John Dehlin / Mormon Stories Criticized by Equality Utah, Wyoming Equality, Equality Arizona

[smac97]

Deseret News: Equality Utah, other LGBTQ advocacy groups issue joint statement on controversial podcast

Quote

Equality Utah issued a joint statement with Wyoming Equality and Equality Arizona over the weekend strongly criticizing recent episodes of “Mormon Stories” for the podcast’s treatment of two gay individuals, calling the episodes “an egregious example of the culture of surveillance, harassment, and bullying that is far too common in our society.”

I hadn't heard about this.  From this Facebook post:

So the above statement references a "gay couple" which MS purportedly "spied on and harassed."

Back to the article:

Quote

In a lengthy post on Reddit responding to and denying the allegations, Dehlin said, “If any apologies are going to happen, I think that the first apology should be Troy, Sara, and Michael apologizing for making such an irresponsible set of accusations without taking the time to gather any evidence, or speak to the parties involved.”

Apparently this story pertains to two MS podcasts:

Published on January 25, 2023: "1858: Why are Mormons Confused Right Now? – Responding to Jacob Hansen’s Bigotry" - "Today we will be responding to Jacob Hansen’s video where he expresses the confusion that conservative Mormons are experiencing regarding the Church’s stances on LGBT issues."

Here is the summary of the video (nearly 2 hours) :

Quote

 

Chapters
00:00:00 Intro
00:05:00 Why Jacob is confused
00:10:33 Clip 1 - Jacob Hansen
00:13:20 Clip 2 - Elder Oaks Letter
00:17:09 Clip 3 - Jacob Hansen being confused
00:19:41 Clip 4 - A transgender woman was baptized
00:25:12 Clip 5 - Listen Learn and Love
00:28:31 Clip 6 - Lauren is listed as “female” on the church rolls
00:32:46 Clip 7 - Jacob upset that sisters taught Lauren
00:34:16 Clip 8 - Lauren received permission by the First Presidency to be baptized
00:36:23 Clip 9 - President Nelson on Gender
00:43:27 Clip 10 - Jacob on women only spaces
00:45:31 Clip 11 - Richard Ostler
00:55:24 Clip 12 - Charlie Bird engagement announcement
00:59:10 Both Charlie and his husband Ryan have callings in the ward
01:00:41 Past Mormon Stories Episodes covering transgender individuals
01:04:15 Clip 13 - Jacob is upset that leaders are supporting queer individuals
01:06:25 The church does not like to go after celebrities, selectively applying punishment
01:07:45 Clip 14 - Members have stopped believing the Family Proclamation
01:11:17 Does ALL of this signify a turning point?
01:13:35 The church quietly changes and acts like they never changed
01:16:37 - Clip 15 - The Relief Society leaders are causing confusion
01:21:50 A Letter approving a transgender baptism
01:22:33 Clip 16 - Books by Queer members
01:26:44 Clip 17 - Patrick Mason supporting Blair Ostler
01:27:43 Clip 18 - Richard Ostler supporting Blair Ostler
01:30:12 Calling out Jacob Hansen
01:32:15 Clip 19 - Is gay marriage on the table?
01:36:02 Clip 20 - Members think it’s only a matter of time before the doctrine changes
01:37:47 Clip 21 - Jacob Hansen calling for activism
01:39:49 Clip 22 - Jacob’s final thoughts
01:48:19 John invites Jacob onto Mormon Stories

The part about about Charlie Bird and his husband, Ryan, having callings, leads me to think they are the "gay couple" referenced in the Facebook statement above.

Here is, I think, the second video referenced in the above Facebook post: "1859: A New Norm? Married Gay Mormons Get Callings & The Sacrament" - "Join us as we discuss the surprising events that challenge norms—married gay Mormons now receiving callings and participating in the sacrament. We will explore the impact, reactions, and implications of this new chapter, and discuss whether it marks a significant change in the community’s approach to inclusivity and acceptance."

Here is the summary of the video (1.5 hours) :

Quote

Chapters
00:00:00 Same-sex couples allowed to participate?
00:16:40 Clip 1 - Jacob Hansen
00:21:51 1 Clip 2 - Charlie and Ben Podcast
00:33:44 Clip 3 - Ryan and Charlie instagram post
00:44:20 Church policy on same-sex marriage
00:47:33 Callings vs Assignments
00:55:30  When membership councils are required
00:58:28 The apostles are divided
01:02:52 Clip 4 - Brennan and Douglas
01:08:00 Clip 5 - Jill Searle
01:12:00 Clip 6 - Elizabeth Grimshaw
01:15:52 Clip 7 - Dusty Johns
01:30:42 73% of LDS members support with same-sex marriage

Here's a third one that seems to be related to the above two: "1860: Latter-Dazed And Confused – The Mormon NewsCast 007" - "On tonight’s Mormon Newscast program, we take a look at the mixed messages that Conservatives among the faith are struggling with around homosexuality and those who are Transgender. Including the perspectives on Doctrine that some conservative commentaries say are at the base of this issue."

