The path for homosexuals in LDS theology

[SeattleUte]

There's no defence for Nelson's tweet. It's beyond idiotic. Unfortunately, the included response to his tweet is equally ineffective in making a sincere, valid point. Primarily, due to hyperbole of the text, but also, inanely, due to summary insinuation that: "Mormons had it coming because they too (allegedly) made threats?" Does the person who wrote that response understand what he is advocating? Does any person or group, per this situation truly have it coming?

What is a tragedy, which has largely gone unnoticed, is the nature of the letter sent to the Big12 presidents. It is a not so thinly veiled threat, calculated in its intent to harm and punish. For groups, supposedly so desperate for dialogue and understanding that's unfortunate. But such is politics. (just imagine if a different track was taken—perhaps more remarkable things could've been achieved, greater than the state of Utah evolving LGBT rights protection laws etc.) It's a missed opportunity.

To be clear, my post here is not a defence of BYU, the honour code etc. Personally, I do not think BYU is getting an invite to the Big12, and it has nothing to do with the letter. It's much larger than that, and to be blunt it is bigotry of a type that will keep BYU out. And please don't insult by pretending it is anything more than that. No, I do not have a persecution complex. No, I am not a pessimist, nor am I dismayed. It just is what it is.

Of course, lastly, what is equally disgusting is the barely contained sense of glee with which a few on this board are discussing this. It's disappointing. But again, it's my own fault for thinking I would come here and find anything different. Now that's sad. Oh, well. Go Cougars! And I hope the Utes do well this year also (except on September 10).

too blue and I have had our clashes, but I don't think he's trolling here. I don't disagree with this except that I would I would replace "bigotry" with "values" and I'm not disgusted at the glee here. I've been saying what too blue says here for 15 years on the Internet, and accurately predicting BYU's power conference fates. Did anyone see Ted Miller's response to Neuheisal's spectacularly ignorant comment that UCLA should get away from having to compete with USC by going to the Big 12, TAMU style? His point was exactly right. Conference affiliation is not mostly about football or money.

Too blue is right. BYU will not get a B12 invitation; not a chance. The LGBT letter will not be the reason, but it's not unrelated to the real overarching problem BYU has. Of course, values are partly about right and wrong, and so pardon some of us for being gleeful at BYU's karma for its bad values.

[SeattleUte]

Had I not read about it on CS and here I probably wouldn't have found out about the LGBT letter. I google it and get CBN, cougarboard, Fox at the top of the list covering it. Which goes to show you what a tempest in a teapot relative to the greater world this Big 12 expansion story is. And which in an ironic way just reinforces the point that there's more going on in college football than the games and the relatively insignificant increments of money involved in whether or not the B12 expands or takes BYU or someone else.

[tooblue]

too blue and I have had our clashes, but I don't think he's trolling here. I don't disagree with this except that I would I would replace "bigotry" with "values" and I'm not disgusted at the glee here. I've been saying what too blue says here for 15 years on the Internet, and accurately predicting BYU's power conference fates. Did anyone see Ted Miller's response to Neuheisal's spectacularly ignorant comment that UCLA should get away from having to compete with USC by going to the Big 12, TAMU style? His point was exactly right. Conference affiliation is not mostly about football or money.

Too blue is right. BYU will not get a B12 invitation; not a chance. The LGBT letter will not be the reason, but it's not unrelated to the real overarching problem BYU has. Of course, values are partly about right and wrong, and so pardon some of us for being gleeful at BYU's karma for its bad values.

Values: a person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life.

You already undermined your argument above, concerning values, by taking the positon you did when you posted the New Yorker Article. By your own actions and admission values in American (Western) society are screwed up—there is no clearly defined right or wrong, because there is no mechanism by which values can be or are effectively being taught in society in general. But is this really an issue of right and wrong, as though right and wrong is matter of absolutes. Certainly not. There are no absolutes. Also, karma begets karma, and it is indiscriminate. Lest we forget. All three major Universities in Utah are being investigated by the feds for similar reasons:

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3850379-155/new-graduate-says-university-of-utah

So, if you are now claiming that there are clearly definable rights and wrongs, then the only conclusion that can be drawn in this situation, is that BYU's targeting for shunning and their potential exclusion is representative of a type of bigotry ...

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Considering two charter members of the Big12 have ‘codes of conduct’ of their own, nearly identical in language to that of BYU’s honor code, demonstrates the absurd bigotry of this particular situation, and the underlying bigotry in general concerning BYU. Bigotry is fuelled by ignorance, which is exacerbated by fear, specifically of the ‘other.’ There is no more easily identifiable other—with the exception of Muslims—in American society than Mormons. And it is bigotry, precisely because of the abject lack of understanding that each respective honor code is, principally, the same. But one’s code is deemed more abhorrent than the other, due exclusively to the fact one code belongs to the Mormon University.

Which brings up an interesting thought. How can one forgive someone for doing something wrong (your gleeful attitude), regardless how right they presume their position to be? Wrong is wrong, especially if you are now saying there are such things as clearly definable rights and wrongs.

Of course, as you have made clear with your previous position on the the subject of values, we live in a society where moral relativism is the norm. Wrong is only wrong, when you deem it to be wrong. And it’s OK for you, and any other Ute to claim moral superiority in this instance, because it brings you joy. And obviously, there is no discrimination of any kind on the U of U campus. Just like the problems with regards to sexual assaults are exclusive to BYU and Utah State (except when they are not. See linked article above). And I suppose your devout Mormon coaches weren't sanctioned for holding ad hoc institute classes on campus ... or ...

[SeattleUte]

Values: a person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life.

You already undermined your argument above, concerning values, by taking the positon you did when you posted the New Yorker Article. By your own actions and admission values in American (Western) society are screwed up—there is no clearly defined right or wrong, because there is no mechanism by which values can be or are effectively being taught in society in general. But is this really an issue of right and wrong, as though right and wrong is matter of absolutes. Certainly not. There are no absolutes. Also, karma begets karma, and it is indiscriminate. Lest we forget. All three major Universities in Utah are being investigated by the feds for similar reasons:

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3850379-155/new-graduate-says-university-of-utah

So, if you are now claiming that there are clearly definable rights and wrongs, then the only conclusion that can be drawn in this situation, is that BYU's targeting for shunning and their potential exclusion is representative of a type of bigotry ...

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Considering two charter members of the Big12 have ‘codes of conduct’ of their own, nearly identical in language to that of BYU’s honor code, demonstrates the absurd bigotry of this particular situation, and the underlying bigotry in general concerning BYU. Bigotry is fuelled by ignorance, which is exacerbated by fear, specifically of the ‘other.’ There is no more easily identifiable other—with the exception of Muslims—in American society than Mormons. And it is bigotry, precisely because of the abject lack of understanding that each respective honor code is, principally, the same. But one’s code is deemed more abhorrent than the other, due exclusively to the fact one code belongs to the Mormon University.

Which brings up an interesting thought. How can one forgive someone for doing something wrong (your gleeful attitude), regardless how right they presume their position to be? Wrong is wrong, especially if you are now saying there are such things as clearly definable rights and wrongs.

Of course, as you have made clear with your previous position on the the subject of values, we live in a society where moral relativism is the norm. Wrong is only wrong, when you deem it to be wrong. And it’s OK for you, and any other Ute to claim moral superiority in this instance, because it brings you joy. And obviously, there is no discrimination of any kind on the U of U campus. Just like the problems with regards to sexual assaults are exclusive to BYU and Utah State (except when they are not. See linked article above). And I suppose your devout Mormon coaches weren't sanctioned for holding ad hoc institute classes on campus ... or ...

You keep using that word bigotry. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Society is as value oriented as ever, but the values have changed, as have the arbiters of values.

[LA Ute]

Society is as value oriented as ever, but the values have changed, as have the arbiters of values.

That phrase caught my eye. What do you mean by it?

[SeattleUte]

That phrase caught my eye. What do you mean by it?

Well, clearly the dominant if not only institution that decided values was once religion. Religion's importance has been steadily diminishing for almost 500 years, and that diminishment is steadily accelerating. Now we do have values, and plenty of arbiters shouting them at us--universities, scientists including prominently right now climatologists, politicians, the U.S. Supreme Court, legislators, professional media, bloggers, artists of all kinds, museums, religion (though still shrinking); the list goes on and on, a manifestation of our freedoms, and the increasing power of the Internet. It's a beautiful mess! Life was simpler when just the Church told you what was right and wrong, wasn't it. Yet still we are able to reach consensus as a people, as with same sex marriage and civil rights, labor and employment laws that protect pregnant women, for example.

[tooblue]

You keep using that word bigotry. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Society is as value oriented as ever, but the values have changed, as have the arbiters of values.

Interesting, we agree then—values are arbitrary: based on whim, rather than reason.

Also, I think you are right. Though I did include the definition of the word bigotry as taken from a dictionary, I agree that its not the right word. Prejudice is a better fit ... especially in light of your use of the term arbitrary.

[SeattleUte]

Interesting, we agree then—values are arbitrary: based on whim, rather than reason.

Also, I think you are right. Though I did include the definition of the word bigotry as taken from a dictionary, I agree that its not the right word. Prejudice is a better fit ... especially in light of your use of the term arbitrary.

There's nothing about what I said that suggests values aren't currently based on reason. On the contrary. Universities and scientists are among the arbiters I cited.

This is MW's "full definition" of bigotry: a person who is obstinately (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obstinate) or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Religious belief in absurd or hateful things doesn't qualify as ethnic group. Sorry. One of the better part of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" is his rant against the popular belief that religious belief gets a pass from the usual critique of absurd or hateful beliefs. I do think that that is changing, and religious belief is now held to similar standards as other beliefs that don't bear the religious armor.

[tooblue]

There's nothing about what I said that suggests values aren't currently based on reason. On the contrary. Universities and scientists are among the arbiters I cited.

This is MW's "full definition" of bigotry: a person who is obstinately (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obstinate) or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Religious belief in absurd or hateful things doesn't qualify as ethnic group. Sorry. One of the better part of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" is his rant against the popular belief that religious belief gets a pass from the usual critique of absurd or hateful beliefs. I do think that that is changing, and religious belief is now held to similar standards as other beliefs that don't bear the religious armor.

Are you now trying to walk back what you wrote (and what in hades is MW)? You chose the word arbitrary, which Google defines as: "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

https://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define+arbitrary&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=4kmyV5WAKIbB8gfHk7XoDQ

That then leads to the rational conclusion, with which I agree, that bigotry (a word I used and defined, again using Google) is not the correct word to employ in describing this situation with BYU. Prejudice is therefore the better word, because it suits the notion of "arbitrary values" so well. Again, according to Google Prejudice can be defined as: "preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience."

https://www.google.ca/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=define+prejudice&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&gfe_rd=cr&ei=qUuyV5rTGonF8ge53YywCw

Thank you for the added clarity, and for helping make my argument that much more cogent. We should work together more often.

[Scratch]

Values: a person's principles or standards of behavior; one's judgment of what is important in life.

You already undermined your argument above, concerning values, by taking the positon you did when you posted the New Yorker Article. By your own actions and admission values in American (Western) society are screwed up—there is no clearly defined right or wrong, because there is no mechanism by which values can be or are effectively being taught in society in general. But is this really an issue of right and wrong, as though right and wrong is matter of absolutes. Certainly not. There are no absolutes. Also, karma begets karma, and it is indiscriminate. Lest we forget. All three major Universities in Utah are being investigated by the feds for similar reasons:

http://www.sltrib.com/home/3850379-155/new-graduate-says-university-of-utah

So, if you are now claiming that there are clearly definable rights and wrongs, then the only conclusion that can be drawn in this situation, is that BYU's targeting for shunning and their potential exclusion is representative of a type of bigotry ...

Bigotry: intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.

Considering two charter members of the Big12 have ‘codes of conduct’ of their own, nearly identical in language to that of BYU’s honor code, demonstrates the absurd bigotry of this particular situation, and the underlying bigotry in general concerning BYU. Bigotry is fuelled by ignorance, which is exacerbated by fear, specifically of the ‘other.’ There is no more easily identifiable other—with the exception of Muslims—in American society than Mormons. And it is bigotry, precisely because of the abject lack of understanding that each respective honor code is, principally, the same. But one’s code is deemed more abhorrent than the other, due exclusively to the fact one code belongs to the Mormon University.

Which brings up an interesting thought. How can one forgive someone for doing something wrong (your gleeful attitude), regardless how right they presume their position to be? Wrong is wrong, especially if you are now saying there are such things as clearly definable rights and wrongs.

Of course, as you have made clear with your previous position on the the subject of values, we live in a society where moral relativism is the norm. Wrong is only wrong, when you deem it to be wrong. And it’s OK for you, and any other Ute to claim moral superiority in this instance, because it brings you joy. And obviously, there is no discrimination of any kind on the U of U campus. Just like the problems with regards to sexual assaults are exclusive to BYU and Utah State (except when they are not. See linked article above). And I suppose your devout Mormon coaches weren't sanctioned for holding ad hoc institute classes on campus ... or ...

The problem is that you are using the most neutral definition of the word bigotry, but then attributing the implications that go along with the harshest definition of the word. Under your definition, bigotry, in many instances, would be not only appropriate but an absolute good. We should all have intolerance for the KKK or Isis. Those are examples of intolerance that is extremely beneficial.

[Scratch]

There's nothing about what I said that suggests values aren't currently based on reason. On the contrary. Universities and scientists are among the arbiters I cited.

This is MW's "full definition" of bigotry: a person who is obstinately (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obstinate) or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Religious belief in absurd or hateful things doesn't qualify as ethnic group. Sorry. One of the better part of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" is his rant against the popular belief that religious belief gets a pass from the usual critique of absurd or hateful beliefs. I do think that that is changing, and religious belief is now held to similar standards as other beliefs that don't bear the religious armor.

You don't need to go anywhere near this far. I share a lot of the same values as TB, but he's acting silly to chalk up any anti-BYU sentiments to inherently negative bigotry or prejudice. Look at your definition for bigotry (which is much better than his definition); bigotry requires regarding the members of another group with "hatred and intolerance." If B12 presidents (or PAC-12 presidents) say they don't want to associate with BYU because they disagree with BYU's positions on LGBT issues, that alone certainly doesn't rise to "hatred and intolerance." You can disagree with someone or something and elect to not associate with them without having that constitute "hatred and intolerance." Seattle, you don't have to stake the extreme position here (that its OK to act with hatred and intolerance to someone who espouses LDS values) to discredit TB's narrative of pernicious bigotry and prejudice.

[tooblue]

You don't need to go anywhere near this far. I share a lot of the same values as TB, but he's acting silly to chalk up any anti-BYU sentiments to inherently negative bigotry or prejudice. Look at your definition for bigotry (which is much better than his definition); bigotry requires regarding the members of another group with "hatred and intolerance." If B12 presidents (or PAC-12 presidents) say they don't want to associate with BYU because they disagree with BYU's positions on LGBT issues, that alone certainly doesn't rise to "hatred and intolerance." You can disagree with someone or something and elect to not associate with them without having that constitute "hatred and intolerance." Seattle, you don't have to stake the extreme position here (that its OK to act with hatred and intolerance to someone who espouses LDS values) to discredit TB's narrative of pernicious bigotry and prejudice.

I appreciate you feel I'm acting silly, but my position is based on personal experience, specifically in arts related academia. My use of bigotry is accurate, especially if you replace the term "hatred" with "fear" ... and intolerance, which I have first hand experience with. But in the larger sense, with regards to this discussion, the term prejudice is perhaps more accurate, because by all accounts the writers of the LGBT letter were acting from a position of ignorance. BYU was perceived only as an easy target, and it is naive to believe it was not, in part guided by hatred. EDIT: Also, I have experienced that hatred face-to-face. It's very real.

[sancho]

If B12 presidents (or PAC-12 presidents) say they don't want to associate with BYU because they disagree with BYU's positions on LGBT issues, that alone certainly doesn't rise to "hatred and intolerance."

True, but let's not forget that BYU failed to get enough yes votes even before the letter. In the end, if BYU misses out, it will be due to their lack of success on the field and poor choice of location. If brother brigham had opened the university in Adam Ondi Aman, the cougars would be in for sure.

[SeattleUte]

Seattle, you don't have to stake the extreme position here (that its OK to act with hatred and intolerance to someone who espouses LDS values) to discredit TB's narrative of pernicious bigotry and prejudice.

Of course I agree with you up to this sentence. I am not saying that. Here is where I actually agree with too blue. He was somewhat vague in his earlier post that elicited my first response. But what he said essentially is that it's not just about LGTB--the P12 and the B12 have issues about a whole host of factors that together comprise essentially what BYU stands for--BYU's reputation.

Long before a majority of Americans supported same sex marriage, same sex marriage was a constitutional right, or Proposition 8 backfired on the LDS Church, BYU had no chance of being admitted to the Pac 12. And quite obviously it had nothing to do with fan base, access to media outlets, or football tradition. You can identify the factors I'm talking about in terms of discrete policies or events--BYU's expulsion of the Rodin statue of JTB, the lack of academic freedom (if today a professor started writing and speaking advocating for LGTB he'd be fired), the bias for Mormons as reflected by the tuition, the failure of BYU if not the LDS Church to reckon with its and the mother church's racist past (I bet many professors at southern universities have written a great deal lamenting and condemning Jim Crow), the explicitly atavistic doctrines regarding women, the biblical/scriptural literalism, the bigotry against LGTB, even Sunday no play, rejection of federal funds for research, and the lack of independence of the university from the Church. I could go on.

The last factor I listed differentiates BYU from any other religious school in the country, except maybe Catholic university. LDS GAs sit on BYU's board. BYU is more dependent on LDS funding than Utah is on state funding. The Catholic Church does not own Notre Dame or Georgetown; but the BYU is simply an LDS Church asset. Yet the LDS Church is uniquely hierarchical--like Catholicism. BYU is a department or a part of this hierarchy. BYU's bigotry against LGTB didn't matter so much ten years ago, and it's just one of many factors now.

The foregoing adds up to BYU's character, makes it a lot different than any other high profile university in the country, and what it is holistically, and makes what BYU stands for strongly at odds with the prevailing values in Austin, Lawrence, Norman, or Ames. With respect to the Pac 12, this now is obvious (it was always obvious to me). Why else did the Pac 12 take Utah and not even consider BYU? BYU fans have thought that because Big 12 schools come from red states where religion still is vital it would be different. But what they overlook is that what matters is the culture at the universities. University culture tends not to be so different from campus to campus. The University of Utah or the University of Texas or Stanford or Berkely are a lot more alike than the populations that surround them. This is why BYU won't get a Big 12 offer. And I submit it's values and not bigotry.

[Rocker Ute]

@Seattle, spend some time in the south and you'll realize that the B12 universities are accustomed to dealing with racist pasts and presents. Even among academia in the south this is not a disqualifier. Having spent significant time in B12 territory I was shocked by the blatant racism that still exists. Where I thought the KKK was limited to the back woods of Mississippi, it is alive and well in major metropolitan areas in Texas, Oklahoma etc.

I almost guarantee that no B12 school is critical of BYU on that matter.

Aside from that, I agree that BYU has too much baggage. Part of that is Mormons don't worship "tha same Jesus that ah do..."

@tooblue we appreciate your art acedemia experiences but you act as if no one else has exposure to LGBT issues, experiences and people.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sancho]

Why else did the Pac 12 take Utah and not even consider BYU?

The could have only been one team from Utah, and only one team had a pair of bcs wins. Maybe the factors you mention would have been important under different circumstances, but they never even came up.

[SeattleUte]

The could have only been one team from Utah, and only one team had a pair of bcs wins. Maybe the factors you mention would have been important under different circumstances, but they never even came up.

You're such a homer. This post is embarrassing. I guarantee Utah getting the gold ring and BYU not even being in the discussion wasn't because of a perceived edge in Utah's football tradition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SeattleUte]

@Seattle, spend some time in the south and you'll realize that the B12 universities are accustomed to dealing with racist pasts and presents. Even among academia in the south this is not a disqualifier. Having spent significant time in B12 territory I was shocked by the blatant racism that still exists. Where I thought the KKK was limited to the back woods of Mississippi, it is alive and well in major metropolitan areas in Texas, Oklahoma etc.

I almost guarantee that no B12 school is critical of BYU on that matter.

Aside from that, I agree that BYU has too much baggage. Part of that is Mormons don't worship "tha same Jesus that ah do..."

@tooblue we appreciate your art acedemia experiences but you act as if no one else has exposure to LGBT issues, experiences and people.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No doubt there is a lot of racism in those states. But the universities perceive themselves as islands of enlightenment in this sea of barbarism. The universities have reckoned with their own institutional racist history and continue to do so with respect to that of the population that surrounds them.

You suggest that the universities are forgiving of BYU's racist baggage because racism still prevails around the universities. I disagree. The universities don't consider themselves as racist; they regard themselves as having expiated themselves. The biggest and most influential player here is Texas. Have you ever been to Austin? It's like the Bay Area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sancho]

You're such a homer. This post is embarrassing. I guarantee Utah getting the gold ring and BYU not even being in the discussion wasn't because of a perceived edge in Utah's football tradition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah, but I guarantee it was. My guarantee as a homer is worth as much as yours as a hater.

I said nothing about tradition. They needed one Utah team. There was one Utah team that had recently competed for a national title. It was easy. There was only one columnist in the world who even stopped to think "wait, why Utah instead of BYU?" and his name was Dick Harmon. Everyone outside of Provo saw the news and said, "yeah, makes sense."

[SeattleUte]

Ah, but I guarantee it was. My guarantee as a homer is worth as much as yours as a hater.

I said nothing about tradition. They needed one Utah team. There was one Utah team that had recently competed for a national title. It was easy. There was only one columnist in the world who even stopped to think "wait, why Utah instead of BYU?" and his name was Dick Harmon. Everyone outside of Provo saw the news and said, "yeah, makes sense."

I'm not going to wade into this debate with you except to say this. Someone who loves Utah ought to be more proud about the real reason the Pac 12 wanted Utah--the reason I have identified--than the football team having won two BCS games. If you disagree, your values are lacking.

[sancho]

I'm not going to wade into this debate with you except to say this. Someone who loves Utah ought to be more proud about the real reason the Pac 12 wanted Utah--the reason I have identified--than the football team having won two BCS games. If you disagree, your values are lacking.

I've never been very good at values.

There's no way Utah gets in without football success. The fact that Utah is a great university made the decision all the easier. It was a great situation for the Pac. Who knows what they would have done if we had never had 2004 and 2008? Maybe they don't expand at all. Maybe they add boise.

Football success may or may not be a sufficient condition, but it is definitely a necessary condition.

[SeattleUte]

I've never been very good at values.

There's no way Utah gets in without football success. The fact that Utah is a great university made the decision all the easier. It was a great situation for the Pac. Who knows what they would have done if we had never had 2004 and 2008? Maybe they don't expand at all. Maybe they add boise.

Football success may or may not be a sufficient condition, but it is definitely a necessary condition.

