From DesNews: A gay Latter-day Saint stands up for faith and family

[Scott Lloyd]

A controversial tweet led this Latter-day Saint gay man down an unexpected path

https://www.deseret.com/2022/4/21/23020856/perspective-im-a-devout-lds-gay-man-married-to-a-woman-this-is-my-story-skyler-sorensen

The creator of the “Sit Down with Sky and Preston” podcast talks about why he stands up for his faith and his family.

[Robert F. Smith]

I tried to PM you Scott, but got a message from the system saying that you cannot receive messages.

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I tried to PM you Scott, but got a message from the system saying that you cannot receive messages.

That’s because my PM capacity is maxed out. I’ll try to free up some memory within the next hour or so if you want to try again. 
 

Added later: Out of PM capacity again so I won’t reply there, but thanks for your comment and observation. Folks like Skyler Sorensen tend to be more reserved than their activist peers, so perhaps there are more in that category than we realize as they quietly live lives of faith and resolve. 

Edited April 23, 2022 by Scott Lloyd

[smac97]

Wow.  I like the "Sit Down with Sky and Preston" page on FB referenced in the article.  This bit is really good:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

d

[MustardSeed]

I went down this road with a local mini Mormon celeb about 5 years ago, Josh Weed. 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I went down this road with a local mini Mormon celeb about 5 years ago, Josh Weed. 

Ergo, every gay man who seeks to remain true to gospel covenants is destined to fail. That’s a very pessimistic insinuation. 

[The Nehor]

Definitely needed another one of these threads.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Definitely needed another one of these threads.

You are cordially invited to ignore it. 

[The Nehor]

8 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You are cordially invited to ignore it. 

Thank you for the invitation but I must decline due to the possibility that it may yield entertainment value to me at some point.

[Fether]

Richard Ostler’s Podcast “live learn and love” has a ton of episodes where he interviews LGBTQ members who choose to live the gospel faithfully despite their sexuality.

[Navidad]

11 hours ago, smac97 said:

Wow.  I like the "Sit Down with Sky and Preston" page on FB referenced in the article.  This bit is really good:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

d

Good morning from chilly Chihuahua. I struggle with the seventh of these in a slightly different way than that which is expressed. "We're commanded not to judge (unrighteously) - - - Therefore, we shouldn't have an opinion on others' choices."

The challenge I have in this regard is more this one - - "We're commanded not to judge (unrighteously) - - - However, that does not require me to inevitably offer up my opinion on others' choices."

There are many times I have to discipline myself to realize that I don't have to, and most likely should not share my opinion about every post, comment, or meme on every form of social media, including this forum. This is especially true when my opinion is different from that of the author. I spent years in various forms of leadership, therefore I tend to think of myself as an influencer. That belief is moderately delusional since neither the constant expression of either my opinion or sincerely held belief is apt to change any one else's' choices.  As I write this, the garden gate right outside the window to my office is constantly banging with the wind. Did I mention it is chilly this morning? That constant banging is more than slightly irritating. So am I sometimes!

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Good morning from chilly Chihuahua. I struggle with the seventh of these in a slightly different way than that which is expressed. "We're commanded not to judge (unrighteously) - - - Therefore, we shouldn't have an opinion on others' choices."

The challenge I have in this regard is more this one - - "We're commanded not to judge (unrighteously) - - - However, that does not require me to inevitably offer up my opinion on others' choices."

Yes, I think that is likely a better formulation overall.  

12 minutes ago, Navidad said:

There are many times I have to discipline myself to realize that I don't have to, and most likely should not share my opinion about every post, comment, or meme on every form of social media, including this forum. This is especially true when my opinion is different from that of the author. I spent years in various forms of leadership, therefore I tend to think of myself as an influencer. That belief is moderately delusional since neither the constant expression of either my opinion or sincerely held belief is apt to change any one else's' choices.  As I write this, the garden gate right outside the window to my office is constantly banging with the wind. Did I mention it is chilly this morning? That constant banging is more than slightly irritating. So am I sometimes!

I think there is a sentiment in some quarters which suggests - overtly or impliedly - that sharing one's perspective on moral issues amounts to "judgment."  Thus to speak in favor of abiding by the Law of Chastity is to "judge" those who choose not to, or who advocate or otherwise seek to justify and rationalize behaviors that violate it.

