Edited September 30, 2021 by CV75

[gopher]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

I see a problem with this unfortunately.  I love the idea in general, but if I was asked by a couple if they should go public, I am more prone to tell them it is not a good idea.  I think in general having one’s life in the public eye is more often a negative when it comes to relationships…the public becomes a third ‘partner’ more or less.  Anyone choosing to be a public role model needs to consider if what they hope to give to the world is worth the risk of personal loss.

Public scrutiny will come with standing as a witness.  Lots of judgments, good and bad, thrown their way.  Increased attention, maybe increased of time spent engaging with others in the discussion rather than on the relationship…probably tons of other stuff that goes along with public status, even in the limited way a small community or not that well known of a couple.  This in itself may create enough stress to disrupt a relationship.  Couple that with the standard “mixed marriages are doom” expectation many have…going public seems like taking on a massive burden to me.

The constant refrain “your relationship is doomed” from critics and even some friends and loved ones who accept this belief may be loud and long enough that it eventually gets absorbed into the couple’s viewpoint or of at least one of them and they shift from viewing frustrations and conflict as caused by personal habits or issues that could be worked on and resolved to viewing such conflict as ultimately rooted in unchanging identities, meaning no resolution.  

Those are all great points (as expected).  However, I'm not wishing for mixed orientation couples to go public.  Reality TV has shown us the dangers of couples of any orientation sharing their relationship with the world.  How many families split up after appearing on those dumb shows?  So I agree with you on that.

Instead, my question is:  Is it time for LGBTQ members that actually believe in the restored Gospel to become more vocal in bearing testimony and refuting the claims that they can't be happy in the church?  I'm not suggesting it needs to done by holding firesides or anything like that.  I agree with the gay member I know that's a bad idea.  And I don't want anyone to hold up their mixed orientation marriage for scrutiny.  Leave your marriage out it - I'm only interested in hearing about why and how you still believe this is Christ's church.  I hear plenty from those who have left the church or no longer believe in it.  I'm interested in hearing more from those that stay, even if it's done anonymously on a forum such as this.  I thought there were a few here, but maybe they've moved on.

[Peacefully]

6 minutes ago, gopher said:

Those are all great points (as expected).  However, I'm not wishing for mixed orientation couples to go public.  Reality TV has shown us the dangers of couples of any orientation sharing their relationship with the world.  How many families split up after appearing on those dumb shows?  So I agree with you on that.

Instead, my question is:  Is it time for LGBTQ members that actually believe in the restored Gospel to become more vocal in bearing testimony and refuting the claims that they can't be happy in the church?  I'm not suggesting it needs to done by holding firesides or anything like that.  I agree with the gay member I know that's a bad idea.  And I don't want anyone to hold up their mixed orientation marriage for scrutiny.  Leave your marriage out it - I'm only interested in hearing about why and how you still believe this is Christ's church.  I hear plenty from those who have left the church or no longer believe in it.  I'm interested in hearing more from those that stay, even if it's done anonymously on a forum such as this.  I thought there were a few here, but maybe they've moved on.

https://www.northstarlds.org/

I think you will find testimonies from active, gay members here. This site is pretty well established so I don’t think the church is lacking in being vocal online, maybe we just don’t hear as much about it in our wards and stakes. 
 

 

Edited September 30, 2021 by Peacefully

[gopher]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

Be careful what you wish for.  There have been a bunch of poster gay/straight marriages like Josh Weed who went around giving firesides and talking about how great it was that they could marry.  What happens when those marriages fail publicly?  After being fed the line that gay/straight marriages can work, how do  you think the youth that attended those firesides will feel about that?  I think the statistics are that 80% of those marriages fail if I am remembering right.  If that is the case, then 80% of the time the youth will see those poster marriages fail and the Church's encouraging such marriages as being extremely bad advice.

ETA.  I see Calm already questioned the wisdom of your idea.  

Yeah, I'm not interested in anyone showcasing their poster gay/straight marriage.  That's not what I wish for.

I do wish to hear more from those in the church that can refute your claims that they can't be LGBTQ and happy in the church.  That's all I'm wishing for.