Really? Is that why the Big 10 wanted Rutgers. Regardless, now you're evading the issue.

As I've said to BYU fans for many years, it's the CULTure.

Also, anytime anyone mentions Boise, especially with respect to the Pac 12, their cred is automatically gone.

[sancho]

Really? Is that why the Big 10 wanted Rutgers. Regardless, now you're evading the issue.


You are right. Rutgers proves that football is not a necessary condition. I guess it's football/large market.

You may be right about BYU and culture. All I know is that it never came to that for the Pac. They never had to spend a second thinking about it because they already had a no-drawback team in Utah that was better.

[SeattleUte]

You are right. Rutgers proves that football is not a necessary condition. I guess it's football/large market.

You may be right about BYU and culture. All I know is that it never came to that for the Pac. They never had to spend a second thinking about it because they already had a no-drawback team in Utah that was better.

yeah, it's going to be a bit harder for the B12 to explain. Like "the others weren't the best fit". Or, "geographically, we wanted to stay within our current footprint and give West Virginia a natural partner." No Sunday play provides a good euphemism--"we just didn't want football only". But they won't even have to go that far.

[SeattleUte]

You are right. Rutgers proves that football is not a necessary condition. I guess it's football/large market.

You may be right about BYU and culture. All I know is that it never came to that for the Pac. They never had to spend a second thinking about it because they already had a no-drawback team in Utah that was better.

BYU may have a bigger market than Rutgers.

[Rocker Ute]

No doubt there is a lot of racism in those states. But the universities perceive themselves as islands of enlightenment in this sea of barbarism. The universities have reckoned with their own institutional racist history and continue to do so with respect to that of the population that surrounds them.

You suggest that the universities are forgiving of BYU's racist baggage because racism still prevails around the universities. I disagree. The universities don't consider themselves as racist; they regard themselves as having expiated themselves. The biggest and most influential player here is Texas. Have you ever been to Austin? It's like the Bay Area.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I actually used to live in Austin and was within blocks of the UT campus and would frequently go on campus, which is why I say what I say. As progressive and liberal Austin is as a town (and it is one of the few places on earth I would consider living) there is a underlying tolerance and acceptance of racism. I remember being shocked by this because I felt like (and still do) that I was exposed to far less open and institutional racism in Utah than I was there. Seriously.

In fact, I walked past the Jefferson Davis statue mentioned below at least once a week. That these statues are still up on campus (and the hubbub surrounding proposals to move them) should tell you everything you need to know: http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-texas-jefferson-davis-statue-20150814-story.html

Many of these B12 schools, including its largest and most influential are not the islands you say they are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Applejack]

I agree with SU on this: BYU's culture made the PACs decision easy and it will make the BIG 12 take a long pause. I also agree that the schools of the BIG 12 are not like the voters in those states. With that said, they seem more open to a formerly racist and currently homophobic university than the PAC.

[SeattleUte]

I actually used to live in Austin and was within blocks of the UT campus and would frequently go on campus, which is why I say what I say. As progressive and liberal Austin is as a town (and it is one of the few places on earth I would consider living) there is a underlying tolerance and acceptance of racism. I remember being shocked by this because I felt like (and still do) that I was exposed to far less open and institutional racism in Utah than I was there. Seriously.

In fact, I walked past the Jefferson Davis statue mentioned below at least once a week. That these statues are still up on campus (and the hubbub surrounding proposals to move them) should tell you everything you need to know: http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-texas-jefferson-davis-statue-20150814-story.html

Many of these B12 schools, including its largest and most influential are not the islands you say they are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am sure that the decision-makers at Texas and their true constituents--trustees, faculty (including a number of Nobel Prize winners, Pulitzer Prize winners, former or current Court of Appeals judges, Supreme Court clerks, you get the picture), and administrators--regard themselves of the same mindset about race as their counterparts in the Pac 12. They do have a different challenge with their forum state's racist past and unique residual racism (and homophobia). No doubt they regard themselves as benighted Texas's salvation in this regard. They certainly care most about their school's reputation, and don't want to feed misperceptions such as you have here expressed. As for the Davis statue, I'll refer you to Princeton's dilemma about Wilson statues and similar problems at campuses all over the country.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Rocker, what is your time frame in Austin? After you talking about your mission? That was a quarter century ago, and much can happen in that kind of time frame.

At the time we were missionaries, our own church was not yet 15 years removed from allowing black men to hold the priesthood and for black women and men to get their temple endowments (and thus potentially qualify for the highest level of heaven).

I am not saying racism and bigotry no longer exist in this nation, because we still have intense problems in that regard (see the DOJ's report the Baltimore PD).

Besides, there are plenty of great reasons to exclude the Jar Jar Binks of fanbases from the adult table.

[Rocker Ute]

I am sure that the decision-makers at Texas and their true constituents--trustees, faculty (including a number of Nobel Prize winners, Pulitzer Prize winners, former or current Court of Appeals judges, Supreme Court clerks, you get the picture), and administrators--regard themselves of the same mindset about race as their counterparts in the Pac 12. They do have a different challenge with their forum state's racist past and unique residual racism (and homophobia). No doubt they regard themselves as benighted Texas's salvation in this regard. They certainly care most about their school's reputation, and don't want to feed misperceptions such as you have here expressed. As for the Davis statue, I'll refer you to Princeton's dilemma about Wilson statues and similar problems at campuses all over the country.

LOL. It would seem despite their benighted savior status they do drag their heels a bit when it comes to celebrating confederate heroes on campus and public outcry against it. We've all got our vices I suppose. You need to visit the South sometime. None of what you say undermines what I originally said, in that if there is a conference who is looking the other way regarding race issues of 40 years ago, it is the B12, lead slightly by the SEC.

[NorthwestUteFan]

As for the Davis statue, I'll refer you to Princeton's dilemma about Wilson statues and similar problems at campuses all over the country.

FWIW, there is a wonderful discussion of the Princeton/Wilson situation on the Malcolm Gladwell podcast posted by MRD a few pages ago.

[Rocker Ute]

Rocker, what is your time frame in Austin? After you talking about your mission? That was a quarter century ago, and much can happen in that kind of time frame.

At the time we were missionaries, our own church was not yet 15 years removed from allowing black men to hold the priesthood and for black women and men to get their temple endowments (and thus potentially qualify for the highest level of heaven).

I am not saying racism and bigotry no longer exist in this nation, because we still have intense problems in that regard (see the DOJ's report the Baltimore PD).

Besides, there are plenty of great reasons to exclude the Jar Jar Binks of fanbases from the adult table.

I'm not as old as you, it would seem, but no this was not my mission and it was about 10 years ago (and I almost moved back about a year and a half ago). Racism is alive and well in the South. Let us not forget these:

1893

Look, you guys need to understand how racism works in these sort of places. Nobody is burning crosses on the UT campus, nobody is refusing service to black people, or not attending classes with them. It is more of a wink and a nod sort of a thing that is hard to describe until you experience. Now certainly other parts of Texas it is blatant (see the Koffee Kup Kafe in Killeen TX, or Kustom Kar Kovers in San Antonio). But I'll admit that before experiencing this sort of 'old boy wink and nod' deal, I thought that racism like that and the KKK was long since dead and isolated to small pockets in the back woods somewhere in Miss. It simply isn't.

Does that mean I think all of Seattle's cited intellectuals are racist? No, not at all. But there is a survival culture of looking the other way, and the good-old-boy club is alive and well and donating copious amounts of money to various UT programs and sports. Denying BYU acceptance to the B12 because of race issues would be the height of hypocrisy.

[sancho]

I agree with SU on this: BYU's culture made the PACs decision easy

Utah made their decision easy. They wanted three things: a decent football program, a decent research university, and a decent media market. There was only one school in the west that meet all three. Easy peasy. No one questioned the decision because it was obvious.

Now in some alternate universe in which Utah football was horrible, the Pac would have had a difficult decision as no other candidate met all the desired criteria. In that universe, the BYU culture thing surely would have entered the conversation.

[Rocker Ute]

Besides, there are plenty of great reasons to exclude the Jar Jar Binks of fanbases from the adult table.

I should say, this is really the point, there are lots of reasons to exclude BYU, but the racism of the LDS church 40 years ago isn't going to be one of them, particularly when their own baggage on the subject matter is so current.

[sancho]

You need to visit the South sometime. None of what you say undermines what I originally said, in that if there is a conference who is looking the other way regarding race issues of 40 years ago, it is the B12, lead slightly by the SEC.

I lived in the south for ten years, and I lived in Wisconsin for one. I heard far more racist comments in that one year in Wisconsin than I did in my southern decade. I guess everyone's experiences differ.

[NorthwestUteFan]

The only reason I mentioned racism was because tooblue claimed that 'bigotry' was the reason byu would be kept out. The very use of that word snacks of the unbearable Cougar hubris we have come to expect from that fanbase.

[SeattleUte]

I should say, this is really the point, there are lots of reasons to exclude BYU, but the racism of the LDS church 40 years ago isn't going to be one of them, particularly when their own baggage on the subject matter is so current.

Nobody will say, in their deliberations, that BYU is racist or it has failed to reckon with or apologize for 40-year old racism. But this history is part of BYU's makeup that comprises its reputation that I've described. It's the BYU fan's eternal burden. (By the way, the South has been reckoning with its racism in poignant ways all along. It's why some of our greatest literary treasures have been issued and are being issued by southern writers to this day. Part of what's creepy about the LDS Church's treatment of its own racism is its blindness to it: "Gee, we don't know why it happened.")

[Rocker Ute]

I lived in the south for ten years, and I lived in Wisconsin for one. I heard far more racist comments in that one year in Wisconsin than I did in my southern decade. I guess everyone's experiences differ.

My frame of reference is Utah and Texas and parts of Oklahoma, so an admitted small sample set. Now I'm just trying to figure out how to get this hijacked thread back onto 'the path for homosexuals in LDS theology."

Ah, here is how. I maintain that the church LGBT issues will far outweigh any race ones.

[sancho]

My frame of reference is Utah and Texas and parts of Oklahoma, so an admitted small sample set. Now I'm just trying to figure out how to get this hijacked thread back onto 'the path for homosexuals in LDS theology."

Ah, here is how. I maintain that the church LGBT issues will far outweigh any race ones.


Booooo! We have a good sports thread going; let's not turn it into politics.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Now I'm just trying to figure out how to get this hijacked thread back onto 'the path for homosexuals in LDS theology.



That derail was tooblue's fault. Friggin Torontonian.

[Rocker Ute]

I lived in the south for ten years, and I lived in Wisconsin for one. I heard far more racist comments in that one year in Wisconsin than I did in my southern decade. I guess everyone's experiences differ.

Interesting that this is the headlining article on CNN.com today:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/16/news/economy/milwaukee-blacks-inequality/index.html

That might support your comment above.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Milwaukee is considered by many to be the most segregated city in the country.

[jrj84105]

The core question of the overall issue is whether race and behavior based on sexual orientation are distinguishable because both are immutable. There are powerful arguments and ardent believers on both sides of the issue. If, one the one hand, the two are really the same thing, then morally and ethically those who oppose same-sex marriage or sexual relations ought to be moved into the margins of polite society just as those who oppose interracial marriage now are.

Please explain some things to me.

I think everyone agrees that no one chooses to be born with a specific set of genitalia or specific cutaneous melanin content.

In the case of opposition to interracial marriage, being born black is immutable. Being born black restricts a person's permissible sexual partners to other blacks. Acting on attraction to a person outside the biologically determined pool of permissible mates is not allowed.

In the case of opposition to gay marriage, being born male is immutable. Being born male restricts a person's permissible sexual partner to females. Acting on attraction to a person outside the biologically determined pool of permissible mates is not allowed.

I have a really hard time seeing the difference between these two situations. And this is the norm. I think the only way a difference can be introduced is with the notion of a god's will. Without invoking god's will as the answer (because that was the basis for not mixing races) what is the difference?

You state that there are powerful arguments on both sides, but isn't it clear by now that one side of the argument was actually was way more powerful than the other evidenced by that argument's ability to change opinions held for centuries in the course of a single generation?

If the argument is decided, in your own words, "then morally and ethically those who oppose same-sex marriage or sexual relations ought to be moved into the margins of polite society just as those who oppose interracial marriage now are."

Is that not exactly where we're at?

[LA Ute]

Please explain some things to me.

I think everyone agrees that no one chooses to be born with a specific set of genitalia or specific cutaneous melanin content.

In the case of opposition to interracial marriage, being born black is immutable. Being born black restricts a person's permissible sexual partners to other blacks. Acting on attraction to a person outside the biologically determined pool of permissible mates is not allowed.

In the case of opposition to gay marriage, being born male is immutable. Being born male restricts a person's permissible sexual partner to females. Acting on attraction to a person outside the biologically determined pool of permissible mates is not allowed.

I have a really hard time seeing the difference between these two situations. And this is the norm. I think the only way a difference can be introduced is with the notion of a god's will. Without invoking god's will as the answer (because that was the basis for not mixing races) what is the difference?

You state that there are powerful arguments on both sides, but isn't it clear by now that one side of the argument was actually was way more powerful than the other evidenced by that argument's ability to change opinions held for centuries in the course of a single generation?

If the argument is decided, in your own words, "then morally and ethically those who oppose same-sex marriage or sexual relations ought to be moved into the margins of polite society just as those who oppose interracial marriage now are."

Is that not exactly where we're at?

You've pretty much stated the case. (I don't think you really want me to explain anything to you.). Hypothetically, do you think my private religious views, apart from any behavior on my part, should cost me my job, business opportunities, educational opportunities, and so forth? Keep in mind that the country is still far from unanimous on the issue and that the Supreme Court decision was made by a one-vote margin. Don't get me wrong, the issue is decided and we all need to move on. I'm happy and quite relieved to do that. There seems to be a large faction, however, that does not want to move on, but insists on conformity, ostracism, and in too many cases revenge -- in effect, to treat people with such beliefs as the moral equivalent of Klansmen. That's what I object to.

I've heard it said that gayness is a spectrum -- some are simply born gay, others become gay due to events in their lives, others are uncertain, some make a choice, and so forth. I don't know if that's true. It sure does seem clear to me that a great many people are simply gay and have been gay every minute of their lives. I have family members I love who are in that category. Squaring that reality with what my church teaches is inevitably painful and puzzling and leaves many questions unanswered. I doubt I'll ever know the answers in this life. Lots of Mormons are in the same boat. We're trying to figure this out and to approach the issue, and the human beings involved on both sides -- children of God, in our view -- with compassion, understanding, kindness, charity and open minds. Sometimes we screw up. We're trying to get it right. We're trying to engage in dialogue. I hope you'll give us a break.

[Ma'ake]

I've heard it said that gayness is a spectrum -- some are simply born gay, others become gay due to events in their lives, others are uncertain, some make a choice, and so forth. I don't know if that's true. It sure does seem clear to me that a great many people are simply gay and have been gay every minute of their lives. I have family members I love who are in that category. Squaring that reality with what my church teaches is inevitably painful and puzzling and leaves many questions unanswered. I doubt I'll ever know the answers in this life. Lots of Mormons are in the same boat. We're trying to figure this out and to approach the issue, and the human beings involved on both sides -- children of God, in our view -- with compassion, understanding, kindness, charity and open minds. Sometimes we screw up. We're trying to get it right. We're trying to engage in dialogue. I hope you'll give us a break.

LA, you're genuinely an inspiration to me. Your advocacy and honest, heartfelt, tolerant, fundamentally charitable essence is compelling. The people pushing the pedal to the metal on change can be like a mob. I feel for the good people who've been feeling backlash.

A small thought, from a long fallen away Mormon, on possible pathways in understanding, theologically: The church allows sealings of adopted children into their families. (Actually, in the early days of the church, sealings between people outside of immediate family bounds was not uncommon.)

It seems to me the LDS view of family is naturally amenable to more expansive views.

[Lest anyone think I'm in any way claiming to be a scriptorian, or influenced by the Holy Ghost, etc, remember, I'm the guy who's been in a Shoshone sweat lodge (sans peyote)...twice. Ie, it wasn't a mistake.]

:)

[SeattleUte]

LA, Did you choose your sexual orientation? If so, why did you choose to be heterosexual? What were the specific circumstances when you were confronted with this choice? Have you reconsidered? Please explain.

[LA Ute]

LA, Did you choose your sexual orientation? If so, why did you choose to be heterosexual? What were the specific circumstances when you were confronted with this choice? Have you reconsidered? Please explain.

I will quote myself in my post below, which you might have missed (it is 2 posts away from yours, after all):


I've heard it said that gayness is a spectrum -- some are simply born gay, others become gay due to events in their lives, others are uncertain, some make a choice, and so forth. I don't know if that's true. It sure does seem clear to me that a great many people are simply gay and have been gay every minute of their lives. I have family members I love who are in that category.

[SeattleUte]

I will quote myself in my post below, which you might have missed (it is 2 posts away from yours, after all):

I was born heterosexual. Please feel free to cite me as an example as well.

[sancho]

I was born heterosexual. Please feel free to cite me as an example as well.

How can anyone be born heterosexual or homosexual when sexuality doesn't develop until puberty? Were you sexually attracted to women as a toddler?

Sexuality is clearly more biologically, psychologically, and culturally complicated than, say, eye color.

[SeattleUte]

How can anyone be born heterosexual or homosexual when sexuality doesn't develop until puberty? Were you sexually attracted to women as a toddler?

Sexuality is clearly more biologically, psychologically, and culturally complicated than, say, eye color.

Who cares. LA is right. Sexual orientation is immutable and that's the whole ball game right there.

[LA Ute]

Who cares. LA is right. Sexual orientation is immutable and that's the whole ball game right there.

I think it's immutable for a great many people. The percentages don't really matter.

[tooblue]

I think it's immutable for a great many people. The percentages don't really matter.

The science disagrees that it is immutable in the sense that people are born gay. But I know Seattle won't read the science, but this blog article is interesting, written by a woman who does not believe in "sexual fixity":

https://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/18/no-one-is-born-gay-or-straight-here-are-5-reasons-why/

[tooblue]

The science disagrees that it is immutable in the sense that people are born gay. But I know Seattle won't read the science, but this blog article is interesting, written by a woman who does not believe in "sexual fixity":

https://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/18/no-one-is-born-gay-or-straight-here-are-5-reasons-why/

In the interest of full disclosure, I am currently pursuing a practice based PhD in art. Gender studies, feminist and queer theory are part and parcel of the process. (in New York this past year I had to explore and defend a position employing feminist theory in my argument in a workshop and excelled in my task). I should note that "[non] sexual fixity" is becoming very popular, primarily because the science does not support the idea of immutability and the notion of "choice" is problematic.

[LA Ute]

The science disagrees that it is immutable in the sense that people are born gay. But I know Seattle won't read the science, but this blog article is interesting, written by a woman who does not believe in "sexual fixity":

https://socialinqueery.com/2013/03/18/no-one-is-born-gay-or-straight-here-are-5-reasons-why/


Thanks. I am no scientist. I do know people (men) who tell me they never once found a female sexually attractive, only males. We're still learning about homosexuality, I guess.

[sancho]

Thanks. I am no scientist. I do know people (men) who tell me they never once found a female sexually attractive, only males. We're still learning about homosexuality, I guess.

Yes, and on the other end there are men who found their wives sufficiently arousing to have children with them before coming out. We are still learning, and since environmental and societal factors constantly change, it's a moving target.

[SeattleUte]

Thanks. I am no scientist. I do know people (men) who tell me they never once found a female sexually attractive, only males. We're still learning about homosexuality, I guess.

tooblue isn't a scientist either. Quite the contrary. But this issue has been irritating him for a long time, apparently even now when the argument has officially been terminated. (His lament that society no longer has any values is a covert reference in part to same sex marriage.)

[LA Ute]

tooblue isn't a scientist either. Quite the contrary. But this issue has been irritating him for a long time, apparently even now when the argument has officially been terminated. (His lament that society no longer has any values is a covert reference in part to same sex marriage.)

I guess you're saying the science is settled. Be careful with that notion.

[sancho]

I guess you're saying the science is settled. Be careful with that notion.

I thought he was saying the issue was settled, regardless of the scientific particulars. I think he's right. Science is boring, anyway.

[SeattleUte]

I guess you're saying the science is settled. Be careful with that notion.

You know that's not what I meant. But I wonder if this is even a proper subject for scientific inquiry.

[tooblue]

You know that's not what I meant. But I wonder if this is even a proper subject for scientific inquiry.

In enters, once again, ad hominem ... LOL ... I'll say this for you, you are consistent in that regard. I recommend you start your research here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3215279/

It will lead you where you need to go, if you want to go there. But I suspect you don't want to do anything other than be the Donald Trump of Utahby5.com

[tooblue]

I thought he was saying the issue was settled, regardless of the scientific particulars. I think he's right. Science is boring, anyway.

How long before Seattle says, "it was sarcasm, I was joking."

[LA Ute]

You know that's not what I meant. But I wonder if this is even a proper subject for scientific inquiry.

I'm not fighting you on this. You said "the argument has officially been terminated," and I took that to mean you thought the science was settled. We failed to communicate.

[jrj84105]

Squaring that reality with what my church teaches is inevitably painful and puzzling and leaves many questions unanswered. I doubt I'll ever know the answers in this life. Lots of Mormons are in the same boat. We're trying to figure this out and to approach the issue, and the human beings involved on both sides -- children of God, in our view -- with compassion, understanding, kindness, charity and open minds.

This right here is the root cause of the problem. Christians have to reconcile an all-encompassing world view centered on a benevolent and just god against a world that is largely indifferent and unjust.

Time and time again, the reconciliation is because some underclass (whether it's blacks, women, gays, or nonbelievers) are either in a position of inferiority due to their own choosing or because it's really in their best interest according to god's plan.

Rather than helping the disadvantaged change their position in society, all too often people have used religion to codify and enforce that subclass status for no other reason than an incredibly selfish desire to avoid having to honestly reconcile their belief system with the real observable world.

The continued conflict exists because people continue to try and force everyone else to acquiesce to a spoken or unspoken validation of your viewpoint as an equally valid perspective with an equally acceptable place in the public sphere. It's not. It is on par with Jom Crow. It is disgusting.

Should people lose their jobs for espousing this viewpoint. Well, homophobia isn't really a new case. Racism and misogyny are pretty clearly opinions that everyone is entitled to have, but if promoted publicly or in the workplace can cost a person his/her job.

[Rocker Ute]

Should people lose their jobs for espousing this viewpoint. Well, homophobia isn't really a new case. Racism and misogyny are pretty clearly opinions that everyone is entitled to have, but if promoted publicly or in the workplace can cost a person his/her job.

People should be fired for having an opinion? Also, homophobia is not the same as what LA Ute is talking about. These sort of views and rhetoric are tiresome.

[LA Ute]

This right here is the root cause of the problem. Christians have to reconcile an all-encompassing world view centered on a benevolent and just god against a world that is largely indifferent and unjust.