Here is the summary of the video (nearly 2 hours) :

Quote

Chapters
00:00:00 Intro
00:01:53 Summary of news
00:04:00 News of transgender baptism, liberal leaders, etc.
00:15:00 Changes the church has undergone
00:20:30 Are we in the midst of changes?
00:27:23 Russells stance on masks and vaccines were NOT followed
00:33:35 Clip 1 - MBR with Jacob Hansen
00:39:30 The church has led us astray on a thousand issues
00:41:05 Clip 2 - MBR activist class
00:44:00 Gow changes happens in the Church
00:46:55 Clip 3 - MBR Cwic Show
00:52:37 It's dangerous to believe that whatever is said in GC is doctrine
00:57:35 Lauren (a transgender women) joining the church
01:00:54 Laura Lee Hall was excommunicated 
01:03:40 Restrictions for transgender individuals
01:08:07 Flip flops in the Handbook of instructions
01:17:50 Types of transitioning and acceptance
01:27:50 The church is banning ChatGPT
01:33:47 Why the church is against AI
01:40:03 White Jesus art exhibit
01:48:45 BYU-Hawaii is removing a mural

A few thoughts:

1. So the overarching story is about gay couples (and a trans person) who are being allowed to participate in the Church in normative ways (take the Sacrament, hold callings, etc.) despite acting in contravention of the doctrines of the Church (being in a same-sex marriage, etc.).  This is, for some, creating a perception of "mixed messaging" from the Church on issues pertaining to same-sex marriage, the Law of Chastity, etc.

2. It's a fair discussion to have.  I think the Church will need to sort these things out.

3. I am reminded of the hullabaloo a few years back when there was an alteration to BYU's Honor Code, which some took as some sort of oblique or "back door" announcement that same-sex relationships on their way to being recognized / allowed / ratified in the Church.  There was much angst and anger when, after some weeks, BYU clarified that nothing had changed.  I am concerned that something similar will happen with this story, or that we are already in the midst of that process.

4. Regarding whether MormonStories "spied" on Charlie Bird will require more information.  I don't presently have time to wade through hours of plodding MS podcasts.  I did see this summary on Reddit:

Quote

Equality Utah is not wrong here.

The law in Utah on stalking injunctions allows such injunctions to be entered based on (repeated) unwanted surveilling of another person's movements, relationships or other matters. It is not harmless to just show up in order to surveille a person. much less to also report publicly on a person's movements, or actions or membership in a group. Stalking is not only about threatening someone's life. Surveillance is part of stalking because it can give rise to anxiety and reasonable fear of threat.

Gerardo and MS had no reason to show up inside Charlie Bird's ward building other than to surveille him and report his actions and movements (taking the sacrament/sitting with his husband) in order to provoke some response. This is not a legitimate journalistic purpose. Legitimate journalists make themselves known in churches if they are there as journalists.

This is stalking. Dehlin and Gerardo even admit they want to provoke the church to do something in response to them exposing this situation -- the situation being that Charlie takes the sacrament and has a calling. They are surveilling Charlie and the ward to provoke a reaction = stalking.

Charlie Bird is a limited public figure but being a public figure doesn't change the analysis. And the other members of the ward subjected to someone entering their sanctuary to surveille are also being harassed by these actions as they cannot peacefully worship without fear of the unknown intentions of those showing up for ulterior purposes.

Hmm.  Here is a summary of how stalking injunctions work in Utah:

Quote

What is stalking?

A judge can grant an order that tells one person (respondent) to stop stalking another person (petitioner) if the respondent did the following towards the petitioner:

• The respondent directly, indirectly, or through someone else
  • followed,
  • monitored,
  • observed,
  • photographed,
  • surveilled,
  • threatened,
  • communicated to or about the petitioner, or
  • interfered with the petitioner's property
  using any action, method, device, or means;

or

• The respondent engaged in or caused someone else to engage in any of the following acts:
  • approached or confronted the petitioner;
  • appeared at petitioner's workplace or contacted petitioner's employer or co-workers;
  • appeared at petitioner's home or contacted petitioner's neighbors or entered property owned, leased, or occupied by the petitioner;
  • sent material to the petitioner by any means for the purpose of obtaining or disseminating information about the petitioner to a family member, household member, employer, co-worker, friend, or associate;
  • placed an object on or delivered an object to property owned, leased, or occupied by the petitioner or to petitioner's place of employment with intent that the object be delivered to the petitioner; or
  • used a computer, the Internet, text messaging, or any other electronic means.