If we only listened to the complainers and disaffected participants, we wouldn't have the inspirational, faith promoting stories from church history that came out of Zion's Camp, the Martin/Willey Handcart Company, and the Mountain Meadow Mass... wait, scratch that last one.  I just want to hear all perspectives.

[gopher]

9 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

https://www.northstarlds.org/

I think you will find testimonies from active, gay members here. This site is pretty well established so I don’t think the church is lacking in being vocal online, maybe we just don’t hear as much about it in our wards and stakes. 
 

 

I have seen that.  I'd like to see more representation from active, gay members on forums such as this.  I thought there were a few, but maybe they have moved on.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, gopher said:

I have seen that.  I'd like to see more representation from active, gay members on forums such as this.  I thought there were a few, but maybe they have moved on.

Perhaps there is a really god reason why more active, gay members don't participate in forums like the one noted, or bear testimony about how happy they are in the church  

[Chum]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

I do wish to hear more from those in the church that can refute your claims that they can't be LGBTQ and happy in the church.  That's all I'm wishing for.

When you say In The Church, do you mean just holding membership or that plus watching Conference or that plus attending the occasional social or that plus regularly attending Sacrament Meetings?

Asking because if it's the last, some wards will require Girded Loins every Sunday. I understand some do not.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, gopher said:

Yeah, I'm not interested in anyone showcasing their poster gay/straight marriage.  That's not what I wish for.

I do wish to hear more from those in the church that can refute your claims that they can't be LGBTQ and happy in the church.  That's all I'm wishing for.

If we only listened to the complainers and disaffected participants, we wouldn't have the inspirational, faith promoting stories from church history that came out of Zion's Camp, the Martin/Willey Handcart Company, and the Mountain Meadow Mass... wait, scratch that last one.  I just want to hear all perspectives.

A little correction.  I never said that LGBT can't be happy in the Church.  I have only reported on data that shows most leave.  

[Calm]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Perhaps there is a really god reason why more active, gay members don't participate in forums like the one noted

They have a life?

[jerryp48]

12 hours ago, california boy said:

A little correction.  I never said that LGBT can't be happy in the Church.  I have only reported on data that shows most leave.  

And that unfortunately might have to be the accepted result.  I honestly don’t believe that a seismic change in church doctrine would improve LGBTQ retention and it would certainly result in a great number of non-LGBTQ members abandoning the faith.  Not due to homophobia but feeling that the leaders are no longer following God but bowing to social morays.

Just as there are “safe spaces” for just about every identity group imaginable, the church is one for heterosexuals.  Sorry to say but it is what it is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[gopher]

20 hours ago, Chum said:

When you say In The Church, do you mean just holding membership or that plus watching Conference or that plus attending the occasional social or that plus regularly attending Sacrament Meetings?

Asking because if it's the last, some wards will require Girded Loins every Sunday. I understand some do not.

Not sure I understand.  The LDS church welcomes all to come unto Christ by repenting, being baptized, taking upon themselves the name of Christ, and keeping the commandments.  That includes gays.  A few years ago there were some members that made a big deal of how welcoming they were of gays in the church, even offering to sit by them in meetings.  But I think most of the activist types have now left the church.  So now it's up to everyone else to behave.

The LGBTQ community could learn a lot from the LDS church about being inclusive.  I can't join their community since my sexual orientation doesn't start with the correct letter.  It's not even enough to be a deeply closeted gay man (RIP Norm McDonald).  The most I can become is an advocate.  That's very similar to the treatment of blacks under the priesthood ban, isn't it?

[MiserereNobis]

On 9/29/2021 at 2:14 PM, Chum said:

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.

I went to Mass for about two years before anyone said hi to me. It was perfect for me. My first visit to an LDS church was overwhelming. You all love to talk to strangers! And my God, the hand shaking!

 I don’t have social anxiety at all. I just equate spirituality with reverence and stillness. It’s probably why I love monasteries. 

[Chum]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

Not sure I understand. 

Girded loins is for processing the unwelcome messaging that can come, after all that handshaking.