Time and time again, the reconciliation is because some underclass (whether it's blacks, women, gays, or nonbelievers) are either in a position of inferiority due to their own choosing or because it's really in their best interest according to god's plan.

I agree that this happens and that is should not happen, but I assure that I don't see the world that way. In our own imperfect way lots of believers try to see others as children of God, who's no respecter of persons. Trying to live up to that aspirational point of view is a very tall order and we blow it regularly. But we try.


Rather than helping the disadvantaged change their position in society, all too often people have used religion to codify and enforce that subclass status for no other reason than an incredibly selfish desire to avoid having to honestly reconcile their belief system with the real observable world.

Ditto my comments above. What you describe is the antithesis of what I consider to be the right way for believers to treat anyone.


The continued conflict exists because people continue to try and force everyone else to acquiesce to a spoken or unspoken validation of your viewpoint as an equally valid perspective with an equally acceptable place in the public sphere. It's not. It is on par with Jom Crow. It is disgusting.

Ditto above.


Should people lose their jobs for espousing this viewpoint. Well, homophobia isn't really a new case. Racism and misogyny are pretty clearly opinions that everyone is entitled to have, but if promoted publicly or in the workplace can cost a person his/her job.

I believe that marriage ought to be between a man and a woman. But I know that's not the law of the land. Also, there are lots of things I believe that others do not. I don't smoke but I don't think people who do are evil; and I think sex outside of marriage is wrong (an increasingly exotic view), but I don't think people who see that question differently are bad. My hope is that society can develop a live and let live approach to these matters, and that I can hold my beliefs -- without infringing on others' rights -- and not have someone figuratively trying to put a white hood on my head. I Just want to carve out that little space for my beliefs.

Someday if we are ever in the same city I'd love to have lunch with you to hash through all these these ideas. I'll buy.

[jrj84105]

People should be fired for having an opinion? Also, homophobia is not the same as what LA Ute is talking about. These sort of views and rhetoric are tiresome.

People can and do get fired for EXPRESSING certain opinions pretty regularly. There have been pretty few instances of people being canned over expressing a position on gay marriage. BYU can can someone for openly supporting such a view because it is contrary to the purpose and ideals of that private institution. If a private company spends millions on prividing benefits to gay couples and works hard to foster a gay-friendly environment, they're more than entitled to fire someone for compromising that investment by openly taking positions to the contrary.

[Rocker Ute]

If a private company spends millions on prividing benefits to gay couples and works hard to foster a gay-friendly environment, they're more than entitled to fire someone for compromising that investment by openly taking positions to the contrary.

Are they? What constitutes publicly sharing, and regularly? Does donating money to a group that supported proposition 8 warrant being fired? What about if the opposite happened? Should someone get fired for complaining their company doesn't provide benefits for gay people? Should a private company be required to do so? Since I'm publicly a Mormon and the LDS church espouses different beliefs on the subject, should that justify me being fired if my company elects to do so?

I used to work with a Muslim. He didn't believe women should work. He thought they should cover their heads. He had some other ideas that were very different from mine and the norms of the company. He spoke about those beliefs openly at work as his personal beliefs and about his wive and daughter. He also managed to work just fine with women, including women who were his superiors in the company (This of course is in my estimation, I heard women scoff at his ideas in that regard, but never complain about his work or respect). Should he have been fired for our society's common standards on sexist beliefs if he did nothing in his job that affected that? Is it possible to have open opposing beliefs and being able to still work together?

[tooblue]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/08/17/target-single-stall-bathroom/88896468/

Target adding single-stall bathrooms at all stores

[SeattleUte]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2016/08/17/target-single-stall-bathroom/88896468/

Target adding single-stall bathrooms at all stores

I assume before long there will be a federal statute requiring that. It's a good thing for a lot of reasons! Overdue!

[NorthwestUteFan]

I assume before long there will be a federal statute requiring that. It's a good thing for a lot of reasons! Overdue!
That would have made life so much easier when changing diapers and taking little kids to the bathroom.

[LA Ute]

Not about LDS, but a very interesting take by a Baptist ethicist:

http://religionnews.com/2016/08/22/on-lgbt-equality-middle-ground-is-disappearing/

Hint: He's not supporting the traditional Baptist view.

[jrj84105]

Someday if we are ever in the same city I'd love to have lunch with you to hash through all these these ideas. I'll buy.
That's incredibly generous.

My my main issue with how most people seem to approach these kinds of debates is that they come from the basic premise that being right makes a person a righteous person deserving of good fortune and being wrong makes somebody a bad person deserving of punitive treatment.

On this particular topic, I'm right and you're absolutely wrong, but that doesn't mean that I'm not sort of an asshole and that I deserve a prize for being right or that you're somehow a bad person who deserves some form of truly punitive retribution.

But more importantly, this lunch invite is a great premise for a sitcom on the CW network.
Premise: Noted social crusader and gay marriage opponent (played by David Hyde Pierce aka Nyles on Frasier) invites anonymous gay rights blogger to lunch. Gay rights blogger (played by Dennis Miller) is a prick who is always on the verge of being a good guy, but when faced with the opportunity to do good does the reverse. Blogger creates a grinder profile for crusader and effectively sets crusader up on a gay blind date for the lunch meeting with young stud (played by new fresh faced actor- a cross between Taylor Lautner and young Tony Danza).
Young stud in hearing an earnest discussion on activists's position of not acting on gay impulses interprets this as an invitation for a non-physical relationship from an internally conflicted closeted gay individual. What ensues is either a close friendship or a decidedly non-torrid spring winter gay romance. It depends on...
"Who You Ask"... Premiering at 9PM Friday's on the CW.

[Rocker Ute]

I think you are onto something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mpfunk]

Mormon Women Stand are horrible people and a great example why the answer to this question is there is no place for homosexuals in the LDS church.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Mormon Women Stand are horrible people and a great example why the answer to this question is there is no place for homosexuals in the LDS church.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

http://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20160826/b6c8b39895d082b35a67b2cfc9d5516b.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ma'ake]

Not about LDS, but a very interesting take by a Baptist ethicist:

http://religionnews.com/2016/08/22/on-lgbt-equality-middle-ground-is-disappearing/

Hint: He's not supporting the traditional Baptist view.

Nice find, LA.

Civil Rights over time leads to altered views on religious liberty, and other sacrosanct values. The Civil Rights Act forcing accommodation eventually morphed from an intrusion on property rights to being more about basic decency.

This author is playing a crucial role: a non-hostile voice helping traditional values people navigate change. You can see change occurring, led by people much closer to the situation, eg, parents of gays. In 20 years, Leviticus will be widely seen like the prohibition on wearing two types of fabric.

While Mormonism is more agile, theologically, because of modern day revelation, the hierarchical structure inhibits grass roots changes in interpretations of scripture, current policy, etc. Baptist/protestant churches can change affiliations, or just go Indy.

[Utah]

The Church has an easy way to change and they've done it before:

Claim revelation, throw the old leaders under the bus and talk about how inspired they are even though the heathens figured out the correct way years and years before.

[Rocker Ute]

The Church has an easy way to change and they've done it before:

Claim revelation, throw the old leaders under the bus and talk about how inspired they are even though the heathens figured out the correct way years and years before.

That's no way for an AP to talk!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

A Ward’s Embrace to a Gay LDS Couple
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2016/08/a-wards-embrace-to-a-gay-lds-couple.html?ref_widget=popular&ref_blog=danpeterson&ref_post=the-lds-church-will-never-have-the-worlds-universal-approval

[NorthwestUteFan]

A Ward’s Embrace to a Gay LDS Couple
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/mormontherapist/2016/08/a-wards-embrace-to-a-gay-lds-couple.html?ref_widget=popular&ref_blog=danpeterson&ref_post=the-lds-church-will-never-have-the-worlds-universal-approval
It would be nice if the rest of the church could be as open and welcoming as wards in Hawaii. And I know there are wards here and there that are like this (including a few here in Seattle).

I would love to see a positive statement like this in GenCon, but we have beat to death in this thread that time is perhaps many decades in the future, if ever.

[Utah]

My biggest frustration with the Church is that supposedly President Monson (and the other prophets) have direct communication with God. Some believe they actually see and converse with God.

If that is the case, why is our Church so behind when it comes to human rights?

In polygamy times, our church fought so hard to keep polygamy alive. Very few in the Church today would argue that Polygamy was a good policy.

In the 50's, our church fought hard against equal rights. The things the Mark E Petersen would spew from his mouth was disgusting. Then, in 1978, we reversed course and fell in line with all the heathens.

We are doing it again with the LGBT policies.

If we are a church run by god, why are we so far behind when it comes to how we treat God's children?

Shouldn't our church been the church in the 1940's that was out there fighting for equal rights, instead of being a roadblock? We shouldn't be decades behind in these matters, we should be fighting these fights before everyone else. We are led by God, aren't we?

Or does God want to be the last to get it right?

[LA Ute]

My biggest frustration with the Church is that supposedly President Monson (and the other prophets) have direct communication with God. Some believe they actually see and converse with God.

If that is the case, why is our Church so behind when it comes to human rights?

In polygamy times, our church fought so hard to keep polygamy alive. Very few in the Church today would argue that Polygamy was a good policy.

In the 50's, our church fought hard against equal rights. The things the Mark E Petersen would spew from his mouth was disgusting. Then, in 1978, we reversed course and fell in line with all the heathens.

We are doing it again with the LGBT policies.

If we are a church run by god, why are we so far behind when it comes to how we treat God's children?

Shouldn't our church been the church in the 1940's that was out there fighting for equal rights, instead of being a roadblock? We shouldn't be decades behind in these matters, we should be fighting these fights before everyone else. We are led by God, aren't we?

Or does God want to be the last to get it right?

I wish I had answers for all these questions. The people who lead the LDS church are fallible humans, just as with any church (none of which has a perfect human rights record).

[SeattleUte]

I wish I had answers for all these questions. The people who lead the LDS church are fallible humans, just as with any church (none of which has a perfect human rights record).

The guy who's bungled everything and put BYU and the LDS church into a box is Dallin Oaks; he has to live with the fact that he's done catastrophic damage to this institution he reveres; he's probably not reflective enough to get it, though.

If anyone could have seen this coming it was him. He could have been the voice of moderation and reason, and with an immense amount of credibility. BYU could have gotten ahead of this problem a long time ago. Hell, it wasn't just the smart but the compassionate and right thing to do. Instead he became a zealot like Packer and wielded his resume like a club--making LGBT his primary cause. It turns out that graduating no. 1 from your class from Chicago and clerking for Justice Warren doesn't mean you're not stupid in important ways. He probably orchestrated Proposition 8, which has only accelerated the course of events that have now painted BYU into a corner (thank you, LDS Church, for Proposition 8). Then as this issue was litigated in the federal courts and the outcome became a fait accompli (the ringing decisions in favor of a constitutional right to same sex marriage one after the other from the federal courts in places like Utah and North Carolina and the foreshadowing Kennedy opinion on the federal marriage statute) he obstinately orchestrated that crazy religious group's amicus briefing that was so appalling to read.

[LA Ute]

The guy who's bungled everything and put BYU and the LDS church into a box is Dallin Oaks; he has to live with the fact that he's done catastrophic damage to this institution he reveres; he's probably not reflective enough to get it, though.

If anyone could have seen this coming it was him. He could have been the voice of moderation and reason, and with an immense amount of credibility. BYU could have gotten ahead of this problem a long time ago. Hell, it wasn't just the smart but the compassionate and right thing to do. Instead he became a zealot like Packer and wielded his resume like a club--making LGBT his primary cause. It turns out that graduating no. 1 from your class from Chicago and clerking for Justice Warren doesn't mean you're not stupid in important ways. He probably orchestrated Proposition 8, which has only accelerated the course of events that have now painted BYU into a corner (thank you, LDS Church, for Proposition 8). Then as this issue was litigated in the federal courts and the outcome became a fait accompli (the ringing decisions in favor of a constitutional right to same sex marriage one after the other from the federal courts in places like Utah and North Carolina and the foreshadowing Kennedy opinion on the federal marriage statute) he obstinately orchestrated that crazy religious group's amicus briefing that was so appalling to read.

I think a little spleen-venting now and then is good for the soul. Hope you feel better.

[Rocker Ute]

The guy who's bungled everything and put BYU and the LDS church into a box is Dallin Oaks; he has to live with the fact that he's done catastrophic damage to this institution he reveres; he's probably not reflective enough to get it, though.

If anyone could have seen this coming it was him. He could have been the voice of moderation and reason, and with an immense amount of credibility. BYU could have gotten ahead of this problem a long time ago. Hell, it wasn't just the smart but the compassionate and right thing to do. Instead he became a zealot like Packer and wielded his resume like a club--making LGBT his primary cause. It turns out that graduating no. 1 from your class from Chicago and clerking for Justice Warren doesn't mean you're not stupid in important ways. He probably orchestrated Proposition 8, which has only accelerated the course of events that have now painted BYU into a corner (thank you, LDS Church, for Proposition 8). Then as this issue was litigated in the federal courts and the outcome became a fait accompli (the ringing decisions in favor of a constitutional right to same sex marriage one after the other from the federal courts in places like Utah and North Carolina and the foreshadowing Kennedy opinion on the federal marriage statute) he obstinately orchestrated that crazy religious group's amicus briefing that was so appalling to read.


I've seen Dallin Oaks wearing a Utah hat. He is one of our plants, quietly taking BYU down from the inside.

[Utah]

Ha ha. Nice. Here's is where I currently stand with the Church:

It does a lot of good in the world. It teaches a lot of great things. I like my kids involved in the youth programs and a little spiritual discussion every week can't hurt.

I don't believe this church is run by God in the way it teaches. I don't think Monson sits in the holy of holies (sp?) and have a warm chocolate drink with the Savior while they discuss the problems of the world.

I do believe God inspired those that seek his guidance...in all walks of life.

I think the priesthood is a way to stay relevant.

As far as the jumping through hoops to get to heaven? I don't know. I am baptizing my oldest in a month.

I do think a lot of this church is no different than the Pharasees.

When you read the scriptures, you realize that life isn't about jumping through hoops, but life is about becoming something.

I fully believe there will be a lot of people that we look down on who absolutely became something better than when they started, even if they didn't become much, who will rest with God someday.

I also fully expect to see a lot of people we regard as holy, who will not rest with God, as they used their power and positions not to help, but to control and keep others down (see McConkie and Oaks).

I think there will be some shocked looks when we see how gets in vs who is left out.

Back to the main topic, the church teaches that LGBT people are born that way. Yet, what they innately feel is an offense to God.

I have troubles with that. Especially considering how wrong the church has been time and time again when it comes to human rights. From women, to other races, etc. The church has never been right and has needed pressure from the Gentiles to do the right thing.

[Rocker Ute]

I don't believe this church is run by God in the way it teaches. I don't think Monson sits in the holy of holies (sp?) and have a warm chocolate drink with the Savior while they discuss the problems of the world.



Does the church teach that (I know you are being facetious about the hot chocolate etc)? I've always thought that it worked the same way for him as it does for me and the scriptures seem to support that. Not trying to get in an argument here, I'm just curious if that is a common thought that Pres Monson is having weekly one-on-ones with God or something.

[NorthwestUteFan]

I wish I had answers for all these questions. The people who lead the LDS church are fallible humans, just as with any church (none of which has a perfect human rights record).
The problem is they won't entertain a discussion regarding their fallibility, and they won't tolerate people speaking out in public or social media in lieu of said discussion.

And there are a number of churches with excellent human rights records. I think of the actions of the Quakers and Unitarians fighting against slavery in the 1700s, and our own brothers the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) in their fight through the ages against slavery, racism, misogyny, and now homophobia. And both the COC and Seventh Day Adventists have a strong anti-war message that is admirable.

[Utah]

Does the church teach that (I know you are being facetious about the hot chocolate etc)? I've always thought that it worked the same way for him as it does for me and the scriptures seem to support that. Not trying to get in an argument here, I'm just curious if that is a common thought that Pres Monson is having weekly one-on-ones with God or something.

Outright teach that? No. Not at all. I've spoken to six apostles, and the vibe I received from them is that none of them have seen the savior.

In church? If you were to poll the members of the church, it wouldn't shock me if over half believe that the First Presidency and Quorum of the 12 have seen Jesus.

[Utah]

The problem is they won't entertain a discussion regarding their fallibility, and they won't tolerate people speaking out in public or social media in lieu of said discussion.


I think this is a huge problem. I'm not sure where this attitude came from, because the Church did not treat Joseph with the same reverence that the leaders today are treated with.

I don't know if it came from McConkie or if it came from before that, but the thought process that the prophet is always right is wrong and not an original teaching. Joseph Smith taught contrary to that.

I've been watching Game of Thrones (I'm a heathen, I know) and something I found interesting is how Stannous allows himself to get caught up in his wife's religious fanaticism and how when the prophet asks Stannous to do some horrible things...he goes along with it.

I don't care what you believe, when you stand in front of God and he asks you why you treated his children differently..."I followed the prophet" will never be an acceptable excuse. You have inspiration. You have a brain. You have the right to receive personal revelation. Giving away that ability and gift...that has to be one of the most offensive things in God's eyes.

In fact, it is, isn't it? Isn't denying the Holy Ghost the only unrepentable sin? Isn't that the only sin that sends you to outer darkness and not to a lower level of glory?

[Rocker Ute]

I think this is a huge problem. I'm not sure where this attitude came from, because the Church did not treat Joseph with the same reverence that the leaders today are treated with.

I don't know if it came from McConkie or if it came from before that, but the thought process that the prophet is always right is wrong and not an original teaching. Joseph Smith taught contrary to that.

I've been watching Game of Thrones (I'm a heathen, I know) and something I found interesting is how Stannous allows himself to get caught up in his wife's religious fanaticism and how when the prophet asks Stannous to do some horrible things...he goes along with it.

I don't care what you believe, when you stand in front of God and he asks you why you treated his children differently..."I followed the prophet" will never be an acceptable excuse. You have inspiration. You have a brain. You have the right to receive personal revelation. Giving away that ability and gift...that has to be one of the most offensive things in God's eyes.

In fact, it is, isn't it? Isn't denying the Holy Ghost the only unrepentable sin? Isn't that the only sin that sends you to outer darkness and not to a lower level of glory?

A lot of the church culture you describe originated with Brigham Young. There is a great biography by John Turner on Brigham Young that is worth a read. Reading that will help you understand a lot about BY and a lot about why he was the way he was, and how that has affected things today. He changed a lot from his time in Nauvoo to his life in the west. Turner, who is not LDS, actually spends some time in his biography defending him too. Considering that he had tens of thousands of people who he needed to keep together and on task to simply survive he began to demand things be done without question. It could be argued that that sort of methodology simply kept the saints alive until they could prosper.

Heber J Grant was another stickler. There have been other figures like that throughout the church history and there have been a lot of people who were just the opposite. My father has a very personal story about David O McKay that would likely help you reconcile the 'are they inspired men of God' conundrum, unfortunately it is his to tell. I have one with James E Faust myself that is remarkable.

But I guess the question I have with all of this, and with issues like homosexuality in the church is we can discuss it but what is stopping you from acting? Nothing is stopping any member from being loving, helpful and welcoming to anyone and everyone. We each individually need to stop focusing on each others faults and focus on how we can lift each other, because we are all in this together. Just that simple thing would make the world of difference for the individual and for everyone else.

[Utah]

A lot of the church culture you describe originated with Brigham Young. There is a great biography by John Turner on Brigham Young that is worth a read. Reading that will help you understand a lot about BY and a lot about why he was the way he was, and how that has affected things today. He changed a lot from his time in Nauvoo to his life in the west. Turner, who is not LDS, actually spends some time in his biography defending him too. Considering that he had tens of thousands of people who he needed to keep together and on task to simply survive he began to demand things be done without question. It could be argued that that sort of methodology simply kept the saints alive until they could prosper.

Heber J Grant was another stickler. There have been other figures like that throughout the church history and there have been a lot of people who were just the opposite. My father has a very personal story about David O McKay that would likely help you reconcile the 'are they inspired men of God' conundrum, unfortunately it is his to tell. I have one with James E Faust myself that is remarkable.

But I guess the question I have with all of this, and with issues like homosexuality in the church is we can discuss it but what is stopping you from acting? Nothing is stopping any member from being loving, helpful and welcoming to anyone and everyone. We each individually need to stop focusing on each others faults and focus on how we can lift each other, because we are all in this together. Just that simple thing would make the world of difference for the individual and for everyone else.

Awesome post. I'll look the book up.

I think your last post is 100% dead on. When we stand in front of God, we will have to give an accounting for what we did. I'll have to look at what I did. Not anyone else.

It's up to me to do my best every day to try to be better. You guys read my posts...I'm a pretty crappy guy. I'm about three feet from the bottom of a massive mountain...but, I am three feet higher than when I started, right?

I think if people did your last paragraph, most of our problems would fade away.

Whatever the Church's stance is on homosexuality, and whether or not it is right or wrong, doesn't excuse me from acting as Christlike as I can and that means treating everybody with respect.

Thanks for your post.

[NorthwestUteFan]

Remember that ward in Seattle that had the big LGBT outreach last year, the Washington Park ward?

It got split in Stake Conference last weekend and will be absorbed by the two adjoining wards.

That ward had a great thing going for a while, but the Policy Change last November has devastated church attendance around here. Chapels that used to be full all the way back through the overflow every Sunday are now just sparsely occupied during Sacrament Mtg.

[Utah]

I've probably already said this, but it's tough when the Bible and Jesus talk all about loving everyone, being kind, treating everyone the same...then the Church tells you to single others out and treat them differently. Then, you remember that when the Church has done this in the past (singled out groups and taught the members to treat them differently), the Church has been wrong.

[Sullyute]

Remember that ward in Seattle that had the big LGBT outreach last year, the Washington Park ward?

It got split in Stake Conference last weekend and will be absorbed by the two adjoining wards.

That ward had a great thing going for a while, but the Policy Change last November has devastated church attendance around here. Chapels that used to be full all the way back through the overflow every Sunday are now just sparsely occupied during Sacrament Mtg.

That just breaks my heart. The policy change has to be the greatest blunder the brethern have made since nixing road shows.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

Remember that ward in Seattle that had the big LGBT outreach last year, the Washington Park ward?

It got split in Stake Conference last weekend and will be absorbed by the two adjoining wards.

That ward had a great thing going for a while, but the Policy Change last November has devastated church attendance around here. Chapels that used to be full all the way back through the overflow every Sunday are now just sparsely occupied during Sacrament Mtg.

That sucks. What ounces of hope I had for the church in making a progressive and smooth transition towards LGBT acceptance quickly eroded with the policy change. I've yet to meet anyone that can give be me a decent justification for the policy. It's really stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mpfunk]

That sucks. What ounces of hope I had for the church in making a progressive and smooth transition towards LGBT acceptance quickly eroded with the policy change. I've yet to meet anyone that can give be me a decent justification for the policy. It's really stupid.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It does suck. It also isn't changing. The legalization of gay marriage has caused the Quorum of the 12 to throw an adult temper tantrum. The policy was the equivalent of when my son freaks out because I won't buy him a sprinkle donut.