The respondent had to do the behavior two or more times, and in a way that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress or to be afraid for the person's own safety or the safety of someone else. See Utah Code Section 76-5-106.5.

In addition to the statements in the Request for Civil Stalking Injunction, the petitioner must provide other evidence of stalking, like police reports, sworn statements from witnesses, audio or video tapes, other records, photos and letters.

Candidly, I don't think MS is in trouble.  What they did was subjectively tasteless, but I'm not sure it contravenes the law, at least to the extent a court would issue a stalking injunction (I've had a number of experiences of attempting, and failing, to obtain a civil stalking injunction in Utah based on facts considerably more serious than what Gerardo/Dehlin did).  Charlie Bird seems to be something of a public figure, and the Church's meetings are open to the public.  

I also can't go along with Equality Utah blaming Dehlin for "harassment" or "threats of violence" from other parties.  AFAICS, Dehlin did nothing to encourage that.

5. This appears to be opening up a rift between Dehlin and Equality Utah.  Dehlin just posted this on Reddit a few minutes ago:

Quote

Gerardo and I deeply regret if anyone has used our Mormon Stories podcast episode entitled “A New Norm? Married Gay Mormons Get Callings & The Sacrament” as an excuse to intimidate or threaten violence against Charlie Bird and Ryan Clifford. While many of us have been victims of the Mormon church’s well-established “Deznat” wing over the years, we want to state unequivocally that we condemn violence in all forms. We call on the Mormon church to clean up this toxic facet of its culture through the same church disciplinary process it has traditionally reserved for same-sex married couples and critics of the church.

I agree that such threats of violence are wholly inappropriate for Latter-day Saints.  Church discipline for those identified in making such threats appears to be within the parameters of the Church's policies as laid out in the Handbook.

Quote

We find Troy Williams’s characterization of Gerardo’s peaceful, unobtrusive attendance of a public LDS sacrament meeting as being comparable to the actions of Westboro Baptist Church or of historical LGBTQ “genital inspection” to be inflammatory and repugnant. We struggle to see how “punching down” on and defaming a queer Utahn and an LGBTQ ally/podcast host is befitting of the mission of Equality Utah. We also wonder if Troy’s outrage would be better directed at the toxic and often deadly LGBTQ doctrines, policies, and practices of the Mormon church.

Hosea 8:7 comes to mind: "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind."

The "whirlwind" can, I think, refer to adverse consequences coming from all quarters, including wrong ones.  John Dehlin has spent years deliberating stirring the pot and agitating against the Church, "sow{ing} the wind," so to speak.  It is wholly inappropriate for members of the Church to issue any threats of violence.  We must be civil and respectful.

Quote

That said, Gerardo and I express deep regret and apologize to both Charlie and Ryan, and to the broader Mormon and Ex-Mormon LGBTQ+ communities, for the way we handled this aspect of the episode. Everyone – public figures included – deserves a certain degree of privacy. We are deeply saddened and truly sorry to have played a part in any fear, distress, or division within the Utah LGBTQIA community. Gerardo and I have reached out to Charlie and Ryan directly, and look forward to meeting with them to offer a direct apology if and when they feel ready.

As the host of Mormon Stories Podcast, and as the Executive Director of the Open Stories Foundation, it is ultimately my responsibility to ensure that our podcast episodes conform with our values. For this episode, I clearly failed – and I want to take full responsibility for that. I am sorry – to Charlie and Ryan, to Gerardo, and to the broader community. As an organization, we are in the process of reflecting on this situation more deeply to come up with tangible changes to ensure that nothing like this happens again.

Credit where it's due.

Anyway, thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 6 by smac97

[Teancum]

7 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Deseret News: Equality Utah, other LGBTQ advocacy groups issue joint statement on controversial podcast

I hadn't heard about this.  From this Facebook post:

So the above statement references a "gay couple" which MS purportedly "spied on and harassed."

Back to the article:

Apparently this story pertains to two MS podcasts:

Published on January 25, 2023: "1858: Why are Mormons Confused Right Now? – Responding to Jacob Hansen’s Bigotry" - "Today we will be responding to Jacob Hansen’s video where he expresses the confusion that conservative Mormons are experiencing regarding the Church’s stances on LGBT issues."

Here is the summary of the video (nearly 2 hours) :

The part about about Charlie Bird and his husband, Ryan, having callings, leads me to think they are the "gay couple" referenced in the Facebook statement above.

Here is, I think, the second video referenced in the above Facebook post: "1859: A New Norm? Married Gay Mormons Get Callings & The Sacrament" - "Join us as we discuss the surprising events that challenge norms—married gay Mormons now receiving callings and participating in the sacrament. We will explore the impact, reactions, and implications of this new chapter, and discuss whether it marks a significant change in the community’s approach to inclusivity and acceptance."