2 hours ago, gopher said:

The LGBTQ community could learn a lot from the LDS church about being inclusive.  I can't join their community since my sexual orientation doesn't start with the correct letter.

This one may need to go back in the oven.

[Chum]

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

I went to Mass for about two years before anyone said hi to me. It was perfect for me. My first visit to an LDS church was overwhelming. You all love to talk to strangers! And my God, the hand shaking!

All that American flavoring makes Protestant churches fairly gregarious. I've run into it all over, tho I recall Methodists being more subdued. For us, I'd say we're taught to be assertively cheerful as a matter of social protocol.

1 hour ago, MiserereNobis said:

 I don’t have social anxiety at all. I just equate spirituality with reverence and stillness. It’s probably why I love monasteries. 

We extract the stillness from our chapels and firehose it into our temples - tho we hold back a bit for sacrament.

[Canadiandude]

2 hours ago, gopher said:

Not sure I understand.  The LDS church welcomes all to come unto Christ by repenting, being baptized, taking upon themselves the name of Christ, and keeping the commandments.  That includes gays.  A few years ago there were some members that made a big deal of how welcoming they were of gays in the church, even offering to sit by them in meetings.  But I think most of the activist types have now left the church.  So now it's up to everyone else to behave.

The LGBTQ community could learn a lot from the LDS church about being inclusive.  I can't join their community since my sexual orientation doesn't start with the correct letter.  It's not even enough to be a deeply closeted gay man (RIP Norm McDonald).  The most I can become is an advocate.  That's very similar to the treatment of blacks under the priesthood ban, isn't it?

At most yes, if you’re not a gender or sexual minority but from everything I’m read so far I’m not holding my breath.

On the latter point It’s not similar at all, but if that’s how ya feel I encourage ya to publish it in an article or something.
 

I’ll start popping popcorn.  

 

[gopher]

49 minutes ago, Chum said:

Girded loins is for processing the unwelcome messaging that can come, after all that handshaking.

This one may need to go back in the oven.

Sorry you've been made to feel unwelcome at church.  Hopefully that will change.  If "ceaseless political/anti-lgbt pulpit messaging" is occurring at church, it should stop.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, gopher said:

Not sure I understand.  The LDS church welcomes all to come unto Christ by repenting, being baptized, taking upon themselves the name of Christ, and keeping the commandments.  That includes gays.  A few years ago there were some members that made a big deal of how welcoming they were of gays in the church, even offering to sit by them in meetings.  But I think most of the activist types have now left the church.  So now it's up to everyone else to behave.

The LGBTQ community could learn a lot from the LDS church about being inclusive.  I can't join their community since my sexual orientation doesn't start with the correct letter.  It's not even enough to be a deeply closeted gay man (RIP Norm McDonald).  The most I can become is an advocate.  That's very similar to the treatment of blacks under the priesthood ban, isn't it?

 What this really tells me is that you have no idea about the LGBT community and how many people support and are involved in that support.  Maybe you should get involved a little yourself and see if you are welcomed with open arms.  Unlike the LDS church there are no roadblocks, no requirements, no forbidding you to marry, no exclusion from any part of the community.  You can simply be who you are and live your life with the person you love even if you have an unnatural attraction to the opposite sex.  We even let you hug and hold hands with the person you love.  

You would think that just the number of people leaving the church over this issue would give you some idea how many people are involved in the LGBT community and the complete lack of roadblocks that are thrown up in order to participate.  If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints were as welcoming, as the LGBT community we wouldn't even be having a thread like this.  There would literally be nothing to talk about.  

[gopher]

31 minutes ago, Canadiandude said:

At most yes, if you’re not a gender or sexual minority but from everything I’m read so far I’m not holding my breath.

On the latter point It’s not similar at all, but if that’s how ya feel I encourage ya to publish it in an article or something.
 

I’ll start popping popcorn.  

 

I haven't read stories of anyone wanting to come unto Christ by repenting, being baptized, taking upon themselves the name of Christ, and keeping the commandments being turned away.  If they exist, they are owed an apology and request for forgiveness.

And since you are Canadian, I think you mean Popcorn Chicken Poutine