In other words, the "We're commanded not to judge" stuff can sometimes have a censorious intent behind it.  In that context, I think speaking one's opinions and sentiments is fine.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Good morning from chilly Chihuahua. I struggle with the seventh of these in a slightly different way than that which is expressed. "We're commanded not to judge (unrighteously) - - - Therefore, we shouldn't have an opinion on others' choices."

The challenge I have in this regard is more this one - - "We're commanded not to judge (unrighteously) - - - However, that does not require me to inevitably offer up my opinion on others' choices."

There are many times I have to discipline myself to realize that I don't have to, and most likely should not share my opinion about every post, comment, or meme on every form of social media, including this forum. This is especially true when my opinion is different from that of the author. I spent years in various forms of leadership, therefore I tend to think of myself as an influencer. That belief is moderately delusional since neither the constant expression of either my opinion or sincerely held belief is apt to change any one else's' choices.  As I write this, the garden gate right outside the window to my office is constantly banging with the wind. Did I mention it is chilly this morning? That constant banging is more than slightly irritating. So am I sometimes!

I get in trouble a lot because I often challenge people’s views. For example, I have a friend who once made a little fuss about how another one of our friends is on watching rated R movies. This same friend, I heard later, watches movies with their spouse on the sabbath. Both watching movies on the sabbath and watching rated R movies were both declared to be wrong during similar eras of church leadership. Today, however, church leadership encourages us to decide for ourselves what constitutes keeping the sabbath holy, and what media content to engage on.

I brought this up to my friend and his spouse and… well… it didn’t go well.

I wasn’t judging them, I was just curious how the justify one, but not the other. I also wanted to open their eyes to this so they could commit to either developing a more relaxed view on one, or correcting their view on the other. What they chose to do, I did not care… it was just annoying to see the hypocrisy and gossip.

I share this simply to point out that we can’t really decide whether someone is judging us or not. 

Edited April 25, 2022 by Fether

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I went down this road with a local mini Mormon celeb about 5 years ago, Josh Weed. 

I thought about him when this thread popped up.  No one really knows what the future holds for these kinds of marriages (though I do believe some make it), and it seems like becoming a spokesman for them can add to the stress they are already under.

It would be incredibly hard to hold your marriage up as a success story and then later divorce.

[Fether]

12 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I thought about him when this thread popped up.  No one really knows what the future holds for these kinds of marriages (though I do believe some make it), and it seems like becoming a spokesman for them can add to the stress they are already under.

It would be incredibly hard to hold your marriage up as a success story and then later divorce.

I listened to Mormon Stories interview with a gay member who stayed active in the church for a long time. He said he went to a ton of North Star we events and loved it… but as he got more deep into the community, he found that most of the Latter-day Saint gay “success” stories were fake and many were hooking up with each other (his description).

[bluebell]

18 minutes ago, Fether said:

I listened to Mormon Stories interview with a gay member who stayed active in the church for a long time. He said he went to a ton of North Star we events and loved it… but as he got more deep into the community, he found that most of the Latter-day Saint gay “success” stories were fake and many were hooking up with each other (his description).

It's such a difficult road that this wouldn't surprise me that much if it were true. 

I think that people have sincere intentions but that's a hard, life-long struggle, and declaring "victory" while still in the middle of the fight seems like it would add to the mental and emotional difficulties rather than help.

[mfbukowski]

15 hours ago, smac97 said:

Wow.  I like the "Sit Down with Sky and Preston" page on FB referenced in the article.  This bit is really good:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

d

I agree with the intent here on every point in principle.  Everything.

BUT 

all I can think about is blind obedience to say, suicide cults like Jonestown et al, and the possibility that a future prophet could go rogue.

It's a tightrope.

We still have to make personal revelation number 1

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree with the intent here on every point in principle.  Everything.

BUT 

all I can think about is blind obedience to say, suicide cults like Jonestown et al, and the possibility that a future prophet could go rogue.

"A future prophet" would function in tandem with his counselors in the First Presidency and with the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

The chances of all fifteen men "go{ing} rogue" all at the same time about the same thing seems . . . remote.

Plus, I believe the Lord would step in.

44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

It's a tightrope.

I don't think so.  The governance of the Church has multiple safeguards in place.  The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  The general requirement for unanimity.  The Standard Works.  The oversight of the Presiding Bishopric.

And then there are the assurances that the Lord will not let the Church be led astray...

44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We still have to make personal revelation number 1

Ultimately, yes.  But not exclusively.  This is why I like Michael Ash's pithy formulation: "Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited April 25, 2022 by smac97

[jkwilliams]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Ergo, every gay man who seeks to remain true to gospel covenants is destined to fail. That’s a very pessimistic insinuation. 