Here is the summary of the video (1.5 hours) :

Here's a third one that seems to be related to the above two: "1860: Latter-Dazed And Confused – The Mormon NewsCast 007" - "On tonight’s Mormon Newscast program, we take a look at the mixed messages that Conservatives among the faith are struggling with around homosexuality and those who are Transgender. Including the perspectives on Doctrine that some conservative commentaries say are at the base of this issue."

Here is the summary of the video (nearly 2 hours) :

A few thoughts:

1. So the overarching story is about gay couples (and a trans person) who are being allowed to participate in the Church in normative ways (take the Sacrament, hold callings, etc.) despite acting in contravention of the doctrines of the Church (being in a same-sex marriage, etc.).  This is, for some, creating a perception of "mixed messaging" from the Church on issues pertaining to same-sex marriage, the Law of Chastity, etc.

2. It's a fair discussion to have.  I think the Church will need to sort these things out.

3. I am reminded of the hullabaloo a few years back when there was an alteration to BYU's Honor Code, which some took as some sort of oblique or "back door" announcement that same-sex relationships on their way to being recognized / allowed / ratified in the Church.  There was much angst and anger when, after some weeks, BYU clarified that nothing had changed.  I am concerned that something similar will happen with this story, or that we are already in the midst of that process.

4. Regarding whether MormonStories "spied" on Charlie Bird will require more information.  I don't presently have time to wade through hours of plodding MS podcasts.  I did see this summary on Reddit:

Hmm.  Here is a summary of how stalking injunctions work in Utah:

Candidly, I don't think MS is in trouble.  What they did was perhaps tasteless, but I'm not sure it contravenes the law, at least to the extent a court would issue a stalking injunction (I've had a number of experiences of attempting, and failing, to obtain a civil stalking injunction in Utah based on facts considerably more serious than what Gerardo/Dehlin did).  Charlie Bird seems to be something of a public figure, and the Church's meetings are open to the public.  

I also can't go along with Equality Utah blaming Dehlin for "harassment" or "threats of violence" from other parties.  AFAICS, Dehlin did nothing to encourage that.

5. This appears to be opening up a rift between Dehlin and Equality Utah.  Dehlin just posted this on Reddit a few minutes ago:

I agree that such threats of violence are wholly inappropriate for Latter-day Saints.  Church discipline for those identified in making such threats appears to be within the parameters of the Church's policies as laid out in the Handbook.

Hosea 8:7 comes to mind: "For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind."

The "whirlwind" can, I think, refer to adverse consequences coming from all quarters, including wrong ones.  John Dehlin has spent years deliberating stirring the pot and agitating against the Church, "sow{ing} the wind," so to speak.  It is wholly inappropriate for members of the Church to issue any threats of violence.  We must be civil and respectful.

Credit where it's due.Much noise about ni

Anyway, thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

Much noise about nothing.

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Much noise about nothing.

Could you elaborate?  You find no significance to the seeming inconsistencies being discussed re: privileges granted to some members of the Church in same-sex marriages and withheld from others in like circumstances?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Tacenda]

First thing I thought of is that maybe Charlie and his husband are worried that it brought too much attention to their activity in the ward and don't want it to rock the boat. 

Second, I'm glad JD is apologizing for the action of them (?) attending the ward of Charlie and his husband. That definitely shows a light on something that is meaningful to the two of them and they don't want outsiders knowing about it most likely. Or outsiders that may be the church leaders thinking they need to stop the situation stat. 

Just as area authorities did when finding out about women on the stand during Sacrament meeting in San Francisco/Oakland if remembering right. Which I found out were women designated to helping out the bishopric, another topic. 

This is still very new, I will give it a further look and come back, Smac. Thanks for posting this. 

Edited February 6 by Tacenda

[rpn]

Well that explains the r/latterdaysaints reddit thread.    Now locked:  "Church's stance on Gay Marriage"

I have a hard time understanding any basis for accepting people's recording others without their knowledge in religious settings, period (whether lawful or not).   This sounds particularly heinous and now that I understand the context, it will likely force the bishop to do what he might not have had any actual knowledge in the first place.   Which makes me really sad for those members who are doing their best to live righteously in difficult circumstances.  

But I'm hard pressed to understand why bishops would think they had to take church action against married gay couples, when we don't acknowledge those marriages as valid in the first place.   And bishops rarely (maybe never) look down on their congregations and say to themselves that they must tell so and so congregant not to take the sacrament (and if they did, who would enforce it anyway?) The handbook says not to prevent non-members from taking it.    I'm not even sure the church  could given that they cannot take action against membership without two witnesses and if neither of the pair are confessing to actual sin, how would a bishop have witnesses to anything improper that might be prompt for membership removal.    I'm wishing we had fewer Pharisees in our midst (or if not in our midst, circling around.)