[Ma'ake]

It does suck. It also isn't changing. The legalization of gay marriage has caused the Quorum of the 12 to throw an adult temper tantrum. The policy was the equivalent of when my son freaks out because I won't buy him a sprinkle donut.

There is a gulf of understanding between younger generations and older folks.

In my neighborhood example(s), one neighbor came home from being a mission president, so multiple families got together and had a nice dinner for them, at the home of the parents who have had multiple kids come out of the closet, and I tagged along with my wife.

One of the lesbian daughters - now about 27, who met her spouse at BYU - was there, her mom would encourage her to come at least listen to the "grown ups" conversation, and she would sort of fade off into another room, and then her mom would go get her and she'd come back, there was definitely some kind of "see, these folks aren't that bad" type of coaxing going on.

Everyone remarked how beautiful she was and how nice it was to see her, how her long hair was so stunning.

Then the conversation turned to getting the mission president's wife caught up on all the news of other families in the ward, and they started talking about an elderly Hispanic couple down the street, and how the MP's wife had heard that her husband had gone inactive, and how that just broke her heart.

"I feel so bad for Doris. I can't imagine what she's going through". Later, another of the couples came in the room, the question of this wayward Hispanic gentleman came up, and the man said, "oh, he's not inactive, he's just serving in a Spanish-speaking ward".

The MP's wife start to weep with joy, said it was such a blessing to hear the good news. At that point, the host's lesbian daughter got up and left the room, and wasn't seen again.

The next morning, I drove past the house on my way to work, and this particular lesbian daughter was getting in her car, had cut all her hair off, was sporting a crew cut. I think her mom's attempt to show her the older folks in the ward were good, reasonable people kind of backfired.

On a different data point, my mom lives in downtown Bountiful, has a young couple next door. We thought they were just a "regular" young couple, young professionals, not religious, but good people. It turns out they met at BYU, got married, and since the policy change, they're part of a growing group of young LDS who are bailing out and have formed some kind of social organization that seeks to recreate the cohesive social connections and positive, service-oriented organization they appreciated about going to church. They've even gone door to door, with flyers. The wife told me mom their organization is small, but growing in Bountiful, but the "chapter" in Provo gets 300-500 people a week.

Did I say it's a gulf in understanding? It's the Grand Canyon.

I'm pretty doubtful anything changes in the Church quickly, but my hunch is once President Monson makes the transition, Uchdorf could be a Pope Francis type character for the Mormon Church, in a social landscape that is shifting more quickly than anyone imagined.

[Ma'ake]

But they are good, reasonable people, right? Or did I miss something? Sounds like a 27 year old acting like a 15 year old.

I think they're good people, who see the world dramatically differently than the younger generation, in general, including their own children. There's definitely a kind of a siege mentality among a lot of (especially older) TBMs, understandably.

(If my wife wasn't well connected, and essentially "revered" for being African American who became LDS, I wouldn't hear any of this stuff. I'm more or less an "untouchable" socially, in my neighborhood, which is OK with me. My conversations with neighbors amount to topics like lawnmowers, and a little about sports. And what the kids are up to, which is always a good chat.)

The older sister of this 27 year old, who is in a conventional marriage with kids, told my wife how "Grace's" life completely changed when she met her partner, at BYU. "She tried to date guys, and had some nice experiences, but her whole personality changed when she met "Susie". A peace came over her like I've never seen before".

The dynamics inside that family I wouldn't wish upon anyone. The poor mother has aged 20 years in the last 5 years. Visible anguish. I think she feels like the Martin Handcart party, except she can't escape by freezing to death.

The dynamics in the other family with multiple out-of-the-closet sons is strained a bit, too. About this time last year they posted a Facebook photo of the whole family, including one of the gay sons' spouses, and his daughter from a failed hetero marriage. I was impressed, as was my wife. Kind of like Mitch, Cam and Lilly of Modern Family.

Since the "policy" announcement last November(?), the 14 year old caboose, a daughter, has refused to go to church, saying she can't go to a church that won't let her niece become a member because her parents are gay. That's definitely hurting the mom, who shared this with my wife, and they both shed a few tears over their predicament.

In the bigger picture, I can see that my black wife is providing some much needed support and some solace and hope for the TBM ladies in the neighborhood, especially these moms of gay kids, who are feeling persecuted, or facing challenges of faith few can relate to. If my wife can let the priesthood ban stay in the past, maybe there's some hope for these gay kids to do something similar in the future, assuming things change...or some breakthrough occurs, of some kind.

My wife is also a source of strength - and maybe some pity - because she's married to me, the guy who's so fallen away he's been in Native American sweat lodges, and thinks the Unitarian church is a real church. lol. In my younger years, this kind of stuff would have made me angry, but I'm really just an observer, nowadays.

Actually, to be fair, my neighbors have been quite nice to me, since I'm not hostile, and I support my wife and son being Mormon. I think I'm just considered exceptionally "lost", but not hardcore "anti", and who knows, maybe they hold out hope that I'll see the light one day, but the enthusiasm for that potential occurrence has died way, waaay down.

It was weird as hell when the electricity was rampant that they might pull me back under the tent. Cookies and brownies coming from unknown sources, people I've never met waving and saying hello to me, by name.

The view from my "place" has been fascinating...

[mUUser]

....Or did I miss something?...

It's the wide divide between generations. Millennials and younger aren't gonna fart around the LGBT issue. They have a greater sense of right/wrong/justice for those in a minority group than older generations. I think once the church double, triple, then quadrupled-down on its opposition to gay relationships with its new policy, it lost the hearts and minds of a lot of people, particularly those that won't stand for another blacks-and-the-priesthood-type drawn out controversy. No patience for it anymore.

[LA Ute]

It's the wide divide between generations. Millennials and younger aren't gonna fart around the LGBT issue. They have a greater sense of right/wrong/justice for those in a minority group than older generations. I think once the church double, triple, then quadrupled-down on its opposition to gay relationships with its new policy, it lost the hearts and minds of a lot of people, particularly those that won't stand for another blacks-and-the-priesthood-type drawn out controversy. No patience for it anymore.

I'm sincerely curious: What do you think the church's approach to gay relationships should be?

[mpfunk]

I'm sincerely curious: What do you think the church's approach to gay relationships should be?
Don't discriminate against LGBTQ people and treat them like human beings would be a good place to start.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Don't discriminate against LGBTQ people and treat them like human beings would be a good place to start.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Impossible to disagree with any of that. The details are the key.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mUUser]

I'm sincerely curious: What do you think the church's approach to gay relationships should be?


Teach the doctrine and leave it at that. No need to be involved funding campaigns to oppose gay marriage. However, even if they'd have left it alone after Prop 8, it would have probably been fine.

The huge error in judgment was with the latest policy. First it is an unnecessary policy. Everybody could get along fine without it. Second, it targets innocent children. Might as well torture puppies while we're at it. The policy comes across as mean-spirited -- no priesthood ordinances for innocent children of gay households, then once they are of age they have to declare their opposition to gay relationships (something I don't have to do to maintain a TR), but even that's not enough.....then they have to move out of the home. Simply treat children in gay households like other children, that is, require parental approval for priesthood ordinances. Once they become adults, treat them like other adults.

I'm sorry LA, but the new policy can be viewed as callous by even the most reasonable people. I can typically measure my judgment on church issues by gauging Mrs Muuser. She's a fairly hard-core believer, especially when decisions come from the FP, and, if she shakes her head in confusion over it, then I feel like my reservations on this policy are justified.

I understand we may never see eye to eye on this, and that's fine. I may never see eye to eye with the church on this, and that's fine too. I feel like I can disagree with this policy, try to influence for its betterment where I can, and continue to be a faithful church member. Others may disagree, but, that's how I feel.

[Utah]

The whole gay thing has to do with the family right? You allow gays to marry, then you destroy the family.

That is so stupid. Why? Well, because LDS women are allowed to go to college, get a job and work outside the home. Why is it ok for a man and woman to get married, have the man and woman work outside the home, but if two gay people were to marry and have/adopt a child, and one stays home, that is destroying the home?

Why is it, if two people love each other, and are willing to adopt a child and raise that child in a two parent, loving household, that they are suddenly destroying the family?

The Church did what they did to shelter people from "the gays". If you remove "those people" from the wards, then you take away the ability to see that they are normal people, just like you and me. While I may be a legs guy, and you may be a fat chick guy, some other guy may like twigs and berries instead. Who cares?

What matters is what is on the inside. What type of person are you? What do you do when the windows are shut and no one is looking?

Not who you sleep with.

And, it isn't a procreation thing, because there are a lot of good, loving, caring, man/woman LDS couples who can't have kids. Are they as damned as the LGBT couple?

I said it before, and I'll say it again:

When the current regime dies off, just like with the blacks and priesthood, the policies will change. The younger generation will feel differently about the LGBT fight and will realize how stupid these rules are. They can follow the law of chastity. They can get married. Hell, with science, they can have families now, and in many cases, children that carry their own DNA.

So, why discriminate against them?

There is no intelligent reason. It's a bunch of old men that are scared of the future, so they label it as bad.

[Rocker Ute]

The whole gay thing has to do with the family right? You allow gays to marry, then you destroy the family.

That is so stupid. Why? Well, because LDS women are allowed to go to college, get a job and work outside the home. Why is it ok for a man and woman to get married, have the man and woman work outside the home, but if two gay people were to marry and have/adopt a child, and one stays home, that is destroying the home?

Why is it, if two people love each other, and are willing to adopt a child and raise that child in a two parent, loving household, that they are suddenly destroying the family?

The Church did what they did to shelter people from "the gays". If you remove "those people" from the wards, then you take away the ability to see that they are normal people, just like you and me. While I may be a legs guy, and you may be a fat chick guy, some other guy may like twigs and berries instead. Who cares?

What matters is what is on the inside. What type of person are you? What do you do when the windows are shut and no one is looking?

Not who you sleep with.

And, it isn't a procreation thing, because there are a lot of good, loving, caring, man/woman LDS couples who can't have kids. Are they as damned as the LGBT couple?

I said it before, and I'll say it again:

When the current regime dies off, just like with the blacks and priesthood, the policies will change. The younger generation will feel differently about the LGBT fight and will realize how stupid these rules are. They can follow the law of chastity. They can get married. Hell, with science, they can have families now, and in many cases, children that carry their own DNA.

So, why discriminate against them?

There is no intelligent reason. It's a bunch of old men that are scared of the future, so they label it as bad.

Officially I think it is a lot simpler than that as far as the church is concerned. Church leadership is operating on the belief that homosexuality is a sin. You can disagree with whether you think it actually is or if that is an antiquated way of thinking, but that is the premise for what they've done.

You may have heard them make arguments about the degradation of the family, but that is an argument you make to a society that doesn't hold the same belief system as you.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

I side with Utah and mUUser on this. Yes homosexuality is considered a sin. But so are mounds of other things that we preach from the pulpit. Factions of the church had spent so much effort in reaching out to the gay community, so much so that they created an official website to outreach with gay Mormons. And then they pull this new policy bs. Consuming alcohol is against the Word of Wisdom, yet we don't prevent kids of alcoholics the blessings of baptism. Hell, even kids who live in a household where the grown ups aren't living the law of chastity.

I'm currently watching D Todd Christofferson on mormonsandgays.org in a video explaining what the purpose of the website is and he's said multiple times "stay with us..." That invitation was so much more hopeful prior to the policy.

In an unrelated experience, I was socializing with a work associate who's daughter used to be in the same school class as my daughter before we moved at the end of last year. In this conversation, she organically referred to her nine year old daughter as a he, three or four times. It took me a couple passes before I caught the inference and despite knowing her daughter well enough not to be shocked by this change, the conversation has still stuck with me. This woman isn't LDS, but I think it's safe to assume that we're still in a place as a society that working through a situation like this with your young child must be an incredibly difficult and heartbreaking experience. I hope to have a more private conversation with her in the future under more appropriate circumstances to make sure I heard correctly and then figure out how to transfer that information to my daughter some how so that we all act in the preferred manner going forward.

Driving into the office this morning about 12 hours after the above incident, NPR had this story about a police officer in DC that is going through the transitioning process and the mental back and forth. http://www.npr.org/2016/10/06/496404041/for-d-c-s-lgbt-community-a-police-liaison-who-can-relate

I just have no hope that the one place where someone should be able to feel safe being true to themselves, has put too many institutional obstacles in the way to allow that to happen.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Teach the doctrine and leave it at that. No need to be involved funding campaigns to oppose gay marriage. However, even if they'd have left it alone after Prop 8, it would have probably been fine.

The huge error in judgment was with the latest policy. First it is an unnecessary policy. Everybody could get along fine without it. Second, it targets innocent children. Might as well torture puppies while we're at it. The policy comes across as mean-spirited -- no priesthood ordinances for innocent children of gay households, then once they are of age they have to declare their opposition to gay relationships (something I don't have to do to maintain a TR), but even that's not enough.....then they have to move out of the home. Simply treat children in gay households like other children, that is, require parental approval for priesthood ordinances. Once they become adults, treat them like other adults.

I'm sorry LA, but the new policy can be viewed as callous by even the most reasonable people. I can typically measure my judgment on church issues by gauging Mrs Muuser. She's a fairly hard-core believer, especially when decisions come from the FP, and, if she shakes her head in confusion over it, then I feel like my reservations on this policy are justified.

I understand we may never see eye to eye on this, and that's fine. I may never see eye to eye with the church on this, and that's fine too. I feel like I can disagree with this policy, try to influence for its betterment where I can, and continue to be a faithful church member. Others may disagree, but, that's how I feel.

I meant to respond to you here, muuser, but I forgot. We could talk about this for a long time and maybe someday we will. For now, be assured that I was not thrilled about the new policy, especially the way it was rolled out (but it does appear there was some leaking/mischief that exacerbated that problem). Still, I do understand it. The decision was made to treat children living with their same-sex parents just as children living with their polygamous parents are treated. Both types of marriages are considered so far "out there" in doctrinal terms that the church is treating them the same. It is undeniably a logical policy, viewed that way. In his defense of the policy Elder Christofferson emphasized the need for clarity. So that's how they got there.

Is the pre-existing policy cruel to children in polygamous families? I don't know. Those kids live in very difficult circumstances -- especially the boys who get kicked out of the community as teenagers because they are a threat to the older men.

I can articulate a distinction between polygamous families and gay parent-led families. The former are often apostates in the true sense, and often try to proselytize members of the church to their polygamous sects. So there's additional cause to keep the parents separate from the church and to draw a bright line -- and also to avoid pitting their children against them. Otherwise you'd have 10 year-olds hearing at church that their parents are apostates or enemies of the church, won't be together in the hereafter, won't ever be exalted, etc.

With gay parents it's trickier. They're not social outcasts anymore the way polygamists still are. One can easily imagine two proud gay dads or moms sitting in sacrament meeting, beaming as their son is ordained a deacon (without their participation), and as he passes the sacrament; or as their daughter receives her Young Women recognitions. Maybe the GAs are concerned about giving tacit approval to such situations? I'm sure they're also concerned about the the teachings young kids will hear about their parents' lifestyle, the parents' eternal prospects, and the like.

The church has long been very insistent on not causing conflict in families-- which is why no child is baptized without both parents' consent. I know lots of people who had to wait until age 18 to be baptized.

Anyway, with that all in mind I don't see "teach the doctrine as leave it at that" as a viable option. Maybe his will get worked out somehow in the future. In short, the policy makes me sad but I understand it.

[Utah]

Right, and there is a doctrinal basis for that Mormon belief which goes beyond the Bible's teachings. It gets right in there with fundamental Mormon beliefs about the purpose of life, eternal progress, the celestial kingdom, etc. Mormons will have a tougher time than other Christians in tossing out Paul's teachings as just some other crazy thing Paul said.

I don't necessarily agree with this. Or I'm missing some huge piece of information here. We always talk about how one of the greatest commandments is to multiply and replenish the earth. Anyone can do that now. We talk about the Law of Chastity, and how sexual acts are one of the most god-like things we can do, and they are to be saved for a holy union: Marriage.

Well, everyone can get married now.

And, we even teach that sex isn't just for making babies...but it's a way for a married couple to connect on a deeper level and share in something special.

So, why are we so against LGBT unions?

It makes no sense. None at all.

Like I've said, this is the same thing as Mark E. Petersen getting up and bagging on African Americans. Packer, Oaks, etc are the new racists in our leadership. They will die off, and the younger prophet (Kimball) will take over, and he will change these things.

Hell, what comes first: Women getting the priesthood or LGBT groups being allowed to become full members?

[Rocker Ute]

We talk about... how sexual acts are one of the most god-like things we can do...


What church do you go to? I swear after 40 years of church attendance I have never heard that until today. Certainly not phrased that way. Which sexual acts are the most God-like? I'm hoping this doesn't send me to urban dictionary.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Utah]

I just went to LDS.org, and looked up the bible, then homosexuality in the topical guide. That word is not used at all in our Bible.

Isaiah talks about the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. I know we like to say that S&G was destroyed because of homosexuality, but that's not true. They were waaaaaayyy past that.

I find the whole Sodom and Gomorrah thing interesting. God tells Abraham that S&G is so wicked, he needs to destroy it. No mention of specific sins, but just general wickedness. Abraham pleads with God, and God decides (so, God can be bargained with, right?) that if Abraham can find 10 righteous people, he will not destroy it.

So, two angels go into S&G to find these 10 righteous men. They run into Lot. Lot asks them to come into his house at night, the angels resist, but Lot gets them to finally come in (probably because Lot knows what will happen at night). Then, the mob shows up, demand the angels. Lot instead offers his virgin daughters up (and we think homosexuality was the reason why S&G was about to be destroyed?). The mob is smote down, Lot goes to his sons in law and tells them to run, they mock Lot, so Lot takes his daughters and wife and leaves, the wife looks back and dies.

And then what happens? Lot's two daughters rape Lot.

Yikes. I'm not so sure that homosexuality was the sole reason why S&G was destroyed. That place was messed up on every level (hence, the reason why God wanted to destroy it).

What's my point? This is the TL/DR for those that can't comprehend more than a sentence or two:

Why do we single out this sin? Why over so many other sins?

I can think of two reasons:

1 - The Church is losing members and this is a topic that stirs up feelings and gets the base to rally around itself and strengthen it's beliefs

or

2 - The Church leaders have some ideas and feelings that are just wrong.

[Utah]

What church do you go to? I swear after 40 years of church attendance I have never heard that until today. Certainly not phrased that way. Which sexual acts are the most God-like? I'm hoping this doesn't send me to urban dictionary.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


These are moments when we quite literally unite our will with God’s will, our spirit with His spirit, where communion through the veil becomes very real. At such moments we not only acknowledge His divinity but we quite literally take something of that divinity to ourselves. One aspect of that divinity given to virtually all men and women is the use of His power to create a human body, that wonder of all wonders, a genetically and spiritually unique being never before seen in the history of the world and never to be duplicated again in all the ages of eternity. A child, your child—with eyes and ears and fingers and toes and a future of unspeakable grandeur.


https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/personal-purity?lang=eng&_r=1

That was one example in general conference.

[Rocker Ute]

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1998/10/personal-purity?lang=eng&_r=1

That was one example in general conference.

Wait, so you are unable to find any biblical references to homosexuality but then you produce from that that sex acts are the most God-like? Maybe we need to work out a definition of sex acts first - although I'd rather not.

To me, I read that to mean the creation of life, not the sexual act itself. My children being born, witnessing new life come into this world, I count among some of my most spiritual moments. Being a father and loving a child no matter what has also helped me unlike anything else understand the nature of and eternally loving God.

I don't really care to debate this further because I think we are just in completely different places doctrinally and I don't believe we'll come together on that. I'll just say you are free to disagree with doctrine as many reading this do, I just absolutely don't agree with how you are interpreting things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Utah]

Wait, so you are unable to find any biblical references to homosexuality but then you produce from that that sex acts are the most God-like? Maybe we need to work out a definition of sex acts first - although I'd rather not.

To me, I read that to mean the creation of life, not the sexual act itself. My children being born, witnessing new life come into this world, I count among some of my most spiritual moments. Being a father and loving a child no matter what has also helped me unlike anything else understand the nature of and eternally loving God.

I don't really care to debate this further because I think we are just in completely different places doctrinally and I don't believe we'll come together on that. I'll just say you are free to disagree with doctrine as many reading this do, I just absolutely don't agree with how you are interpreting things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You are the Fox News of this board. Did you read the talk given in conference? Holland spends 15 minutes talking about why it IS the sex act itself. If it was just creating life, then having sex outside of marriage wouldn't be of big of a deal. Having children outside of marriage would be a HUGE deal. Yet, it's ok to have kids out of wedlock, but not to have kids in wedlock, if it is a homosexual marriage.

Another snippet from the talk:


If you persist in pursuing physical satisfaction without the sanction of heaven, you run the terrible risk of such spiritual, psychic damage that you may undermine both your longing for physical intimacy and your ability to give wholehearted devotion to a later, truer love. You may come to that truer moment of ordained love, of real union, only to discover to your horror that what you should have saved you have spent, and that only God’s grace can recover the piecemeal dissipation of the virtue you so casually gave away. On your wedding day the very best gift you can give your eternal companion is your very best self—clean and pure and worthy of such purity in return.

What Holland is talking about is not having kids. It is having sex. It is the reason why having sex is so sacred in the church and why you should wait to have sex until you are married.

Another quote:


Thirdly, may I say that physical intimacy is not only a symbolic union between a husband and a wife—the very uniting of their souls—

Sex is godlike:


we quite literally take something of that divinity to ourselves.


You and I have been given something of that godliness, but under the most serious and sacred of restrictions.


My beloved friends, especially my young friends, can you see why personal purity is such a serious matter?

[Rocker Ute]

You are the Fox News of this board. Did you read the talk given in conference? Holland spends 15 minutes talking about why it IS the sex act itself. If it was just creating life, then having sex outside of marriage wouldn't be of big of a deal. Having children outside of marriage would be a HUGE deal. Yet, it's ok to have kids out of wedlock, but not to have kids in wedlock, if it is a homosexual marriage.

Another snippet from the talk:



What Holland is talking about is not having kids. It is having sex. It is the reason why having sex is so sacred in the church and why you should wait to have sex until you are married.

Another quote:



Sex is godlike:

I like that, The Fox News of this board, but I'll stick with 'After -the-Fact Genius".

[LA Ute]

I like that, The Fox News of this board, but I'll stick with 'After -the-Fact Genius".

Kind of a younger composite of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity?

[Rocker Ute]

That's kind of how I picture myself but with better hair than Sean Hannity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

That's kind of how I picture myself but with better hair than Sean Hannity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
My 4 year-old told me that I am not yet a man, because I still have too much hair.

[Diehard Ute]

My 4 year-old told me that I am not yet a man, because I still have too much hair.