I wouldn’t say that at all. I have a good friend from my BYU days who has been heavily involved with promoters of gay members engaging in heterosexual marriage. After some 30-something years of heartbreak, he’s finally given up on his marriage. Is every mixed-orientation couple doomed to failure? Nope, but it sure makes it incredibly hard to make things work. If it were me, I’d never put a spouse in the position of knowing I didn’t really find her sexually attractive but married out of religious obligation. That just seems terribly wrong. 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

"A future prophet" would function in tandem with his counselors in the First Presidency and with the members of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles.

The chances of all fifteen men "go{ing} rogue" all at the same time about the same thing seems . . . remote.

Plus, I believe the Lord would step in.

I don't think so.  The governance of the Church has multiple safeguards in place.  The First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve.  The general requirement for unanimity.  The Standard Works.  The oversight of the Presiding Bishopric.

And then there are the assurances that the Lord will not let the Church be led astray...

Ultimately, yes.  But not exclusively.  This is why I like Michael Ash's pithy formulation: "Scripture, Prophets, Personal Revelation, and Reason. By utilizing the methodologies for all four of these tools, we have a better chance of accurately determining what is true."

Thanks,

-Smac

And yet SOME say that there have been mistakes made by the church, with all that in place.   We see blind obedience being misinterpreted every day here on this board, when former members protest against policies and beliefs we never had.   There has to be an answer to that.

I have to stick with my conscience tells me.  I joined the year after black folks received the priesthood- again- , yet I do see good reasons for why Bro Brigham made the prohibition in the first place.   It just dragged on too long in my uninspired opinion.

That was 1978, and so was the Jonestown massacre, and I was baptized in 1979.

Those events are all related in my personal life and formed my opinions given here.

In God I Trust, all others pay cash. 

 

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

If it were me, I’d never put a spouse in the position of knowing I didn’t really find her sexually attractive but married out of religious obligation. That just seems terribly wrong. 

You actually think they see it that way at the time?

"Well sweetheart, I don't really see you sexually attractive, but I will marry you out of religious obligation!  Lucky YOU! "

"Oh yes yes my darling that is all we need in our lives- religious obligation! Let's celebrate!"

Somehow I think it must be a little more complex.....

Edited April 25, 2022 by mfbukowski

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You actually think they see it that way at the time?

"Well sweetheart, I don't really see you sexually attractive, but I will marry you out of religious obligation!  Lucky YOU! "

"Oh yes yes my darling that is all we need in our lives- religious obligation! Let's celebrate!"

My friend certainly saw it that way. He was quite honest with his fiancée, but they both believed they could make it work if they had enough faith. Again, just seems wrong to me.

The alternative, I suppose, is not telling your spouse. That’s even worse. 

Edited April 25, 2022 by jkwilliams

[MustardSeed]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Ergo, every gay man who seeks to remain true to gospel covenants is destined to fail. That’s a very pessimistic insinuation. 

Gay men married to women and publicly presenting themselves as successful examples are rare.  It’s not unreasonable for me to say that I ate a burnt popsicle once and disliked it so therefore I shall not repeat the experience, even though it’s a different popsicle. 

[smac97]

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And yet SOME say that there have been mistakes made by the church, with all that in place.

Sure.  The Priesthood Ban is, I think, the most obvious.  But these safeguards weren't really in place and functioning at the time, right?

I think there's a fair difference between making honest mistakes and "going rogue."

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We see blind obedience being misinterpreted every day here on this board, when former members protest against policies and beliefs we never had.   There has to be an answer to that.

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have to stick with my conscience tells me.  I joined the year after black folks received the priesthood- again- , yet I do see good reasons for why Bro Brigham made the prohibition in the first place.   It just dragged on too long in my uninspired opinion.

It seems, though, that those "good reasons" don't include a revelation.

27 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

That was 1978, and so was the Jonestown massacre, and I was baptized in 1979.

Those events are all related in my personal life and formed my opinions given here.

In God I Trust, all others pay cash. 

I trust God as well.  The problem is that I don't necessarily trust myself.  Hence each leg of Ash's Stool acts as a check on the other.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

19 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Ergo, every gay man who seeks to remain true to gospel covenants is destined to fail. That’s a very pessimistic insinuation. 

Of course not. There are two options. Suffering or breaking covenants.

That is not anything new. Often we suffer for doing the “right thing”. Difference is that it is almost certainly lifelong suffering.