ETA:  I was once in a public community job while worshiping in a ward that also contained one of the anchors of the local TV news.   Every time my beeper went off (before vibration notification)  he followed me out of the building (though at least he had the grace never to call or yell at me as I left, and he never sought special access either.  But it is hard enough to live life in Sunshine, when you've chosen it.    Don't wish it for anyone who hasn't.

Edited February 6 by rpn

[Calm]

Quote

Dehlin and Gerardo even admit they want to provoke the church to do something in response to them exposing this situation -- the situation being that Charlie takes the sacrament and has a calling.

This could be seen as harassment, a not quite as bad as calling their work to tell the boss to see their reaction.

I am not saying it is.  It depends on how much publicizing these couples have done on their own, imo.

Edited February 6 by Calm

[smac97]

2 hours ago, rpn said:

Well that explains the r/latterdaysaints reddit thread.    Now locked:  "Church's stance on Gay Marriage"

I have a hard time understanding any basis for accepting people's recording others without their knowledge in religious settings, period (whether lawful or not).   This sounds particularly heinous and now that I understand the context, it will likely force the bishop to do what he might not have had any actual knowledge in the first place.   Which makes me really sad for those members who are doing their best to live righteously in difficult circumstances.  

I agree with this.

2 hours ago, rpn said:

But I'm hard pressed to understand why bishops would think they had to take church action against married gay couples, when we don't acknowledge those marriages as valid in the first place.

It's a fair assumption that a married couple is engaging in sexual activity.  If a Latter-day Saint guy has a live-in girlfriend, the bishop would likely make a similar inference.  And since both forms of sexual activity violate the Law of Chastity, a bishop encountering one or the other circumstance may feel obligated to "take church action."

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 6 by smac97

[BlueDreams]

2 hours ago, rpn said:

Well that explains the r/latterdaysaints reddit thread.    Now locked:  "Church's stance on Gay Marriage"

I have a hard time understanding any basis for accepting people's recording others without their knowledge in religious settings, period (whether lawful or not).   This sounds particularly heinous and now that I understand the context, it will likely force the bishop to do what he might not have had any actual knowledge in the first place.   Which makes me really sad for those members who are doing their best to live righteously in difficult circumstances.  

But I'm hard pressed to understand why bishops would think they had to take church action against married gay couples, when we don't acknowledge those marriages as valid in the first place.   And bishops rarely (maybe never) look down on their congregations and say to themselves that they must tell so and so congregant not to take the sacrament (and if they did, who would enforce it anyway?) The handbook says not to prevent non-members from taking it.    I'm not even sure the church  could given that they cannot take action against membership without two witnesses and if neither of the pair are confessing to actual sin, how would a bishop have witnesses to anything improper that might be prompt for membership removal.    I'm wishing we had fewer Pharisees in our midst (or if not in our midst, circling around.)

ETA:  I was once in a public community job while worshiping in a ward that also contained one of the anchors of the local TV news.   Every time my beeper went off (before vibration notification)  he followed me out of the building (though at least he had the grace never to call or yell at me as I left, and he never sought special access either.  But it is hard enough to live life in Sunshine, when you've chosen it.    Don't wish it for anyone who hasn't.

FWIW, from what I gather from the podcast Charlie Bird is a part of, his bishop is well aware of their martial status. He does try to keep excess details about his ward life out of the public, while still generally talking positively about his personal ward experience. I doubt (or at least sincerely hope) it will change the dynamics in the ward much. I get the sense from Charlie's podcasts that quite often most are not trying to find reasons to excommunicate their ward members. The two obviously want to participate, maintain a respectful and generally positive relationship with their local and with the general church. I've never heard them advocate for change or what should be done in aggregate with church policies. They're just two men trying to find a balance between their spiritual and relational convictions. So I would assume their bishop has chosen a course that errors on the side of mercy rather then the letter of the law (or policies). 

 

 

As for what MS did I find it disturbing and invasive. Whether illegal or not, it's absolutely creepy and a violatuon of privacy.  

 

With luv,

BD 

[smac97]

From the Tribune: ‘Mormon Stories’ apologizes for detailing church activities of same-sex LDS couple

Quote

The “Mormon Stories” podcast, known for its lengthy interviews on controversial topics, issued an official apology Tuesday for attending the worship services of a gay Latter-day Saint man and his husband and sharing details of the couple’s church activity in a recent episode and accompanying social media posts.