That doesn't explain all the balding in Provo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NorthwestUteFan]

That doesn't explain all the balding in Provo


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
No, but it might explain all the chest thumping self-adulation.

[Dwight Schr-Ute]

The church has long been very insistent on not causing conflict in families-- which is why no child is baptized without both parents' consent. I know lots of people who had to wait until age 18 to be baptized.


As someone who's pretty friends with a pretty famous polygamous family here in Vegas, I might have some insight to this topic.

One of the daughter went to USU after graduating from high school. While there, she started dating a member of the church and also took the missionary discussions.

This particular daughter had never been too keen on the idea of polygamy for her but obviously loved her family for what it was.

Upon making the decision that she wanted to get baptized, she had to meet with local and regional leadership to petition to be baptized. She was asked in each of these meetings to denounce polygamy, which she was happy to do-for herself but repeatedly told them that she couldn't denounce it overall, since that would be denouncing her family. Such an admission would make her mother's (second wife) marriage illegitimate.

Her petition went all the way to Salt Lake. She was 19. Did not live at home and by this point was engaged, so likely would not ever live at home again. She was eventually told that her request was denied and that she can repetition the request for baptism at a future date when her family is no longer in the spot light. As things currently stand, that request won't be made.

Silly, silly stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

As someone who's pretty friends with a pretty famous polygamous family here in Vegas, I might have some insight to this topic.

One of the daughter went to USU after graduating from high school. While there, she started dating a member of the church and also took the missionary discussions.

This particular daughter had never been too keen on the idea of polygamy for her but obviously loved her family for what it was.

Upon making the decision that she wanted to get baptized, she had to meet with local and regional leadership to petition to be baptized. She was asked in each of these meetings to denounce polygamy, which she was happy to do-for herself but repeatedly told them that she couldn't denounce it overall, since that would be denouncing her family. Such an admission would make her mother's (second wife) marriage illegitimate.

Her petition went all the way to Salt Lake. She was 19. Did not live at home and by this point was engaged, so likely would not ever live at home again. She was eventually told that her request was denied and that she can repetition the request for baptism at a future date when her family is no longer in the spot light. As things currently stand, that request won't be made.

Silly, silly stuff.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting stuff because I believe that Christofferson said that when it came to homosexuality an 18yo would have to renounce the practice for themselves but not their family.

[mpfunk]

With gay parents it's trickier. They're not social outcasts anymore the way polygamists still are. One can easily imagine two proud gay dads or moms sitting in sacrament meeting, beaming as their son is ordained a deacon (without their participation), and as he passes the sacrament; or as their daughter receives her Young Women recognitions. Maybe the GAs are concerned about giving tacit approval to such situations? I'm sure they're also concerned about the the teachings young kids will hear about their parents' lifestyle, the parents' eternal prospects, and the like.


This argument would make sense if the church prohibited children of homosexuals from attending church, reading church materials, watching conference, etc.

I think the GAs want these children to hear awful things about their parents, so they grow up to hate homosexuals just like they do.

[LA Ute]

I think the GAs want these children to hear awful things about their parents, so they grow up to hate homosexuals just like they do.

Funk, you know I love you, but come on, man.

[USS Utah]

We always talk about how one of the greatest commandments is to multiply and replenish the earth. Anyone can do that now.

You mean, by artificial means, right? I'm reasonably certain that same-sex sex cannot cause a pregnancy.

[Solon]

You mean, by artificial means, right? I'm reasonably certain that same-sex sex cannot cause a pregnancy.

Every time I see this thread title, I wonder if it is code for an underground gay LDS hookup site. Posters type what they type, and those in the know can pick up on the hidden meanings in unrelated words or arrangements of words, and then arrange to meet later.

By the way, the orangutan from the Cairo zoo will be visiting Nicaragua this summer. Charles Bronson had dirty shoes in The Great Escape. Maria is the least appreciated of the Bronte sisters. I am only on page 75, but I hope to be finished by next weekend.

[USS Utah]

Every time I see this thread title, I wonder if it is code for an underground gay LDS hookup site. Posters type what they type, and those in the know can pick up on the hidden meanings in unrelated words or arrangements of words, and then arrange to meet later.

By the way, the orangutan from the Cairo zoo will be visiting Nicaragua this summer. Charles Bronson had dirty shoes in The Great Escape. Maria is the least appreciated of the Bronte sisters. I am only on page 75, but I hope to be finished by next weekend.

If there is a code, I'm pretty sure that I don't know what it is.

[Rocker Ute]

Every time I see this thread title, I wonder if it is code for an underground gay LDS hookup site. Posters type what they type, and those in the know can pick up on the hidden meanings in unrelated words or arrangements of words, and then arrange to meet later.

By the way, the orangutan from the Cairo zoo will be visiting Nicaragua this summer. Charles Bronson had dirty shoes in The Great Escape. Maria is the least appreciated of the Bronte sisters. I am only on page 75, but I hope to be finished by next weekend.

That's pretty kinky stuff. I'll doubt you have many takers here.

[Ma'ake]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865665577/Mormon-and-Gay-LDS-Church-launches-page-on-official-website-to-help-members-leaders.html

This is a very humane - and wise - move by the Church to embrace gay Mormons.

- It's a speed bump for young Mormons heading to the exits over the gay issue.

- It helps lays the seeds for sincere, faithful questioning among not just members and lower leaders, but the Big 15, and those who will be in that group, in the next 5-20 years, or so.

Fascinating to watch wheels turn, even if you need time-lapse photography to do it.

Good stuff.

[The Thrill]

This is a very humane - and wise - move by the Church to embrace gay Mormons.

Unless you view their "stay with us" approach as being more of "stay with us and we can heal you from your sins." The SSA disease can be cured, just ask any shock therapy survivor.

Here's the problem, being gay (I personally am not but have many gay friends) is a feeling of isolation. Many gay people feel "different" from early on and some feel the need to be "fixed" to be normal. The church is preying on them as an easy target. Just like all the get rich quick or lose weight fast scams that bilk billions of dollars out of desperate people. So why does the church want to save these lost souls? Easy, every individual voice attacking the church is a bad one. Save as many as you can. The entire argument of "it's not normal" is horseshit. Did anybody every think that God created gay people to control overpopulation? To say God wouldn't create gay people is blasphemy and to question an omnipotent being is arrogant beyond comprehension...that is of course if you believe there is a magic man living in the sky but that's a different thread.

What will be the church's stand when genetic mapping recognizes a gay gene? With all the different genetic mutations in the 7 billion isn't it possible that a human could be born with female chromosomes in the brain and male chromosomes in the body? That makes more sense to me than somebody choosing a lifestyle of persecution and ridicule as well as risking personal harm to themselves physically and mentally. With all the horrible actions taken against the homosexual community why would anybody rightfully choose that? Baby, they were born this way.

I see this outreach to the gay community from the church as nothing more than an arrogant attempt to play god. Sure they welcome homosexuals into their community, then slowly convince them that their lifestyle is wrong and unnatural. How terrible is that? Is it any wonder the gay community has such a high suicide rate? Thankfully through recent acceptance that rate is diminishing but not with the help of groups like the LDS church who continue to convince these people they are bad.

Just leave them alone, they aren't hurting you in any way what-so-ever. I've asked many anti-gay people why they have a problem with homosexuals and the best and only answer I've come to accept is "it's gross." I can buy that argument over it's unnatural or it will hurt the sanctity of marriage. Bull shit, they don't like it so they want it to go away. Rant over.

[Utah]

I've probably mentioned this a 1,000 times, but why is the Church, which is lead by Jesus Christ, so reactionary to everything. They are never proactive about anything other than tithing collection.

This feels like they came out with their policy, a bunch of people left the Church, the 12 muttered "oh, shit" under their breath and hurried and came out with a website to show that normal people (including LGBT) ARE members of the Church, and even though all the policies are set up to drive you away and that you will never be able to fully give 100% to a relationship (because you cannot get married in the LDS Church to a same sex person and not be breaking the law of chastity) and you can't live with your partner and you can't be in a relationship with your partner, but other than that, look how normal we are!

This is nothing more than damage control. This is so the few remaining members can tell themselves that the Church really does care.

[Ma'ake]

Unless you view their "stay with us" approach as being more of "stay with us and we can heal you from your sins." The SSA disease can be cured, just ask any shock therapy survivor.

Here's the problem, being gay (I personally am not but have many gay friends) is a feeling of isolation. Many gay people feel "different" from early on and some feel the need to be "fixed" to be normal. The church is preying on them as an easy target. Just like all the get rich quick or lose weight fast scams that bilk billions of dollars out of desperate people. So why does the church want to save these lost souls? Easy, every individual voice attacking the church is a bad one. Save as many as you can. The entire argument of "it's not normal" is horseshit. Did anybody every think that God created gay people to control overpopulation? To say God wouldn't create gay people is blasphemy and to question an omnipotent being is arrogant beyond comprehension...that is of course if you believe there is a magic man living in the sky but that's a different thread.

What will be the church's stand when genetic mapping recognizes a gay gene? With all the different genetic mutations in the 7 billion isn't it possible that a human could be born with female chromosomes in the brain and male chromosomes in the body? That makes more sense to me than somebody choosing a lifestyle of persecution and ridicule as well as risking personal harm to themselves physically and mentally. With all the horrible actions taken against the homosexual community why would anybody rightfully choose that? Baby, they were born this way.

I see this outreach to the gay community from the church as nothing more than an arrogant attempt to play god. Sure they welcome homosexuals into their community, then slowly convince them that their lifestyle is wrong and unnatural. How terrible is that? Is it any wonder the gay community has such a high suicide rate? Thankfully through recent acceptance that rate is diminishing but not with the help of groups like the LDS church who continue to convince these people they are bad.

Just leave them alone, they aren't hurting you in any way what-so-ever. I've asked many anti-gay people why they have a problem with homosexuals and the best and only answer I've come to accept is "it's gross." I can buy that argument over it's unnatural or it will hurt the sanctity of marriage. Bull shit, they don't like it so they want it to go away. Rant over.

10 years ago this position was pretty much spot on, but I think we're seeing an organization in transition.

Where previously the line was (more or less) "if you're experiencing SSA, it must be due to something *you* did", I think now the tacit understanding is "we don't know why some people have SSA, and it appears to be an innate trait, something they didn't 'choose', but the commandments are clear - homosexual affection is a sin".

Younger generations are more and more shaking off the last part, and asking if these folks didn't choose this orientation, how can it be their fault, and why do they need to go though life feeling marginalized and wishing themselves dead?

There's one of the LDS General Authorities, Todd Kristofferson (?) who has a brother who is gay, is now older and trying to "live the gospel" / get back into the fold. He's helping to inform Mormons that this isn't really an acquired orientation, but is also causing a lot of anger among gays because in eschewing his previous relationships, he's essentially admitting that being gay is a kind of affliction, an imperfection, an inferior variant of human being.

There's certainly a damage control aspect to this, especially as young Mormons simply don't see why gays are viewed as damaged, and are prohibited from expressing romantic love, in this life. The growing understanding among Mormon leaders and Mormons in general that homosexuality isn't simply a result of bad choices is a big step forward, it lays the foundation for reconsidering their status in life.

On the genetics part, I suspect that they'll find a number of genes that increase the predisposition to being homosexual, but there are other biological mechanisms that have a large impact. In the UK in the 60s and 70s, they gave pregnant women who were at risk of miscarriage some medicine that has resulted in 80%+ of the male offspring from those pregnancies being homosexuals. So, that's not a genetics cause, per se, but it's definitely a biological development issue. Similarly, women who are under high stress during their pregnancies are at higher risk of producing homosexual male offspring.

I'm not defending the LDS / traditional Christian theological position on homosexuality. I'm just pointing out that understandings are changing, and in the case of the LDS religion, the potential exists for the theology to change. Making 90 degree, abrupt turns is highly unlikely and problematic in itself, but over the course of time what is commonly believed and taught can change quite dramatically.

[Rocker Ute]

10 years ago this position was pretty much spot on, but I think we're seeing an organization in transition.

Where previously the line was (more or less) "if you're experiencing SSA, it must be due to something *you* did", I think now the tacit understanding is "we don't know why some people have SSA, and it appears to be an innate trait, something they didn't 'choose', but the commandments are clear - homosexual affection is a sin".

Younger generations are more and more shaking off the last part, and asking if these folks didn't choose this orientation, how can it be their fault, and why do they need to go though life feeling marginalized and wishing themselves dead?

There's one of the LDS General Authorities, Todd Kristofferson (?) who has a brother who is gay, is now older and trying to "live the gospel" / get back into the fold. He's helping to inform Mormons that this isn't really an acquired orientation, but is also causing a lot of anger among gays because in eschewing his previous relationships, he's essentially admitting that being gay is a kind of affliction, an imperfection, an inferior variant of human being.

There's certainly a damage control aspect to this, especially as young Mormons simply don't see why gays are viewed as damaged, and are prohibited from expressing romantic love, in this life. The growing understanding among Mormon leaders and Mormons in general that homosexuality isn't simply a result of bad choices is a big step forward, it lays the foundation for reconsidering their status in life.

On the genetics part, I suspect that they'll find a number of genes that increase the predisposition to being homosexual, but there are other biological mechanisms that have a large impact. In the UK in the 60s and 70s, they gave pregnant women who were at risk of miscarriage some medicine that has resulted in 80%+ of the male offspring from those pregnancies being homosexuals. So, that's not a genetics cause, per se, but it's definitely a biological development issue. Similarly, women who are under high stress during their pregnancies are at higher risk of producing homosexual male offspring.

I'm not defending the LDS / traditional Christian theological position on homosexuality. I'm just pointing out that understandings are changing, and in the case of the LDS religion, the potential exists for the theology to change. Making 90 degree, abrupt turns is highly unlikely and problematic in itself, but over the course of time what is commonly believed and taught can change quite dramatically.

Ma'ake, I always appreciate your insight and POV when it comes to this sort of stuff. It is rare I think to have what I think is a pretty fair and practical view of a religion you left long ago. Most people on either side (myself included) are pretty emotionally tied to their position and it is hard to step back and see the forest from the trees.

I agree with what you have said and think it is all accurate. I also understand why saying, "You are who you are, but you can't act on it" is painful for people and offensive to others. My thought is though that the more I go through life the more I realized that everybody is damaged and there are a lot of rules that seem contrary to that damage, if that makes sense. For example my great aunt who never married and lived a celibate life. That was unfair. My disabled mother who has dealt with that her whole life was unfair. The people who grew up poor, the kid from abusive parents, me being bald, people suffering from depression, people who lost their dad when they were a child, etc. It is all pretty unfair. I have a very wealthy friend that someone said to me, "Oh I wish I could live his perfect little life with every luxury in the world." They didn't know he lost his wife to cancer and would trade all of his wealth to get her back. So life seems to be full of 'affliction' much of it seemingly unbearable.

It seems to be a human construct to assign fault to affliction (and I do believe that people can create their own affliction). But we need to get over that.

My point I guess is this: That is what the 'good news' is supposed to be all about though. Life is unjust, but mercy and justice will come in ways we don't understand right now. In the meantime, we humans need to break from poor reasoning and realize our job is simply to learn to love one another and treat everyone the best we can. I think the new church website does a better, albeit not perfect, job at encouraging that. My guess and hope is the hardcore Mormon parents who just had a child who came out will have read or will read that site and realize that their plan to shun their child is the wrong plan and doesn't have the backing of the church. If it fixes that issue alone I would call that site a huge success.

[Hayes6]

I've always found that it helps put yourself in the shoes of the people you're trying to understand. If you are a male heterosexual, imagine you are born into a religion where they tell you that your attraction to women is sinful. Then they change it to say, it's not sinful per se, but acting on it is. So you need to go through life not showing any affection toward a women, not looking at suggestive pictures of them, and certainly not marrying one. In fact, you are encouraged to marry a man and have sex with him. And if you do have sex with a woman and have a child, that child bears your sin until they turn 18 and repudiate you. And they don't call your "defect" heterosexuality, they call it opposite sex attraction "OSA". Your religion treats it like just another cross to bear like a disability or the tragedy of a deceased spouse.

[mUUser]

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865665577/Mormon-and-Gay-LDS-Church-launches-page-on-official-website-to-help-members-leaders.html

This is a very humane - and wise - move by the Church to embrace gay Mormons.

- It's a speed bump for young Mormons heading to the exits over the gay issue.

- It helps lays the seeds for sincere, faithful questioning among not just members and lower leaders, but the Big 15, and those who will be in that group, in the next 5-20 years, or so.

Fascinating to watch wheels turn, even if you need time-lapse photography to do it.

Good stuff.


Any goodwill the church had built with those sympathetic to LGBT, went **poof** and vaporized overnight with its new policy. Inexplicably it went after innocent children. While a certain number of members understand the policy, there seems to be a sizable number of mostly younger members, plus those that aren't members, that see the move as unnecessarily mean-spirited.

I think the church missteps in its outlook and treatment of LGBT will linger for generations.

[Rocker Ute]

I've always found that it helps put yourself in the shoes of the people you're trying to understand. If you are a male heterosexual, imagine you are born into a religion where they tell you that your attraction to women is sinful. Then they change it to say, it's not sinful per se, but acting on it is. So you need to go through life not showing any affection toward a women, not looking at suggestive pictures of them, and certainly not marrying one. In fact, you are encouraged to marry a man and have sex with him. And if you do have sex with a woman and have a child, that child bears your sin until they turn 18 and repudiate you. And they don't call your "defect" heterosexuality, they call it opposite sex attraction "OSA". Your religion treats it like just another cross to bear like a disability or the tragedy of a deceased spouse.

Are you really being dismissive of disabilities or losing a spouse? Maybe put yourself in those shoes too?

[The Thrill]

I've always found that it helps put yourself in the shoes of the people you're trying to understand. If you are a male heterosexual, imagine you are born into a religion where they tell you that your attraction to women is sinful. Then they change it to say, it's not sinful per se, but acting on it is. So you need to go through life not showing any affection toward a women, not looking at suggestive pictures of them, and certainly not marrying one. In fact, you are encouraged to marry a man and have sex with him. And if you do have sex with a woman and have a child, that child bears your sin until they turn 18 and repudiate you. And they don't call your "defect" heterosexuality, they call it opposite sex attraction "OSA". Your religion treats it like just another cross to bear like a disability or the tragedy of a deceased spouse.

Beautifully put. I can't imagine being attracted to my wife without being able to act on it or being told I was bad for thinking it. I should preface this with my wife is black and 50 years ago it might have been a different story.

What the LDS church really needs to do is make all homosexual males into priests, not the lame priests who hand out prison food but actually priests who take a life of celibacy. Maybe monks, they don't have a calling for celibate monks yet. Call them monks and make them lifetime missionaries for the church handing out pamphlets at the airport and social events, especially Pride Fest.

For the lesbian women, meh does it matter? They don't really care what women do as long as they don't make any noise. Make them nuns if need be.

I've still yet to receive an answer as to how homosexuality impacts somebody who isn't involved in that lifestyle.

[Utah]

Once this generation of leaders dies off, the new prophet will change the doctrine.

It's what happens. Find a social issue the church is on the wrong side of. 10 years after the gentiles get it right, the church follows course (which is about how long it takes for current leadership to die off).

For those who say this will affect the church for generations...it won't. The AA/priesthood thing was much more egregious than the LGBT issue and everyone just moves on.

I'd bet most members under 30 don't realize how racist the prophets/apostles were. When my dad served his mission, he was told not to teach black people because they couldn't be saved anyways and his time was better spent teaching the righteous white people.

[Hayes6]

Are you really being dismissive of disabilities or losing a spouse? Maybe put yourself in those shoes too?

No, I'm not. What I'm saying is a religion can't take away a disability or bring back a deceased spouse. But a religion can take away the pain of not living a full life because of the "defect" of homosexuality. Change the policy! They've changed far more fundamental policies. These baby steps may make the rank and file feel better, but again, put yourself in the shoes of who you are trying to understand. Do these minor changes actually make their lives fulfilled? Are they not still treated as lesser humans? Does the church treat the disabled that way or widows that way?

[mUUser]

I've always found that it helps put yourself in the shoes of the people you're trying to understand.......


Kudos to you. Empathy is a lost, but, wonderfully impactful art.

[Rocker Ute]

No, I'm not. What I'm saying is a religion can't take away a disability or bring back a deceased spouse. But a religion can take away the pain of not living a full life because of the "defect" of homosexuality. Change the policy! They've changed far more fundamental policies. These baby steps may make the rank and file feel better, but again, put yourself in the shoes of who you are trying to understand. Do these minor changes actually make their lives fulfilled? Are they not still treated as lesser humans? Does the church treat the disabled that way or widows that way?

You might want to reread what I said originally. (And yes, people - and not just a church - do treat disabled and widowed people differently or without compassion). My point was similar to yours in that everybody has tough challenges and in light of that we should just try to be compassionate and love one another. As a believer I also find comfort in the belief that wrongs will be made right someday too.

[LA Ute]

I've always found that it helps put yourself in the shoes of the people you're trying to understand.

Yep.


And if you do have sex with a woman and have a child, that child bears your sin until they turn 18 and repudiate you.

Because the "rollout" of the new policy was handled so badly (and I am not 100% sure about the policy itself) this interpretation is one of the most unfortunate aspects of the aftermath. The policy treats children of married gay couples the same way the church treats children of polygamous marriages, and I don't think both situations are the same. Children in such families don't bear any responsibility for their parents' marital status. There's no "sin" attached to the children, and the children don't have to repudiate their parents. Rather, the church wants to (1) avoid causing family strife (which is why a child under age 18 needs parental consent to be baptized) and (2) make sure that newly baptized members of "apostate" parents don't share their parents' views. It's not the parents whom the child must disavow, it's the apostate beliefs and activities. That policy makes sense for polygamous families but I am not sure it does for families of married gay parents. I would like to see the policy modified.

[Rocker Ute]

Yep.



Because the "rollout" of the new policy was handled so badly (and I am not 100% sure about the policy itself) this interpretation is one of the most unfortunate aspects of the aftermath. The policy treats children of married gay couples the same way the church treats children of polygamous marriages, and I don't think both situations are the same. Children in such families don't bear any responsibility for their parents' marital status. There's no "sin" attached to the children, and the children don't have to repudiate their parents. Rather, the church wants to (1) avoid causing family strife (which is why a child under age 18 needs parental consent to be baptized) and (2) make sure that newly baptized members of "apostate" parents don't share their parents' views. It's not the parents whom the child must disavow, it's the apostate beliefs and activities. That makes sense for polygamous families but I am not sure it does for families of married gay parents. I would like to see the policy modified.

I've long felt that this policy was a solution looking for a problem as I don't think there are many if any gay couples who wish their children be raised in the church. Simply stating things like you've said would address the issue. Just like all other kids who are getting baptized, they are require to have consent from both parents. Perhaps in this instance of children of gay parents include another provision that they recognize that a child blessed and baptized will be taught doctrine contrary to their lifestyle and that they are okay with that. Even strongly discouraging baptism or making it something that requires a Stake President approval until they are 18 and can have the ability to make that decision while also being able to support themselves.

[mUUser]

....what the LDS church asks of gay members is not very different than what it asks of my sister and my sister-in-law who are both single and will always be single. Many people over the generations have decided that their faith is worth a life of celibacy.


The church encourages a path to consummate a relationship for a heterosexual single person, which includes a legal marriage. For a gay person, no acceptable path to consummate a relationship exists, and never will exist, even if it includes a legal marriage. So how does the LDS church ask the same of both? I'm not following this logic at all.

[Ma'ake]

I've long felt that this policy was a solution looking for a problem as I don't think there are many if any gay couples who wish their children be raised in the church. Simply stating things like you've said would address the issue. Just like all other kids who are getting baptized, they are require to have consent from both parents. Perhaps in this instance of children of gay parents include another provision that they recognize that a child blessed and baptized will be taught doctrine contrary to their lifestyle and that they are okay with that. Even strongly discouraging baptism or making it something that requires a Stake President approval until they are 18 and can have the ability to make that decision while also being able to support themselves.

Excellent point. I think "the policy" is mostly a byproduct of imperfect people bracing for a perceived assault / next chapter of the "gay agenda" to force equality for gays within the church via litigation. It's not an irrational fear.

I take church leadership at their word that they're also trying to protect the children of married gay parents from them having to repudiate their parents' relationship. There's a good motivation here.

But everything can be viewed from different angles, and the superficial "optics" on this policy are not good.

This policy and all the associated turbulence are a result of Mormonism being a pretty cut-and-dried, rules based theology (like most other religions). If it was like the Unitarian church, there really wouldn't be an issue. "We don't have all the answers, we just think it's important to try and love each other, in all the different ways that can happen".

[Utah]

Excellent point. I think "the policy" is mostly a byproduct of imperfect people bracing for a perceived assault / next chapter of the "gay agenda" to force equality for gays within the church via litigation. It's not an irrational fear.

I take church leadership at their word that they're also trying to protect the children of married gay parents from them having to repudiate their parents' relationship. There's a good motivation here.

But everything can be viewed from different angles, and the superficial "optics" on this policy are not good.

This policy and all the associated turbulence are a result of Mormonism being a pretty cut-and-dried, rules based theology (like most other religions). If it was like the Unitarian church, there really wouldn't be an issue. "We don't have all the answers, we just think it's important to try and love each other, in all the different ways that can happen".

I think the bolded part is the problem. You've (not you personally) set up a religion that supposedly has a prophet at the top. You are taught that this man has direct communication with God and he knows all. He has access to all. He has access to God to find out God's will for the whole world.

The problem is, whether there was revelation before or not, there doesn't seem to be much going on these days. You have a prophet on the verge of dementia who doesn't know all.

That is a tough place to rule from.

And I think the younger people, with their access to the internet and each other, are starting to realize that this man doesn't hold the answers they were told he holds.

They are starting to realize that personal revelation trumps all, even what comes from the pulpit. That the pulpit has been wrong before, and there is a great chance the pulpit is wrong again.

The younger generation are realizing that when you admit that being born gay is possible, then it makes no sense to keep one of the most important aspects of life out of a person's life, just because they were born gay.

If you are born gay, and God made you gay, then why can't you be married? Why can't you adopt a child or have a child of your own? What about being gay prevents you from being Christlike?

[mUUser]

I think the bolded part is the problem. You've (not you personally) set up a religion that supposedly has a prophet at the top. You are taught that this man has direct communication with God and he knows all. He has access to all. He has access to God to find out God's will for the whole world.

The problem is, whether there was revelation before or not, there doesn't seem to be much going on these days. You have a prophet on the verge of dementia who doesn't know all.

That is a tough place to rule from.

And I think the younger people, with their access to the internet and each other, are starting to realize that this man doesn't hold the answers they were told he holds.

They are starting to realize that personal revelation trumps all, even what comes from the pulpit. That the pulpit has been wrong before, and there is a great chance the pulpit is wrong again.

The younger generation are realizing that when you admit that being born gay is possible, then it makes no sense to keep one of the most important aspects of life out of a person's life, just because they were born gay.

If you are born gay, and God made you gay, then why can't you be married? Why can't you adopt a child or have a child of your own? What about being gay prevents you from being Christlike?

I don't think you understood this poster. He says the bolded phrase is a tenet of the Unitarian church , not the LDS Church. The LDS Church would say "We have an answer to this, and it is that having gay relations is a serious enough sin to warrant excommunication from the church".

As a practicing member of the LDS Church, I believe TSM holds the keys to preside over the church. However, in the thousands of meetings I've attended over the years, I've not been taught, nor do I believe, that the Prophet is infallible (or in your words "knows all"), although I'll admit, in practice, most members treat his words as infallible and will occasionally engage in all kinds of mental gymnastics to explain historical embarrassments.

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the church's political activities to limit marital freedoms for gays and lesbians. I was asked to contribute to Prop 8 by my church leadership, but politely declined. I'm also uncomfortable with the latest policy directed at children, just as I remember feeling uncomfortable, even at 14 years old, with the blacks/priesthood policy pre-1978. I couldn't shake the feeling that was wrong, and I can't shake the feeling today that the church's latest policy towards children of gay parents is wrong.

Having said that, there's a lot more with the church I feel good about, than that which I don't feel good about. Should the day come when that is reversed, I'll leave. In the meantime, I'll stick around and try to live a Christlike life for my family and those around me.

[Utah]

I want to preface this by saying that I am an active member of the church. I attend probably 46-48 times a year. I hold callings. I've been in almost every level of leadership. I just baptized my son this last weekend. I served a mission, held all callings in a mission, etc.


I don't think you understood this poster. He says the bolded phrase is a tenet of the Unitarian church , not the LDS Church. The LDS Church would say "We have an answer to this, and it is that having gay relations is a serious enough sin to warrant excommunication from the church".

Where does that answer come from? We say from God, and maybe it does, but it comes from the first presidency and quorum of the 12. So, are we really any different than Unitarian Church? They have their ideas and we have ours. Maybe they are right, maybe we are right, maybe the answer is somewhere in the middle. Maybe, we need to quit being so worried about the hoops to jump through and just focus on being better people to everyone and the rest will sort itself out.

None of us will know until we stand in front of god. Or die and disappear. The simple truth is this: When the LDS Church says they have the answer, they think they have the answer. I spent a lot of time with Richard G. Scott, Holland and many other GA's. They haven't seen Jesus. They have faith just like you and I. They are men, trying their best to do what is right. Sometimes men are wrong. It's ok.

SL Trib just had an article that covered a recent survey. More than 50% of Active LDS millennials feel that the Church's stance on gay marriage is incorrect. Someday, one of those millennials will be the prophet. Much like President Kimball, he (or maybe she at that point) will change the doctrine/policy (whoever you want to spin it) and we will catch up to society on this issue.


As a practicing member of the LDS Church, I believe TSM holds the keys to preside over the church. However, in the thousands of meetings I've attended over the years, I've not been taught, nor do I believe, that the Prophet is infallible (or in your words "knows all"), although I'll admit, in practice, most members treat his words as infallible and will occasionally engage in all kinds of mental gymnastics to explain historical embarrassments.

Yes...and no. My kids sing a lot of songs that allude to the prophet being infallible. The Church sells a lot of books by McConkie, JFSmith, etc that allude to the prophet being infallible. So, is the prophet perfect? Nope. Is he sometimes wrong? Yup. Does the prophet sometimes hold grudges, intolerance, bigotry stances and does the prophet use his office as a way to spread his incorrect feelings? Yup.

It's a fine line the Church walks. You are supposed to follow the prophet...unless we find out 30 years later he was wrong. Even the song, "We Thank Thee Oh God for a Prophet" strongly implies that we are to be obedient. The lyrics tell you there that if you don't follow the prophet, you will be forfeiting blessings and happiness.


Personally, I'm uncomfortable with the church's political activities to limit marital freedoms for gays and lesbians. I was asked to contribute to Prop 8 by my church leadership, but politely declined. I'm also uncomfortable with the latest policy directed at children, just as I remember feeling uncomfortable, even at 14 years old, with the blacks/priesthood policy pre-1978. I couldn't shake the feeling that was wrong, and I can't shake the feeling today that the church's latest policy towards children of gay parents is wrong.

I feel the same way you do. I believe the current regime is incorrect and someday this will all change and we will once again catch up to the heathens...years later than we should have. We have the holy ghost for a reason. And that reason is sometimes the prophet is wrong. When you (and I) stand before God to be judged, we will be judged on our actions and intents...not judged on how obedient we were following a false teaching from a prophet.


Having said that, there's a lot more with the church I feel good about, than that which I don't feel good about. Should the day come when that is reversed, I'll leave. In the meantime, I'll stick around and try to live a Christlike life for my family and those around me.

I feel the exact same way as you do. The Church has its flaws. It isn't perfect. Having an older leadership means having a hard time giving up the "good old days".

But, there is a lot of good there. I don't think I will find more happiness in any other Church. So, I stay, I will participate, learn grow and hopefully be a little better every day. But the homosexual stances the Church has taken...It's too bad. It's wrong.

Much like my dad was taught not to share the discussions with black people on his mission because they were disobedient in the pre-existence and weren't eligible for all covenants...the homosexual situation will right itself over time as well.

[LA Ute]

This seems to be a significant step by the church. The official church video (embedded in the article) came out yesterday or the day before.

https://www.lds.org/blog/navigating-family-differences-with-love-and-trust?cid=FB_3-22-17_OCS_CM_BLOG&__prclt=Tw6EjpH7

[Utah]

I think this just shows that pretty much the only people that are anti-gay are the ones at the top.

In 20 years, our new prophet will have the same revelation that Kimball had and realize that the Church's policies were not inspired by god, but by fear, they will change them, and we will move onto the next discriminated group in our church. Women? Probably. Someday we will catch up to the gentiles when it comes to treating people correctly.

[tooblue]

I think this just shows that pretty much the only people that are anti-gay are the ones at the top.

In 20 years, our new prophet will have the same revelation that Kimball had and realize that the Church's policies were not inspired by god, but by fear, they will change them, and we will move onto the next discriminated group in our church. Women? Probably. Someday we will catch up to the gentiles when it comes to treating people correctly.

let's open a window on this brave world you hope to catch up to:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5GYlZKfBmI&feature=youtu.be

[mpfunk]

This seems to be a significant step by the church. The official church video (embedded in the article) came out yesterday or the day before.

https://www.lds.org/blog/navigating-family-differences-with-love-and-trust?cid=FB_3-22-17_OCS_CM_BLOG&__prclt=Tw6EjpH7
I would agree it was a significant step if the church hadn't at the same time put in the Ensign that homosexual marriages are counterfeit. While defining counterfeit as "worthless" and "twisted."

Plus, how messed up is the teachings of the church if a significant step is to say that parents shouldn't ostracize their children if they are gay. It shows how messed up the culture is that this needs to be said in the first place.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[tooblue]

I would agree it was a significant step if the church hadn't at the same time put in the Ensign that homosexual marriages are counterfeit. While defining counterfeit as "worthless" and "twisted."

Plus, how messed up is the teachings of the church if a significant step is to say that parents shouldn't ostracize their children if they are gay. It shows how messed up the culture is that this needs to be said in the first place.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

You realize you are talking about American culture, and not purely LDS culture right? Please stop pretending it's isolated to Mormons. It makes you look stupid.

[tooblue]

let's open a window on this brave world you hope to catch up to:

In regards to the video above, to be clear: beyond biological factors, humans make sexual preference choices also based on societal constructs (i.e. what the environment within which they were raised and live teaches them).

In principle, I don’t disagree. But the argument does raise an important point. If sexual preference is in part (large or small) due to societal constructs (i.e. what is learned), in conjunction with biological factors, then all sexual preference is learned. Including homosexuality.

To be clearer: I am only summarizing an underlying argument the individual in the video is making. Which highlights how convoluted this discussion can and has become.

[mpfunk]

You realize you are talking about American culture, and not purely LDS culture right? Please stop pretending it's isolated to Mormons. It makes you look stupid.
Where did I say that it was isolated to LDS culture? Don't pretend though this problem isnt huge it LDS culture. It makes you look stupid.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[tooblue]

Where did I say that it was isolated to LDS culture? Don't pretend though this problem isnt huge it LDS culture. It makes you look stupid.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk


Plus, how messed up is the teachings of the church if a significant step is to say that parents shouldn't ostracize their children if they are gay. It shows how messed up the culture is that this needs to be said in the first place.
Nowhere in there do you mention this is a larger societal problem in the US or even elsewhere in the world. Those are your words, underlined for emphasis.

[mpfunk]

Nowhere in there do you mention this is a larger societal problem in the US or even elsewhere in the world. Those are your words, underlined for emphasis.
We were specifically talking about the LDS Church not culture at large. The LDS Church claims to be led by revelation from God. If that was true, frankly they should be held to a higher standard.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[Rocker Ute]

We were specifically talking about the LDS Church not culture at large. The LDS Church claims to be led by revelation from God. If that was true, frankly they should be held to a higher standard.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

Well technically if they actually are led by revelation from God, then their opinion on the matter would be right and it wouldn't matter what yours was ;)

I'm just sayin'...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tooblue]

We were specifically talking about the LDS Church not culture at large. The LDS Church claims to be led by revelation from God. If that was true, frankly they should be held to a higher standard.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

This argument about higher standards is an interesting one. In my experience interacting with you over several years, it is fair in my estimation to characterize your perspective on the world, specifically the LDS church and its teachings, as enlightened. At the very least, it is fair for me to assert that I discern you believe you are an enlightened person.

What's more, if I remember correctly, you are a lawyer, or possess a law degree. Ergo, my expectation is that I should be able to hold you to a higher standard, specifically as it relates to your ability to write, and employ the English language—an imperfect, ancient human technology—in daily efforts to convey precise meaning, facilitate understanding and avoid confusion and potential conflict.

Distressingly, your most recent post in this thread does not achieve those ends. Your comments are derisive and invite conflict. Therefore, I can only surmise that the school where you studied law can be at fault, for the inability of your words, as they have been written, to convey precise meaning and facilitate understanding.

Unless, of course you alone as an individual can be blamed for your inadequate writing skills. Which of course calls into question the entire law educational system, if not the entire law profession ... I could go on. But I'll stop here out of respect for L.A. Holding others to higher standards is a dangerous game to play.

[mpfunk]

This argument about higher standards is an interesting one. In my experience interacting with you over several years, it is fair in my estimation to characterize your perspective on the world, specifically the LDS church and its teachings, as enlightened. At the very least, it is fair for me to assert that I discern you believe you are an enlightened person.

What's more, if I remember correctly, you are a lawyer, or possess a law degree. Ergo, my expectation is that I should be able to hold you to a higher standard, specifically as it relates to your ability to write, and employ the English language—an imperfect, ancient human technology—in daily efforts to convey precise meaning, facilitate understanding and avoid confusion and potential conflict.

Distressingly, your most recent post in this thread does not achieve those ends. Your comments are derisive and invite conflict. Therefore, I can only surmise that the school where you studied law can be at fault, for the inability of your words, as they have been written, to convey precise meaning and facilitate understanding.

Unless, of course you alone as an individual can be blamed for your inadequate writing skills. Which of course calls into question the entire law educational system, if not the entire law profession ... I could go on. But I'll stop here out of respect for L.A. Holding others to higher standards is a dangerous game to play.
Congrats this may be one of the most condescending posts on this site.

FYI, I don't put the same level of thought or editing into my message board posts as I do my legal writing.

Oh and go **** yourself.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[tooblue]

Congrats this may be one of the most condescending posts on this site.

FYI, I don't put the same level of thought or editing into my message board posts as I do my legal writing.

Oh and go fuck yourself.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

As condescending as holding everyone other than yourself to a higher standard? Maybe.

[Scorcho]

You realize you are talking about American culture, and not purely LDS culture right? Please stop pretending it's isolated to Mormons. It makes you look stupid.

You do realize that the subject of this thread is "the path of homosexuality in LDS theology"

[Scorcho]

This seems to be a significant step by the church. The official church video (embedded in the article) came out yesterday or the day before.

https://www.lds.org/blog/navigating-family-differences-with-love-and-trust?cid=FB_3-22-17_OCS_CM_BLOG&__prclt=Tw6EjpH7

My sister in law has flipped from gay to straight back to gay again over the last 20 years, my father in law has handled that about as well as anybody possibly could. I've never heard him utter a negative word and has been more than welcoming to all of her partners. No way could I have been that understanding.

[tooblue]

You do realize that the subject of this thread is "the path of homosexuality in LDS theology"

Absolutely. Doesn't change the fact that Mormon culture is tightly intertwined with American culture. It is, after all, "The American religion" ... at least according to Tolstoy.

[Utah]

I would agree it was a significant step if the church hadn't at the same time put in the Ensign that homosexual marriages are counterfeit. While defining counterfeit as "worthless" and "twisted."

Plus, how messed up is the teachings of the church if a significant step is to say that parents shouldn't ostracize their children if they are gay. It shows how messed up the culture is that this needs to be said in the first place.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

So much truth here.

[Utah]

Well technically if they actually are led by revelation from God, then their opinion on the matter would be right and it wouldn't matter what yours was ;)

I'm just sayin'...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup. These are also the same people that taught that black people were naughty in the pre-existance and other horrible things that were WRONG.

So, I wouldn't put much faith in their ideas when it comes to how to treat others.

[Utah]

You realize you are talking about American culture, and not purely LDS culture right? Please stop pretending it's isolated to Mormons. It makes you look stupid.

I HATE this argument. Well, everyone else does it, so it's ok.

We are supposed to be led by a prophet that has direct revelation from God. We should be the FIRST to do what's right, not the LAST.

The last time we were in this predicament, the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. We didn't change until 1978.

That's unacceptable.

[Utah]

This argument about higher standards is an interesting one. In my experience interacting with you over several years, it is fair in my estimation to characterize your perspective on the world, specifically the LDS church and its teachings, as enlightened. At the very least, it is fair for me to assert that I discern you believe you are an enlightened person.

What's more, if I remember correctly, you are a lawyer, or possess a law degree. Ergo, my expectation is that I should be able to hold you to a higher standard, specifically as it relates to your ability to write, and employ the English language—an imperfect, ancient human technology—in daily efforts to convey precise meaning, facilitate understanding and avoid confusion and potential conflict.

Distressingly, your most recent post in this thread does not achieve those ends. Your comments are derisive and invite conflict. Therefore, I can only surmise that the school where you studied law can be at fault, for the inability of your words, as they have been written, to convey precise meaning and facilitate understanding.

Unless, of course you alone as an individual can be blamed for your inadequate writing skills. Which of course calls into question the entire law educational system, if not the entire law profession ... I could go on. But I'll stop here out of respect for L.A. Holding others to higher standards is a dangerous game to play.

lol. I see tooblue lives by this credo:

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

A long pile of incoherent garbage.

[Rocker Ute]

Yup. These are also the same people that taught that black people were naughty in the pre-existance and other horrible things that were WRONG.

So, I wouldn't put much faith in their ideas when it comes to how to treat others.

Woosh.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tooblue]

I HATE this argument. Well, everyone else does it, so it's ok.

We are supposed to be led by a prophet that has direct revelation from God. We should be the FIRST to do what's right, not the LAST.

The last time we were in this predicament, the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964. We didn't change until 1978.

That's unacceptable.

Ya, you're right. There are no race issues in the US. That was all sorted out during the civil rights movement. If only those dang Mormons could catch up with the rest of America, we'd no longer have Treyvon Martin's getting shot and riots in St. Louis!

[tooblue]

Ya, you're right. There are no race issues in the US. That was all sorted out during the civil rights movement. If only those dang Mormons could catch up with the rest of America, we'd no longer have Treyvon Martin's getting shot and riots in St. Louis!

And, ya Utah. I really think you are onto something here. I bet it's Mormons who are behind President Trumps travel ban. Now that I think about it, Mormons also must be behind those anti-LGBT laws in North Carolina.

[Scorcho]

And, ya Utah. I really think you are onto something here. I bet it's Mormons who are behind President Trumps travel ban. Now that I think about it, Mormons also must be behind those anti-LGBT laws in North Carolina.

you've gone full zoob

[tooblue]

you've gone full zoob

Only a zoot would try to bring BYU into this discussion.

[Hayes6]

Absolutely. Doesn't change the fact that Mormon culture is tightly intertwined with American culture. It is, after all, "The American religion" ... at least according to Tolstoy.

Dude, you need to get out more. The vast majority of this country doesn't think twice about the Mormon church, much less its culture, which a much different thing. To the extent they do, most think Mormons are weird and backwards.

[USS Utah]

I think this just shows that pretty much the only people that are anti-gay are the ones at the top.

In 20 years, our new prophet will have the same revelation that Kimball had and realize that the Church's policies were not inspired by god, but by fear, they will change them, and we will move onto the next discriminated group in our church. Women? Probably. Someday we will catch up to the gentiles when it comes to treating people correctly.

A couple of months ago, during ward conference, my bishop, a retread called back in because his predecessor suddenly moved out of the ward, talked about the difference between policy and doctrine. He was a missionary in Texas before 1978, and he related a story where a member was upset when a black member was invited to the chapel for the general priesthood session broadcast. This individual stated that if blacks were ever given the priesthood, he would leave the church. Within in a matter of months, the policy was changed. My bishop made the point that while the policy had changed, the doctrine of the priesthood had not. Other policies have changed in my lifetime, another example used by my bishop was the move to the 3 hour meeting block.

I expect that the policy that was leaked a while back will eventually be changed, perhaps even sooner than we think, but the doctrine on marriage will not.

[tooblue]

Dude, you need to get out more. The vast majority of this country doesn't think twice about the Mormon church, much less its culture, which a much different thing. To the extent they do, most think Mormons are weird and backwards.

Dude, I don't live in the US. So, I'm not sure how much more you want me to get out? The point is, the issues funk is all worked up about aren't exclusive to Mormons, though that's what he'd have you believe. Ironically, your point reinforces that fact; that intolerance is rampant all across the entirety of the US among a majority of Americans, because while the State of Utah (heavily populated by those not-worth-noticing backwards Mormons) has passed landmark legislation protecting LGBT rights, other states are currently or have recently passed legislation curtailing LGBT rights. In that light, it can be argued the LDS church and it's members are ahead of the curve. I don't know that I fully agree with such an argument, but it can be made.

[USS Utah]

Yup. These are also the same people that taught that black people were naughty in the pre-existance and other horrible things that were WRONG.

So, I wouldn't put much faith in their ideas when it comes to how to treat others.

One member of the 12, who later became church president, once said man would never walk on the moon. These are fallible men, just like the rest of us, who, according to LDS belief, are sometimes inspired by God.