Some activists with ties to the LGBTQ Latter-day Saint community, however, say the statement falls short of fully owning the harms they believe “Mormon Stories” committed not just against the podcast’s subjects but also the queer community generally.
...
{Gerardo} Sumano, in an interview with The Salt Lake Tribune, said this description mischaracterized his intentions and activities while attending the Jan. 28 sacrament meeting in Utah of Charlie Bird, who has written and spoken extensively about his life as an active Latter-day Saint gay man, and Bird’s husband. Sumano stressed that he did not confront the couple, and that he did not record the two men while he was there.

A big part of his mission was to witness and “celebrate” the couple’s acceptance by their fellow congregants, and in particular their ability to take the sacrament, or Communion, a ritual that Latter-day Saints consider to be the most sacred portion of weekly church services.

“I wanted to live this experience that,” he said, weeping, “never in my wildest dreams as a teenager who was going through conversion therapy, thought would ever be possible.”

{Sara Burlingame, executive director of Wyoming Equality}, calling the apology “a chaos machine,” said she believed “there’s a chasm between maybe what they intended and what the actual impact was,” which she, Williams and Soto all said has included online threats made against Bird, who gained prominence as Brigham Young University’s Cosmo mascot, and his husband.

In his response to Tuesday’s apology, Williams emphasized the need for additional action on the part of “Mormon Stories” going forward to make amends with the LGBTQ community.

“In Primary, Latter-day Saint children are taught the four R’s of repentance,” he said. “When you have hurt someone, you must first recognize the harm; second, feel genuine remorse; third, make restitution where possible; and fourth, resolve not to harm again. ‘Mormon Stories’ appears to be at step one. I hope they continue the process.”

I just can't get on board with blaming Mormon Stories for "online threats" from other persons.  There is no evidence that MS was intending to elicit such a reaction from anyone, or that a reasonable person could infer such an intent based on the actual content of the MS videos.

I'm no fan of Dehlin, but this line of reasoning fails out of the chute.

Fault for threats lies with those making them.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 6 by smac97

[BlueDreams]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

From the Tribune: ‘Mormon Stories’ apologizes for detailing church activities of same-sex LDS couple

I just can't get on board with blaming Mormon Stories for "online threats" from other persons.  There is no evidence that MS was intending to elicit such a reaction from anyone, or that a reasonable person could infer such an intent based on the actual content of the MS videos.

I'm no fan of Dehlin, but this line of reasoning fails out of the chute.

Thanks,

-Smac

Honestly I think someone would have to be part fool to not realize that in our day and age excessive public exposure, especially with something that can be seen as controversial, could lead to online harassment at the very least.  Feasibly personal harassment if enough private information is shared that they can piece together place of worship or residence. 

 

I don't get how a guy crying about conversion therapy might not get how publicly broadcasting about them might be a problem. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

[The Nehor]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

It's a fair assumption that a married couple is engaging in sexual activity.  If a Latter-day Saint guy has a live-in girlfriend, the bishop would likely make a similar inference.  And since both forms of sexual activity violate the Law of Chastity, a bishop encountering one or the other circumstance may feel obligated to "take church action."

I need to tell my ace friends that there is now a way to hack the system.

[pogi]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

It's a fair assumption that a married couple is engaging in sexual activity. 

I want to know who the heck these couples are 

First few years, sure!  After that, there aint no time or energy with kids.   

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Could you elaborate?  You find no significance to the seeming inconsistencies being discussed re: privileges granted to some members of the Church in same-sex marriages and withheld from others in like circumstances?

Thanks,

-Smac

I retract my comment. I posted it to soon.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

FWIW, from what I gather from the podcast Charlie Bird is a part of, his bishop is well aware of their martial status.

I assume you mean "marital status" (unless Charlie is a kickboxer or something  ).

I think the Church will need to address this.  We can't have bishops and stake presidents turning a blind eye to this sort of thing, nor can we have men serving in these callings shirking their responsibilities as Judges in Israel.  Every man of my acquaintance who has served as a bishop agrees that disciplinary matters are the worst and generally the most challenging aspect of the calling.  But it's part of the gig. 

It is not the province of an individual bishop to ignore duties of the callings which he finds difficult or unpleasant.  Section 32.6 of the Handbook lays things out:

Quote

32.6

Severity of the Sin and Church Policy

The severity of a sin is an important consideration in determining the setting that will (1) help protect others and (2) help a person repent. The Lord has said that He “cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance” (Doctrine and Covenants 1:31; see also Mosiah 26:29). His servants must not ignore evidence of serious sin.

Serious sins are a deliberate and major offense against the laws of God. Categories of serious sins are listed below.

• Violent acts and abuse (see 32.6.1.1 and 32.6.2.1)

• Sexual immorality (see 32.6.1.2 and 32.6.2.2)

• Fraudulent acts (see 32.6.1.3 and 32.6.2.3)

• Violations of trust (see 32.6.1.4 and 32.6.2.4)

• Some other acts (see 32.6.1.5 and 32.6.2.5)

The following sections describe when a membership council is required, when it may be necessary, and when it is not necessary.