[mpfunk]

Dude, I don't live in the US. So, I'm not sure how much more you want me to get out? The point is, the issues funk is all worked up about aren't exclusive to Mormons, though that's what he'd have you believe. Ironically, your point reinforces that fact; that intolerance is rampant all across the entirety of the US among a majority of Americans, because while the State of Utah (heavily populated by those not-worth-noticing backwards Mormons) has passed landmark legislation protecting LGBT rights, other states are currently or have recently passed legislation curtailing LGBT rights. In that light, it can be argued the LDS church and it's members are ahead of the curve. I don't know that I fully agree with such an argument, but it can be made.

You are putting a lot of words in my mouth.

No the issue is not isolated to Mormons not in the slightest. Mormons though visibly and actively attempted to deny homosexuals rights. So sorry I'm not giving you any ally cookies for a video is barely even a baby step in a 2 million mile journey.

That legislation you talk of is not landmark. It was a few common sense things like homosexuals should be allowed to have jobs and housing mixed in with a bunch of unneeded religious freedom bullshit. The argument that the LDS Church and its members are ahead of the curve is laughable.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[tooblue]

You are putting a lot of words in my mouth.

No the issue is not isolated to Mormons not in the slightest. Mormons though visibly and actively attempted to deny homosexuals rights. So sorry I'm not giving you any ally cookies for a video is barely even a baby step in a 2 million mile journey.

That legislation you talk of is not landmark. It was a few common sense things like homosexuals should be allowed to have jobs and housing mixed in with a bunch of unneeded religious freedom bullshit. The argument that the LDS Church and its members are ahead of the curve is laughable.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

"Utah — yes, Utah — passes landmark LGBT rights bill"—Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/12/utah-legislature-passes-landmark-lgbt-anti-discrimination-bill-backed-by-mormon-church/?utm_term=.63d8ae027272


"As Anti-LGBT Laws Sweep U.S., How Did GOP-Led Utah Pass a Landmark Nondiscrimination Bill?"—Democracynow.org:

https://www.democracynow.org/2016/4/19/as_anti_lgbt_laws_sweep_us


"Utah passes landmark LGBT rights bill backed by Mormon leaders"—L.A. Times:

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-utah-anti-discrimination-bill-20150312-story.html


"LGBT anti-discrimination bill passes Utah Senate ... Members of Utah's state Senate told personal stories of discrimination and even invoked the state's polygamist history during a Friday afternoon debate on a landmark bill that protects gay and transgender people from discrimination while also protecting religious rights."—Daily Mail Online:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-2982326/LGBT-anti-discrimination-bill-passes-Utah-test.html


"Utah Passes Antidiscrimination Bill Backed by Mormon Leaders ... 'It is a landmark,” said Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights organization. “This is a Republican-controlled Legislature with a Republican governor, and this will be the first time that a Republican-controlled process has led to extension of protections for L.G.B.T. people.'"—New York Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/12/us/politics/utah-passes-antidiscrimination-bill-backed-by-mormon-leaders.html?_r=0

One more, edited in for interests sake ...

"Utah Senate passes LGBT anti-discrimination bill ... Mormon church backs landmark bill banning housing and employment discrimination, though religious groups are exempt"—Al Jazeera America:

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/3/6/utah-senate-passes-lgbt-anti-discrimination-bill.html

[Hayes6]

Dude, I don't live in the US. So, I'm not sure how much more you want me to get out? The point is, the issues funk is all worked up about aren't exclusive to Mormons, though that's what he'd have you believe. Ironically, your point reinforces that fact; that intolerance is rampant all across the entirety of the US among a majority of Americans, because while the State of Utah (heavily populated by those not-worth-noticing backwards Mormons) has passed landmark legislation protecting LGBT rights, other states are currently or have recently passed legislation curtailing LGBT rights. In that light, it can be argued the LDS church and it's members are ahead of the curve. I don't know that I fully agree with such an argument, but it can be made.

Then apparently you need to get in the US more to see how little Mormonism matters here. Claiming that Mormon culture is intertwined with American culture is pretty arrogant. Yes, kudos to the Utah State Legislature for passing that bill. That's awesome. But are you conflating them to the Mormon Church? Are you acknowledging the Utah is a theocracy? LGBT rights have expanded greatly in the US over the last three years, while the LDS church bans ssm couples and their children, treating them worse than murderers, rapists, and the like. The policy will ultimately change as so many others have, but it's too bad the patriarchy continues to blame their old white straight conservative male biases on God.

[Utah]

A couple of months ago, during ward conference, my bishop, a retread called back in because his predecessor suddenly moved out of the ward, talked about the difference between policy and doctrine. He was a missionary in Texas before 1978, and he related a story where a member was upset when a black member was invited to the chapel for the general priesthood session broadcast. This individual stated that if blacks were ever given the priesthood, he would leave the church. Within in a matter of months, the policy was changed. My bishop made the point that while the policy had changed, the doctrine of the priesthood had not. Other policies have changed in my lifetime, another example used by my bishop was the move to the 3 hour meeting block.

I expect that the policy that was leaked a while back will eventually be changed, perhaps even sooner than we think, but the doctrine on marriage will not.

This is where I have a little bit of an issue. I get what you are saying. I understand the policy vs doctrine. BUT, wasn't the blacks and priesthood taught as doctrine?

If not, then where do we draw the line when it comes to following the prophet? Do I HAVE to follow the prophet, even if his policies are wrong (according to McConkie, yes). If the answer is yes, then what about my free agency and my ability to receive inspiration from the holy ghost?

BTW, Joseph Fielding Smith said in "The Way to Perfection", p. 110 that the Church's view on blacks and the priesthood was doctrine, not policy.

What happens when the doctrine on gay marriage becomes policy after we change it?

[Utah]

One member of the 12, who later became church president, once said man would never walk on the moon. These are fallible men, just like the rest of us, who, according to LDS belief, are sometimes inspired by God.

This
This is what we fail to remember. These are just men, who are doing their best to help us do their best. I'm not so sure they are anything other than that, just like every other church out there. That is why their stances on homosexuality are so hard to hear.

Are they from god, or are they just an older man's prejudices and fears?

My heart tells me this isn't from God.

[sancho]

BTW, Joseph Fielding Smith said in "The Way to Perfection", p. 110 that the Church's view on blacks and the priesthood was doctrine, not policy.


Ah, but of course, "The Way to Perfection" is itself not doctrine. What a pickle!

[sancho]

treating them worse than murderers, rapists, and the like.

Wow, you understand this policy differently than I do!

[Scorcho]

Wow, you understand this policy differently than I do!

honestly, I'm not sure anyone can argue with Hayes6 point.

As an active LDS member, I am still struggling with the recent decision and rationale behind treating gay couples children any differently. I am fortunate that my bishop is not a hard-line type when it came to my last TR interview.

[sancho]

honestly, I'm not sure anyone can argue with Hayes6 point.

Nobody around here seems to really like or understand the policy, but "we don't want to create conflict in families" is a million miles from "gays are worse than rapists!"

[Scorcho]

Nobody around here seems to really like or understand the policy, but "we don't want to create conflict in families" is a million miles from "gays are worse than rapists!"

clearly, nobody would even think of equating the two.

but, why have a policy that focuses on gay parents exclusively. It's blatantly homophobic.

[LA Ute]

clearly, nobody would even think of equating the two.

but, why have a policy that focuses on gay parents exclusively. It's blatantly homophobic.

I don't want to dive into this discussion but I'll just note that the same policy applies to children of polygamous parents. In fact, this one was modeled on that one. I have issues with how the new policy was rolled out, among other things, but I don't think it singles out any group. Ugh. I hate this.

[UTEopia]

I don't want to dive into this discussion but I'll just note that the same policy applies to children of polygamous parents. In fact, this one was modeled on that one. I have issues with how the new policy was rolled out, among other things, but I don't think it singles out any group. Ugh. I hate this.

Like many things, the policy was an answer seeking a problem. The policy of the LDS Church has always been that minors need parental permission to receive an LDS Church ordinance. This policy preventing such ordinances to the children of same sex marriages, even when the parents consent, is unnecessary. I guess that, instead of the parents saying no to Johnny's baptism, the parents can now say that the church you want to join won't let you join because of our marriage.

[tooblue]

Then apparently you need to get in the US more to see how little Mormonism matters here. Claiming that Mormon culture is intertwined with American culture is pretty arrogant. Yes, kudos to the Utah State Legislature for passing that bill. That's awesome. But are you conflating them to the Mormon Church? Are you acknowledging the Utah is a theocracy? LGBT rights have expanded greatly in the US over the last three years, while the LDS church bans ssm couples and their children, treating them worse than murderers, rapists, and the like. The policy will ultimately change as so many others have, but it's too bad the patriarchy continues to blame their old white straight conservative male biases on God.

I was born and raised in Utah. I visit often. As an American and devout Mormon who currently lives outside the US, I can authoritatively state: the two cultures are inextricably linked. As well, it could be agued that one could not exist without the other. In fact, that is often what was taught in (LDS) church when I was growing up—that the restoration could only have happened in the United States of America, with a constitution guaranteeing certain inalienable rights. In particular the right to freedom of religion.

Leo Tolstoy considers Mormonism the American Religion:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865611356/Leo-Tolstoys-view-of-Mormons-as-teaching--The-American-Religion.html

Additionally, the articles I linked to above contradict your assertions concerning the [great] expansion of LGBT rights in the US. Utah and it's laws that were backed by the LDS church and passed by legislators, a majority of which are active LDS,* is an outlier among what can be considered conservative US states. What's more, the reality is, any rights afforded to LGBT individuals in any state in the US is a fairly recent phenomenon. In contrast, I live in a country where LGBT individuals have had such rights for more than ten years. Including the right to marry:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/timeline-same-sex-rights-in-canada-1.1147516


*http://www.sltrib.com/home/4663941-155/is-utah-legislature-representative-of-the

Mormons will hold a 91-12 edge, according to a first-in-a-generation comprehensive list compiled by The Salt Lake Tribune. (One member, Sen. Daniel Thatcher, R-West Valley City, declined to list his religion, saying, "It doesn't matter").

[mUUser]

I don't want to dive into this discussion but I'll just note that the same policy applies to children of polygamous parents. In fact, this one was modeled on that one. I have issues with how the new policy was rolled out, among other things, but I don't think it singles out any group. Ugh. I hate this.


Polygamous parents promote/teach their children about the virtues, advantages and "correct doctrine" of polygamy beginning at a very young and impressionable age. Gay parents are not known to promote the advantages, virtues and correct doctrine of being gay to their children. There's little, if any, relationship between the two situations IMO.

[sancho]

Polygamous parents promote/teach their children about the virtues, advantages and "correct doctrine" of polygamy beginning at a very young and impressionable age. Gay parents are not known to promote the advantages, virtues and correct doctrine of being gay to their children. There's little, if any, relationship between the two situations IMO.

The relationship between the two is that there is potential for family strife/pain/hurt.

I agree with UTEopia that this was a solution without a problem. The hypothetital problem was that kids would be baptized and then be taught that their parents are living contrary to the commandments of the church. It's not hard to imagine how that could be bad for a family.

[Hayes6]

I was born and raised in Utah. I visit often. As an American and devout Mormon who currently lives outside the US, I can authoritatively state: the two cultures are inextricably linked. As well, it could be agued that one could not exist without the other. In fact, that is often what was taught in (LDS) church when I was growing up—that the restoration could only have happened in the United States of America, with a constitution guaranteeing certain inalienable rights. In particular the right to freedom of religion.

Leo Tolstoy considers Mormonism the American Religion:

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865611356/Leo-Tolstoys-view-of-Mormons-as-teaching--The-American-Religion.html

Additionally, the articles I linked to above contradict your assertions concerning the [great] expansion of LGBT rights in the US. Utah and it's laws that were backed by the LDS church and passed by legislators, a majority of which are active LDS,* is an outlier among what can be considered conservative US states. What's more, the reality is, any rights afforded to LGBT individuals in any state in the US is a fairly recent phenomenon. In contrast, I live in a country where LGBT individuals have had such rights for more than ten years. Including the right to marry:

American culture has existed and could easily exist without Mormon culture. It does almost everywhere in the U.S. Whether Mormon culture could have existed without American culture is a different question, and I don't really care what the answer is.

Leo Tolstoy doesn't consider anything. He's dead.

Um, in the last three years, gays have earned the right to marry nationwide, over the vociferous objection of the LDS Church. LBGT folks also obtained the right to serve openly in the military. While it is true some rearguard actions are attempting to move the clock back, the majority of Americans are far more accepting of LGBT than they were even a few years ago. Again, I applaud the Legislature's passing of that bill, but it doesn't remove the stain of the November, 2015 policy that continues to be a black mark on the church, and continues to treat LGBT as "less than."

[Rocker Ute]

Like many things, the policy was an answer seeking a problem. The policy of the LDS Church has always been that minors need parental permission to receive an LDS Church ordinance. This policy preventing such ordinances to the children of same sex marriages, even when the parents consent, is unnecessary. I guess that, instead of the parents saying no to Johnny's baptism, the parents can now say that the church you want to join won't let you join because of our marriage.

File this for what it is worth, I personally don't put too much credence in it which is why I never mentioned it. I also agree with the "solution looking for a problem" analysis.

However, BEFORE the policy a LDS church employee I know told me there was a group of gay parents in CA who were going to LDS churches and asking that their children be blessed. For you ward clerks out there you know you fill out a paper or online form that requires a mother and a father before a blessing. Uncertain what to do resulted in multiple calls to the COB that triggered issues.

Later when this happened he said he believed it was a response to that.

Like I said, I don't know and I said to him at the time it seemed a pretty dramatic response to a clerical issue.

File it for what is worth, which is less than the pixels it is taking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[USS Utah]

This is where I have a little bit of an issue. I get what you are saying. I understand the policy vs doctrine. BUT, wasn't the blacks and priesthood taught as doctrine?

If not, then where do we draw the line when it comes to following the prophet? Do I HAVE to follow the prophet, even if his policies are wrong (according to McConkie, yes). If the answer is yes, then what about my free agency and my ability to receive inspiration from the holy ghost?

BTW, Joseph Fielding Smith said in "The Way to Perfection", p. 110 that the Church's view on blacks and the priesthood was doctrine, not policy.

What happens when the doctrine on gay marriage becomes policy after we change it?

I have vague remembrances of the announcement of the change in policy in 1978, but I was 9 years old at the time. From experience, I cannot say what was and was not taught as doctrine regarding blacks and the priesthood.

I believe that the president of the LDS Church is a prophet who can receive revelation direct from God for the entire church and even all of humankind. However, I also believe that I have a right to receive personal revelation from God regarding my own life. I do not believe in blind faith. If I have a question or concern about something the prophet said, or a decision or policy made by the church, I believe I can go to God himself -- as opposed to going to Google -- and getting my own revelation. I further believe that If I have a problem with church leadership, it is mine, not theirs, and that I should get on my knees and stay there until I no longer have a problem -- because God has given me the understanding I needed.


This
This is what we fail to remember. These are just men, who are doing their best to help us do their best. I'm not so sure they are anything other than that, just like every other church out there. That is why their stances on homosexuality are so hard to hear.

Are they from god, or are they just an older man's prejudices and fears?

My heart tells me this isn't from God.

It seems we focus on one at the exclusion of the other sometimes. They are men. They are inspired. But it is both. They are men and they are inspired. Getting called to church leadership does not make one infallible, but getting called to leadership at least sometimes means that you are not just ordinary. I am a history guy. In addition to military and American history, I also study church history. In addition to reading biographies of generals, admirals and presidents, I read bios of LDS presidents. While these men are still human, they also have tended to be somewhat extraordinary.

[tooblue]

American culture has existed and could easily exist without Mormon culture. It does almost everywhere in the U.S. Whether Mormon culture could have existed without American culture is a different question, and I don't really care what the answer is.

Leo Tolstoy doesn't consider anything. He's dead.

Um, in the last three years, gays have earned the right to marry nationwide, over the vociferous objection of the LDS Church. LBGT folks also obtained the right to serve openly in the military. While it is true some rearguard actions are attempting to move the clock back, the majority of Americans are far more accepting of LGBT than they were even a few years ago. Again, I applaud the Legislature's passing of that bill, but it doesn't remove the stain of the November, 2015 policy that continues to be a black mark on the church, and continues to treat LGBT as "less than."

Are you purposely being obtuse? Mormon culture exists exclusively because American culture first existed. Mormon culture is born of American culture. In other words, American culture begat Mormon culture. There is no argument. That is a statement of fact, not supposition. Precisely because the Mormon church was founded in America by Americans and not someplace else.

Um, three years ago? Wow, that's great but quite late as compared to other countries, which begs the question: what the hell is wrong with America ... why didn't Americans grant that right much earlier? And no, according to the links I posted above, a majority of Americans do not support gay marriage. But the LDS church did openly and vociferously support anti-discrimination laws protecting the rights of LGBT individuals. Resulting in the Landmark legislation. That too is a matter of fact.

[mpfunk]

Nobody around here seems to really like or understand the policy, but "we don't want to create conflict in families" is a million miles from "gays are worse than rapists!"
This policy is not about not creating conflict in families. Not in the slightest.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[sancho]

If it was about this, they would exclude them from attending church. If they show up, baptized or not, they are going to be taught their parents are evil.


Don't like what I wrote, so I'm deleting it. Sorry.

[USS Utah]

A Protected Class of Sin -- Mormon Women Stand

http://www.mormonwomenstand.com/protected-class-of-sin/

[mpfunk]

A Protected Class of Sin -- Mormon Women Stand

http://www.mormonwomenstand.com/protected-class-of-sin/
Another example why the path is out of the church.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[sancho]

A Protected Class of Sin -- Mormon Women Stand

http://www.mormonwomenstand.com/protected-class-of-sin/

I think the premise is wrong. I don't think Mormons tend to be more/less accepting of homosexuality than other behaviors they consider sinful.

I'm not sure what the author is advocating either.

[UTEopia]

I think the premise is wrong. I don't think Mormons tend to be more/less accepting of homosexuality than other behaviors they consider sinful.

I'm not sure what the author is advocating either.

I guess she is speaking to people like me; An active Mormon supportive of same sex marriage rights. I guess, according to her, I should not be supportive of those rights and should actively denounce same sex marriage as sin. But then again, I am supportive of the rights of people to do other things that are "sins." I have my own sins and I cherish them. Why should I seek to deprive others of the same privilege?

[Ma'ake]

A Protected Class of Sin -- Mormon Women Stand

http://www.mormonwomenstand.com/protected-class-of-sin/

It's less a "protected class of sin", and more a humane outreach to people who have long been marginalized.

Maybe not a "protected class" as much as "we don't talk about that anymore", what happened to the lectures about masturbation? Tying your hand to the bedpost? Besides being an open door for the church being mocked, maybe it's another area where understandings are a little more nuanced, today. (Does masturbation lead to rape? Maybe the opposite.)

The softening of views toward LGBT and gay marriage has more to do with evolved understanding that it's not simply a behavior... it's an attribute, of people who've really suffered, for something increasingly viewed as not being a personal decision.

Nothing prompts reflection like suicides of teenagers who've determined they're LGBT. Research suggesting this type of reflection is warranted: https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/same-sex-marriage-linked-to-decline-in-teen-suicides/ Basically, in states where gay marriage was first legalized, the rate of teenage suicide dropped. Acceptance / hope are important things, especially to teenagers.

[USS Utah]

A Protected Class of Sin -- Mormon Women Stand

http://www.mormonwomenstand.com/protected-class-of-sin/

From the comments:


If you don't mind, I would like to take a moment to express my feelings in relation to your article.
I am speaking from the point of view as a mom.
I have a 28 year old gay son. He came to us after being raised in the gospe. After serving a worthy mission, trying to date girls, attending BYU at the age of 21. So, it hasn't been easy for our family or him.
I do feel he tried to live the gospel accordingly.
I've asked myself at times. Why? I don't want to go deeply into this question. But I do know, I love muy son. I would never turn him away. As I know some church members have turned their children away. when finding this out. This has led their child to suicide or to feel even more lost in this life.
I have a strong testimony of our gospel. My son is nto active in the gospel he grew up in. We have come to an understanding hear on earth. I'll never give up my son. I pray for him each day. This life here on earth comes with trials. Some to which we, may never overcome here on earth. Even as a mom, it's not my place to judge. But, it is my place to love unconditionally, to teach with an understanding, to be an example of my testimony and faith. I just wanted to take this time to express the difference of thoughts one may have on this vital church issue. Especially when its your own son or daughter.

And the response by the article's author:


Thank you so much for sharing your wonderful and heartfelt comments. I agree with everything you said and you expressed it beautifully. Much love to you and your family.

[USS Utah]

what happened to the lectures about masturbation? Tying your hand to the bedpost? Besides being an open door for the church being mocked, maybe it's another area where understandings are a little more nuanced, today. (Does masturbation lead to rape? Maybe the opposite.)


Uh . . . What?

[UtahsMrSports]

Uh . . . What?

I believe it was Mark E Peterson who taught that it was better to tie your hands to the bedpost while you slept rather than give in to temptation.....

[Ma'ake]

I believe it was Mark E Peterson who taught that it was better to tie your hands to the bedpost while you slept rather than give in to temptation.....

Exactly. Thanks.

There was a school of thought that thinking about sexual things (inappropriately) was nothing short of The Adversary trying to separate you from the Lord, trying to derail your journey to get to heaven (for Catholics) or to the Celestial Kingdom (for Mormons). It naturally followed that when people had same sex attraction, it must have been a result of something that *they* did, either thinking naughty thoughts, or not being completely obedient, or whatever.

The last manifestation of this line of thinking was Boyd K. Packer's GC talk where he stated that the Lord would never create anyone who is gay... the part of the talk which was stripped out in the official version. (Remembering what I was taught - that BKP's point was stripped out of the official version would be proof-positive that Satan had infiltrated God's church.)

Measured over a longer period of time, it's notable the author of "A protected class of sin" is not trying to go back to the previous thinking. Her article is not entitled "Homosexuality and Gay marriage - Consequences of Mass Disobedience".

My larger point is this evolution in thinking is not from any proclamation or revelation, it's from common people putting 2+2 together and listening to the heartfelt stories from others, trying to reconcile what good people are struggling with - after having done all the right things - with what is taught and commonly understood.

It's from general authorities softening their views, after hearing about the unimaginable struggles of faithful members. "We may not know everything about this issue. There are things to be revealed - maybe after this life - that will help us understand this better. In the meantime, let's try to love everyone (not "tough love", kick-em-out -of-the-house-until-they-change "love") and try to persevere".

The pace of change is pretty amazing. I stick with my original thesis that in due time issues of homosexuality will seen very differently, like Old Testament laws, or the criticality of skin color, lineage, etc.