"Sexual immorality" is covered in sections 32.6.1.2 and 32.6.2.2, the latter of which is potentially applicable here:

Quote

32.6.2.2

Sexual Immorality

The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of a legal marriage between a man and a woman (see Exodus 20:14; Doctrine and Covenants 63:16). A membership council may be necessary for sexual immorality as described in 38.6.5. In these situations, a council is more likely to be necessary to help a member repent if he or she has violated temple covenants or if the sin was repetitive. See 32.6.1.2 for when a council is required.

Section 32.6.2.5 provides a table that helps illustrate things:

Quote

When a Membership Council Is Required or May Be Necessary

Type of Sin	Membership Council Is Required (see 32.6.1)	Membership Council May Be Necessary (see 32.6.2)
Violent Acts and Abuse	Murder Rape Sexual assault conviction Child or youth abuse Violent predatory behavior	Attempted murder Sexual abuse, including assault and harassment (see 38.6.18 for when a council is required) Abuse of a spouse or another adult (see 38.6.2.4 for when a council is required)
Sexual Immorality	Incest Child pornography Plural marriage Sexual predatory behavior	Adultery, fornication, same-sex relations, and all other sexual relations outside of a legal marriage between a man and a woman, including sexual encounters online or over the phone Cohabitation, civil unions and partnerships, and same-sex marriage Intensive or compulsive use of pornography that has caused significant harm to a member’s marriage or family
Fraudulent Acts	Financial predatory behavior, such as fraud and similar activities (see 32.6.3.3 if a member was involved in embezzlement of Church funds or property)	Robbery, burglary, theft, or embezzlement (see 32.6.3.3 if a member was involved in embezzlement of Church funds or property) Perjury
Violations of Trust	Serious sin while holding a prominent Church position	Serious sin while holding a position of authority or trust in the Church or the community (see 32.6.3.3 if a member was involved in embezzlement of Church funds or property) Serious sin that is widely known
Some Other Acts	Most felony convictions	Abortion (unless an exception in 38.6.1 applies) Pattern of serious sins Deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, including nonpayment of child support and alimony Sale of illegal drugs Other serious criminal acts

"When a membership council may be necessary" includes "same-sex relations, and all other sexual relations outside of a legal marriage between a man and a woman, including sexual encounters online or over the phone."

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

He does try to keep excess details about his ward life out of the public, while still generally talking positively about his personal ward experience. I doubt (or at least sincerely hope) it will change the dynamics in the ward much. I get the sense from Charlie's podcasts that quite often most are not trying to find reasons to excommunicate their ward members.

That has been true for a long time.  I have been involved in several dozen disciplinary matters, with not a single one of the resulting in the loss of the individual's membership in the Church.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

The two obviously want to participate, maintain a respectful and generally positive relationship with their local and with the general church. I've never heard them advocate for change or what should be done in aggregate with church policies. They're just two men trying to find a balance between their spiritual and relational convictions.

And yet . . . the Law of Chastity.

If they were just two people, an unmarried man living with and having a sexual relationship with his live-in girlfriend, the impact on their membership would seem to be understood.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

So I would assume their bishop has chosen a course that errors on the side of mercy rather then the letter of the law (or policies). 

I will leave this issue to the bishop and those with stewardship over him.

1 hour ago, BlueDreams said:

As for what MS did I find it disturbing and invasive. Whether illegal or not, it's absolutely creepy and a violatuon of privacy.  

Agreed.  But John Dehlin has been doing the odious/creepy thing for a while now.  He just happened to have caught the attention - and the ire - of a gay rights group which decided to call him out.

Thanks,

-Smac

[blackstrap]

What if... one of the couple had an extramarital affair , could he be disciplined for adultery ? 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, BlueDreams said:

don't get how a guy crying about conversion therapy might not get how publicly broadcasting about them might be a problem. 

As an alleged LGBT+ ally, he should be naturally erring on the side of caution since he should be very familiar with harrassment….especially given some of the things I have seen him throw a fit about himself.  That his first public reaction is going on attack, telling those LGBT+ organizations critiquing him that they didn’t know what they were talking about (if I understood the article correctly) and they should be apologizing to him is part and parcel of what I see as the real him (he needs to get some impulse control given the number of times he has to retract stuff, though usually iirc he just deletes and ignores).

Edited February 7 by Calm

[rpn]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

It's a fair assumption that a married couple is engaging in sexual activity.

I don't think it is a fair assumption.   I know a number of same sex couples who wanted the protections and joys of having a spouse, but who have determined that they will honor their obligation to not have sex with their partner, sometimes for tax or insurance coverage reasons, others because they don't want to disobey commandments.   Further they cannot produce children, which is the time honored way of proving sinful behavior, after all.  

[rpn]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Quote

Expand  

I just can't get on board with blaming Mormon Stories for "online threats" from other persons.  There is no evidence that MS was intending to elicit such a reaction from anyone, or that a reasonable person could infer such an intent based on the actual content of the MS videos.

Oh, if only John Dehlin deserved such deference.   His whole point was stirring up controversy to sell his business. 

[smac97]

28 minutes ago, rpn said:

Oh, if only John Dehlin deserved such deference.   His whole point was stirring up controversy to sell his business. 

"Stirring up controversy" is one thing, inciting others to threats of violence is quite another.  Dehlin has done the former in spades, but AFAICS, none of the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, smac97 said:

"Stirring up controversy" is one thing, inciting others to threats of violence is quite another.  Dehlin has done the former in spades, but AFAICS, none of the latter.

Thanks,

-Smac

He has incited harassment, as in telling people to call employers.

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, Calm said:

He has incited harassment, as in telling people to call employers.

Hadn't heard about this.  Could you elaborate?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, rpn said:

I don't think it is a fair assumption.   I know a number of same sex couples who wanted the protections and joys of having a spouse, but who have determined that they will honor their obligation to not have sex with their partner, sometimes for tax or insurance coverage reasons, others because they don't want to disobey commandments.   Further they cannot produce children, which is the time honored way of proving sinful behavior, after all.  

On my first read through I was trying to figure out what tax and insurance advantages there are if you don’t have sex with your spouse.

Edited February 7 by The Nehor

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Hadn't heard about this.  Could you elaborate?

Probably not, one case I am not going to ask for permission as I don’t want to put them back in the target zone and the other was shared by someone publicly iirc, but it was years ago and I can’t remember who it was, but I will ask if anyone else remembers this. 

[BlueDreams]

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I assume you mean "marital status" (unless Charlie is a kickboxer or something  ).

Hazards of quick phone responses

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think the Church will need to address this.  We can't have bishops and stake presidents turning a blind eye to this sort of thing, nor can we have men serving in these callings shirking their responsibilities as Judges in Israel.  Every man of my acquaintance who has served as a bishop agrees that disciplinary matters are the worst and generally the most challenging aspect of the calling.  But it's part of the gig.

That's an assumption about what the bishop has or hasn't done in this individual case based off of what you assume should be done in aggregate. Note that in what you quoted, same-sex relations are not under the mandatory member council list. There's a lot of space to come to an agreement on what will not happen and what will within a ward setting that doesn't include formal proceedings. My guess is they're not given callings that call for a practicing ordained priesthood member and they aren't given temple recommends. But that would be based on inference based on what I've listened to on the podcast. I'm not going to insist what the bishop should have done as it's not my calling and the two men are not within my stewardship. I would hate to see the church "address this" because some a-holes decided to try and stir the pot for this unwilling couple, when they have thoroughly tried to avoid pot-stirring and to be a positive addition to their local ward. 

14 hours ago, smac97 said:

And yet . . . the Law of Chastity.

If they were just two people, an unmarried man living with and having a sexual relationship with his live-in girlfriend, the impact on their membership would seem to be understood.

Funny enough, my mom fit this descriptor back in the day. She got pregnant before marrying her current husband, who was also a new convert. The bishop decided not to hold any form of a council considering their circumstances. If you want it to be the same, let it be treated the same. Let the bishop be the primary decider of what makes the most sense for this couple's individual circumstance, let us in the peanut gallery hold our peace, and let's not have people purposely trying to make drama/controversy via stalking/glorified gossip have a voice in their ward lives by their inappropriate behaviors. 

 

With luv,

BD

[MustardSeed]

40 minutes ago, BlueDreams said:

when they have thoroughly tried to avoid pot-stirring and to be a positive addition to their local ward. 

Slow clap.  
postscript to say, if the issue at hand is the “ worthiness” to take the sacrament, I wouldn’t be surprised.  Our church is very comfortable operating from a place of punishment and reward.
when I get to heaven, I will ask God, why would the sacrament be withheld from the people who just may need it the most? Though I will be challenged on this, I’m comfortable believing God will say “that was never my rule.” 
 

it wasn’t that long ago that members deemed as unworthy were announced from the pulpit and excommunicated in front of everybody. I know there are some here who believe that changes at church are an evidence of softness, weakness and apostasy.

I call the changes that have occurred and will continue to occur( though woefully late IMO, ) emotional maturity. Much like the changes of society has made to make way for people other than those traditionally in charge, the majority, the fittest, etc…. 
The changes we will see will be to some a tragedy, to those like me, a eucatastrophe. I look forward to every minor and major changes that give more people a path back. 

 

Edited February 7 by MustardSeed