[Ma'ake]

@USS Utah -

"If you don't mind, I would like to take a moment to express my feelings in relation to your article.
I am speaking from the point of view as a mom.
I have a 28 year old gay son. He came to us after being raised in the gospe. After serving a worthy mission, trying to date girls, attending BYU at the age of 21. So, it hasn't been easy for our family or him.
I do feel he tried to live the gospel accordingly.
I've asked myself at times. Why? I don't want to go deeply into this question. But I do know, I love muy son. I would never turn him away. As I know some church members have turned their children away. when finding this out. This has led their child to suicide or to feel even more lost in this life.
I have a strong testimony of our gospel. My son is nto active in the gospel he grew up in. We have come to an understanding hear on earth. I'll never give up my son. I pray for him each day. This life here on earth comes with trials. Some to which we, may never overcome here on earth. Even as a mom, it's not my place to judge. But, it is my place to love unconditionally, to teach with an understanding, to be an example of my testimony and faith. I just wanted to take this time to express the difference of thoughts one may have on this vital church issue. Especially when its your own son or daughter."

This is a great example of the real impact on good people that facilitates changes in understanding.

In the recent past, the bolded part of this mom's statement would have been considered heresy - or at least a tragic example of somebody who was confused or led astray by a child who had sinned and Satan was now working on the mother to undermine the Lord's work on Earth (or something like that.)

This mom is trying the best she can, avoiding the temptation to really think about "why". You can't help but be moved by her words.

[Hayes6]

I don't understand why self-described Christians of any stripe strain at the gnat of gay marriage when Jesus said nothing about it, and meanwhile there are homeless people to be housed, hungry to be fed, naked to be clothed, etc. Modern day Pharisees.

[Ma'ake]

I don't understand why self-described Christians of any stripe strain at the gnat of gay marriage when Jesus said nothing about it, and meanwhile there are homeless people to be housed, hungry to be fed, naked to be clothed, etc. Modern day Pharisees.

I used to debate the death penalty with Christian conservatives, one of whom claimed that Jesus fully supported the death penalty, because if he didn't, he would have saved the two thieves who were being crucified next to him. The capacity of human beings to rationalize things is unbounded.

[sancho]

I don't understand why self-described Christians of any stripe strain at the gnat of gay marriage when Jesus said nothing about it, and meanwhile there are homeless people to be housed, hungry to be fed, naked to be clothed, etc. Modern day Pharisees.

This reminds me of when someone says "I can't believe Congress is getting involved in ________ when ________ is going on." I don't see why Congress can't talk about both things. There are 24 hours in the day.

I think it's very possible for a Christian to house people, feed the hungry, clothe the naked - to be a true Christian - and still have opinions on political issues.

[concerned]

http://www.sltrib.com/home/2762815-155/lds-classic-miracle-of-forgiveness-fading

http://www.sltrib.com/home/4584556-155/lds-church-retires-mormon-apostles-little

[Utah]

I find it ironic that we believe the prophets are Christ's mouthpiece here in earth...yet, when it comes to social issues, the prophets and apostles act more like scared old men than leaders of the world and are usually the last people to get it right.

[Utah]

http://www.sltrib.com/home/2762815-155/lds-classic-miracle-of-forgiveness-fading

http://www.sltrib.com/home/4584556-155/lds-church-retires-mormon-apostles-little

Again, a scared old man trying to hold onto the "glory days". Reminds me of a non-LDS leader we have as well...

[tooblue]

I find it ironic that we believe the prophets are Christ's mouthpiece here in earth...yet, when it comes to social issues, the prophets and apostles act more like scared old men than leaders of the world and are usually the last people to get it right.

Get what right? Espousing principles that you have supposedly held sacrosanct for so long, you just can't imagine someone else not coming around to your viewpoint as quickly and easily—effortlessly dismantling the constructs that form the foundation for those "issues." What utter Horse sh**... I guarantee you only came around to seeing things a certain way, maybe in the last year—maybe. The moment you suggest otherwise, is the very moment we know you are lying. You are not ahead of the curve, by virtue of the fact your online handle is Utah ... lol ... irony indeed.

[Ma'ake]

http://www.sltrib.com/home/2762815-155/lds-classic-miracle-of-forgiveness-fading

http://www.sltrib.com/home/4584556-155/lds-church-retires-mormon-apostles-little

The article about "Miracle of Forgiveness" fading away is striking, for a couple of different reasons. Obviously, the subject matter and how the understanding of sexuality is changing, quickly.

But Spencer W. Kimball, who was POTC when the priesthood ban was lifted, was also the author of a 1960s New Era article about the Lamanites and how their skin color changed when they're righteous, etc, citing the lighter skin tone of Navajo kids in the Indian Placement Program when they go home, as evidence.

Hindsight is particularly brutal for LDS leaders on race, and now on sexuality, but I'm impressed by SWK's evolution in understanding, on both issues.

[tooblue]

The article about "Miracle of Forgiveness" fading away is striking, for a couple of different reasons. Obviously, the subject matter and how the understanding of sexuality is changing, quickly.

But Spencer W. Kimball, who was POTC when the priesthood ban was lifted, was also the author of a 1960s New Era article about the Lamanites and how their skin color changed when they're righteous, etc, citing the lighter skin tone of Navajo kids in the Indian Placement Program when they go home, as evidence.

Hindsight is particularly brutal for LDS leaders on race, and now on sexuality, but I'm impressed by SWK's evolution in understanding, on both issues.

Hindsight is particularly brutal for everyone, especially Americans on those two issues. What's interesting, is while other parts of the country (North Carolina, Texas etc.) are circling the wagons on the issue of sexuality, the state of Utah, as initiated by the LDS church and those "old men," is remarkably progressive.

[Ma'ake]

Hindsight is particularly brutal for everyone, especially Americans on those two issues. What's interesting, is while other parts of the country (North Carolina, Texas etc.) are circling the wagons on the issue of sexuality, the state of Utah, as initiated by the LDS church and those "old men," is remarkably progressive.

Great point, and I agree. The Mormon theology's ability to evolve, and particularly the notion of 3 kingdoms that are all better than life on Earth - let alone hell - are compelling parts of the LDS attraction. When I was young we got the fire & brimstone about going to Outer Darkness if you lost whatever inkling of a testimony you may have had, but now I'm told that's no longer taught. Very smart. Dropping the criticality of lineage - Ham, Cain, "House of (whoever)" - making the gospel very personal and open to anyone. There's still a ways to go, obviously and problems... but the church evolves.

Like the way Joel Olsteen attracts people with a positive message, people just don't respond to scary stories about the mean dragon in the cave, anymore.

[USS Utah]

Married. Gay. And Mormon, Part I:

http://religionnews.com/2017/06/13/married-gay-mormons-try-to-stay-lds-part-1/

Married. Gay. And Mormon, Part II:

http://religionnews.com/2017/06/14/married-gay-and-mormon-part-2/

[Ma'ake]

Married. Gay. And Mormon, Part I:

http://religionnews.com/2017/06/13/married-gay-mormons-try-to-stay-lds-part-1/

Married. Gay. And Mormon, Part II:

http://religionnews.com/2017/06/14/married-gay-and-mormon-part-2/

I'm always impressed by people who deny themselves the pleasures in life everyone has taken as healthy, or normal. Buddhist monks, Nuns, Catholic priests (the ones who don't provoke giant lawsuits), etc. I'd put these folks in that category. Especially if there are kids involved, I hope they can hold it together. (A wish for all marriages, really.)

Some gays are very opposed to gay people who "deny" their nature and "overcome this affliction", etc. They view these folks as obstacles to full acceptance of homosexuality. I can see their point, but I see it a bit differently, that there is much more to life than sex and sexuality, and the gays who marry hetero and live their religion are looking at other factors.

One of my neighbors is a stunning beauty, great mom, wonderful person. Her own mom came out of the closet after raising 5 kids. I met her a few times - crew cut, rode a Harley, leather pants, didn't try to hide it, held hands with her partner in public. She was very much at peace, funny, warm, loved all the grandkids. Saw her at the cancer center with her daughter / my neighbor. Battled to the end, lived life with no regrets. I admired her, too.

Life is complicated. We definitely don't have all the answers.

[UtahsMrSports]

The recent video of a 12 year old utah county girl is interesting and has created a lot of discussion.

I've read several opinion pieces and even watched a one hour episode of "Mormon Stories" (for which I feel like I deserve a Klondike bar......say what you will about him but Dehlin is a lousy host) with the girl and her mom.

While I agree with some who say that F&T is not the appropriate place to do this, its also a somewhat hollow argument as I think anyone who's been to many of those meetings knows that there's a lot of stuff said that's not appropriate for the meeting. I've heard nutty political rants from the far right fringes, TMI, etc.

I get what the stake presidency guy was thinking because he had no idea how long she was going to go on. But I really wish he had just let her finish. Or at least have the guts to respond himself instead of sending that nervous counselor. This is a different (and I'd argue smaller) story if he just lets her finish.

I'm also not a fan of the friend recording it. Unless there's some crazy circumstance, its be nice to be respectful of the rules.

[USS Utah]

The Short version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKpeF8ehTUI

The Long version:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_0nhyP6dU4

[Scorcho]

The recent video of a 12 year old utah county girl is interesting and has created a lot of discussion.

I've read several opinion pieces and even watched a one hour episode of "Mormon Stories" (for which I feel like I deserve a Klondike bar......say what you will about him but Dehlin is a lousy host) with the girl and her mom.

While I agree with some who say that F&T is not the appropriate place to do this, its also a somewhat hollow argument as I think anyone who's been to many of those meetings knows that there's a lot of stuff said that's not appropriate for the meeting. I've heard nutty political rants from the far right fringes, TMI, etc.

I get what the stake presidency guy was thinking because he had no idea how long she was going to go on. But I really wish he had just let her finish. Or at least have the guts to respond himself instead of sending that nervous counselor. This is a different (and I'd argue smaller) story if he just lets her finish.

I'm also not a fan of the friend recording it. Unless there's some crazy circumstance, its be nice to be respectful of the rules.

that video made me a little uncomfortable, but not as uncomfortable as I've been in other F&T meetings about different topics. I respect the 12 year old for having the courage to speak, although I'd argue at age 12 being gay or straight is still probably being developed/defined. Age 12 is far too young to that conclusion. Isn't it?

That could have been an incredible teaching moment in that ward, but it looks like it was botched by the leadership. Also not a fan of recording that.

[Sullyute]

I just love how Mormon that F&T was. Loud as heck with all the kids and 90% of the people not paying attention.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[UTEopia]

that video made me a little uncomfortable, but not as uncomfortable as I've been in other F&T meetings about different topics. I respect the 12 year old for having the courage to speak, although I'd argue at age 12 being gay or straight is still probably being developed/defined. Age 12 is far too young to that conclusion. Isn't it?

That could have been an incredible teaching moment in that ward, but it looks like it was botched by the leadership. Also not a fan of recording that.

I am not a big fan of written/prepared testimonies, but I certainly understand why this girl chose to write down her feelings and thoughts before sharing them. It took a lot of courage to stand and say what she said.

I wish the guy would have let her finish.

I thought the guy who stood up afterwards said some simple and helpful things that in many ways supported what the girl was saying. It certainly could have been handled worse.

I guess what surprised me somewhat is that the guy who is in front of where the video is being shot didn't blink or flinch or turn to look at his wife when the girl announced she is gay.

I have been at two meetings where someone was asked to sit down. On both occasions, the person was really coloring outside the lines of the doctrine of the Church. I don't think this girl's thoughts were out of line.

[sancho]

I am not a big fan of written/prepared testimonies, but I certainly understand why this girl chose to write down her feelings and thoughts before sharing them. It took a lot of courage to stand and say what she said.

I wish the guy would have let her finish.

I thought the guy who stood up afterwards said some simple and helpful things that in many ways supported what the girl was saying. It certainly could have been handled worse.

I guess what surprised me somewhat is that the guy who is in front of where the video is being shot didn't blink or flinch or turn to look at his wife when the girl announced she is gay.

I have been at two meetings where someone was asked to sit down. On both occasions, the person was really coloring outside the lines of the doctrine of the Church. I don't think this girl's thoughts were out of line.

I can't really blame the girl or the church leader.

I can say I would have handled things differently as the parent. A 12-year-old might not know what is and isn't appropriate for sacrament meeting, but Mom and Dad should know.

[LA Ute]

I can't really blame the girl or the church leader.

I can say I would have handled things differently as the parent. A 12-year-old might not know what is and isn't appropriate for sacrament meeting, but Mom and Dad should know.

Just to add some perspective, I read that the girl had a large entourage -- not chosen by her, but by her ex-Mormon mom who was there. So I am imagining the leader on the stand (a stake presidency member who's also a member of that ward), watching all these people come in with the mom, who left the church some time ago; and several of that group with their cell phones raised, recording the girl's testimony -- which the girl is reading from a prepared text; and suddenly this looks like something more than just a 12 year-old girl bearing her testimony. I wasn't there and I don't know. what was the right thing to do, or what I would've done. But it sure looks like there was a lot more going on than we see in the video.

[Rocker Ute]

Just to add some perspective, I read that the girl had a large entourage -- not chosen by her, but by her ex-Mormon mom who was there. So I am imagining the leader on the stand (a stake presidency member who's also a member of that ward), watching all these people come in with the mom, who left the church some time ago; and several of that group with their cell phones raised, recording the girl's testimony -- which the girl is reading from a prepared text; and suddenly this looks like something more than just a 12 year-old girl bearing her testimony. I wasn't there and I don't know. what was the right thing to do, or what I would've done. But it sure looks like there was a lot more going on than we see in the video.

Those facts in mind and frankly how it all rolled out might make that guy feel like he wasn't wrong to shut it down. In fact I bet the cameras and entourage were the bigger contributing factor as I can count on one finger how many times I've seen someone stopped from giving their testimony and I've seen a LOT of wacky stuff. Nobody wants to get up there and do that.

But of course now I need to tell you mine. A new guy rolled into town and hung around for a few months. Nice enough guy, a little different but mostly harmless. He gets up one F&T and starts to ramble on about Gettysburg and coming to a realization of what he must do because Bill Clinton (president at the time) was trying to kill him. He goes on for a bit more and then says, "That's why I am here to declare today that I went to the Lt. Governor's office and filed to run for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."

The bishop hopped up, whispered something in his ear and sat down. The guy says, "Oh the bishop says we are out of time but you are welcome to meet with me in the foyer after to learn more."

That was that. People were all cool to him and wished him luck in his presidency.

That person went on to become EVAN MCMULLIN!

Just kidding about that last part, but he rest is true. 40+ years and that's all I've seen.

Hind sight being 20/20 they probably could have just whispered in her ear to wrap it up and that would have done it and then expressed their love to her after. But nobody wants to be part of a circus and that is probably what they were seeing that day. Too bad the kid is getting objectified that way by people who should care for her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sancho]

Hind sight being 20/20 they probably could have just whispered in her ear to wrap it up and that would have done it and then expressed their love to her after.


Probably, but she did have pre-prepared, written (by her mother?) remarks and had apparently been coached.

I hate the thought of using one of my kids to make a statement.

I've seen people told to wrap it up because they were going long but never due to content. The best candidate was a high priest in my ward in NOLA talking about his courtship and marriage - he met her by soliciting sex while she was a prostitute. They fell in love and later joined the church. It's been five years since I left NOLA, and I still miss those meetings. Every single testimony meeting was both entertaining and uplifting.

[LA Ute]

Those facts in mind and frankly how it all rolled out might make that guy feel like he wasn't wrong to shut it down. In fact I bet the cameras and entourage were the bigger contributing factor as I can count on one finger how many times I've seen someone stopped from giving their testimony and I've seen a LOT of wacky stuff. Nobody wants to get up there and do that.

But of course now I need to tell you mine. A new guy rolled into town and hung around for a few months. Nice enough guy, a little different but mostly harmless. He gets up one F&T and starts to ramble on about Gettysburg and coming to a realization of what he must do because Bill Clinton (president at the time) was trying to kill him. He goes on for a bit more and then says, "That's why I am here to declare today that I went to the Lt. Governor's office and filed to run for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES."

The bishop hopped up, whispered something in his ear and sat down. The guy says, "Oh the bishop says we are out of time but you are welcome to meet with me in the foyer after to learn more."

That was that. People were all cool to him and wished him luck in his presidency.

That person went on to become EVAN MCMULLIN!

Just kidding about that last part, but he rest is true. 40+ years and that's all I've seen.

Hind sight being 20/20 they probably could have just whispered in her ear to wrap it up and that would have done it and then expressed their love to her after. But nobody wants to be part of a circus and that is probably what they were seeing that day. Too bad the kid is getting objectified that way by people who should care for her.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, I'm not very comfortable with his telling her to sit down. I'm just saying that perhaps making the guy out to be an uptight, overbearing Mormon leader is not fair. Perhaps.

[Ma'ake]

Yeah, I'm not very comfortable with his telling her to sit down. I'm just saying that perhaps making the guy out to be an uptight, overbearing Mormon leader is not fair. Perhaps.

None of us were there, but this might be part of the reason for the policy to not let the children of gay marriage families get baptized. These kind of confrontations would be far more likely, as kids decide what they're hearing in church doesn't square with their positive experiences at home.

Until the church is ready to make big changes in policy and reconsider theological points held for a long time - like what happened with the priesthood ban, but much bigger in scope - then it's probably best to try to minimize the potential for confrontation. Basically, "pull in, until you're ready to reach out".

[DrumNFeather]

Yeah, I'm not very comfortable with his telling her to sit down. I'm just saying that perhaps making the guy out to be an uptight, overbearing Mormon leader is not fair. Perhaps.

As I understand it, the Bishop of this ward was not around and, had he been in attendance, knowing the family, the nuances, etc., probably would have let it go.

I can get behind the idea that the girl's intent was noble. I can even get behind the idea that the mother's intent was as well - though she had been out of the church for some time. Obviously, none of us knows what that conversation was like and what the lead up was, what she/they hoped to accomplish etc.

What I can't get behind is that because of the possibility that John Dehlin at least had some involvement in orchestrating this, I think it changes it completely (that has been rumored - and if it was another group, same thing). If he didn't, he has at a minimum completely exploited her and her family as another arrow in his quiver to go after the church, which again I find personally despicable, but that's just me.

I have a buddy in the Bishopric in my ward and he said that it has at least sparked some positive conversations among our ward leadership. If that is the case across the broader church, then hopefully some good will come out of it.

[Rocker Ute]

Yeah, I'm not very comfortable with his telling her to sit down. I'm just saying that perhaps making the guy out to be an uptight, overbearing Mormon leader is not fair. Perhaps.

I agree with you. I can also say that I am unaware of any official policy on what should be done in this type of situation so contrary to Maake's assumption that this is a symptom of pulling in before reaching out this was just the action of an individual and not some larger push from HQ to tamp down differing thought.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[LA Ute]

Once when I was in a bishopric a sweet elderly sister with early dementia was bearing her testimony and just got lost, rambling and rambling. I was conducting, and being a young and very inexperienced guy I just got up, after a couple of minutes of that, and touched her elbow. She immediately realized what she had been doing and closed. Before she could get away from the pulpit the bishop jumped up, put his arm around her, and said to everyone, "I just want Sister Jones to know how much we all love her. She can bear her testimony anytime she wants to bear it, because I want to hear it." It was quite a moment for me, one I'll never forget.

[Applejack]

That person went on to become EVAN MCMULLIN!



:rofl:

[tooblue]

The primary reason we are commanded to congregate together each week on the Sabbath is to partake of the sacrament and renew our baptismal covenants—reaffirming our commitment as disciples of Christ. The hour-long service associated with that public ritual is as sacred an event as we have in the LDS faith. Notwithstanding the pragmatism and casual nature with which the meeting is organized and conducted, and despite the fact it is available to any and all individuals who wish to attend. Any action by any person in attendance that aims to detract from the intended spirit, potentially putting at risk the sacredness of the meeting, should be reproved with love.

The prepared statement read by the girl, in and of itself, may not represent an action designed to detract from the spirit that can be present at such meetings. However, the disrespect shown by the entourage, in attendance to witness and record the statement, was reprehensible. With the only evident purpose serving to mock and ridicule others in their desire to commune with the divine in a manner they find comforting and appropriate. Therefore, the actions of the presiding authority were proper. While the actions of the rabble (large or small) were not. Leaving no room for debate.

As for the girl—we have far too little information to go on, to know her full intent, and how much of the statement she read is truly her own. That’s the most unfortunate aspect of this entire episode.

[Applejack]

should be reproved with love.





This should be the title of this thread: "LDS homosexuals: Reproved with love!"

[LA Ute]

This should be the title of this thread: "LDS homosexuals: Reproved with love!"

I reprove you with love all the time, but I get no credit.

[tooblue]

This should be the title of this thread: "LDS homosexuals: Reproved with love!"

Leave it to Smackjack to misrepresent words to the benefit of ... humour, I guess?

[Applejack]

I reprove you with love all the time, but I get no credit.

Are you calling me gay? (Not that there is anything wrong with that)


Leave it to Smackjack to misrepresent words to the benefit of ... humour, I guess?

"humour?" DevilDog was right about you. You are a Canadian.

[Rocker Ute]

This should be the title of this thread: "LDS homosexuals: Reproved with love!"

That's a good point, but how does one reprove with love? "Here is a really heavy gift that is going to be difficult to get home because you've done something wrong. Also I am going to send you too many greeting cards until you get the point."

[tooblue]

Are you calling me gay? (Not that there is anything wrong with that)



"humour?" DevilDog was right about you. You are a Canadian.

Thanks for your reproval!

[LA Ute]

Are you calling me gay? (Not that there is anything wrong with that)

I was referring only to my many loving reprovals of you for a multitude of other reasons, and your lack of gratitude for them.

[mUUser]

After watching the tape and reading CNN's account, I feel reasonably comfortable in asserting both the girl and the leader acted in good faith, without malice.

For me, this is as controversial as a pantsuit at church -- which is to say in HRC words, "it's the biggest-nothing burger ever."

[Applejack]

After watching the tape and reading CNN's account, I feel reasonably comfortable in asserting both the girl and the leader acted in good faith, without malice.

For me, this is as controversial as a pantsuit at church -- which is to say in HRC words, "it's the biggest-nothing burger ever."

Agreed.

The girl seemed genuine and the leader, while a little bungling, wanted to do the right thing as well. Only the internet can turn a non-event into a binary screaming contest (THE GIRL WAS BRAINWASHED BY A NONMORMON MOTHER AND SAYING WHAT SHE SAID IN SACRAMENT MEETING IS THE WORST v. THE GUY SHUT OFF THE MIC OF A 12-YEAR OLD AND HATES THE GAYS!)

[mUUser]

Yes, I understand this isn't a story about homosexuals and the church, but, the closest fit is with this thread....

Fascinating story.....

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/5522210-155/after-leading-lds-congregations-and-designing?page=3

[Ma'ake]

Yes, I understand this isn't a story about homosexuals and the church, but, the closest fit is with this thread....

Fascinating story.....

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/5522210-155/after-leading-lds-congregations-and-designing?page=3

What a journey. It's safe to say the vast majority of us don't know what it's like to have those kinds of feelings.

There are three basic reactions Mormons (or any other group in the same situation) will have to this story:

1. Try to be supportive, try to understand, appreciate the common humanity, keep loving the people in our lives.

2. Judge, freak out, blame it on Hollywood, etc.

3. "I can't wait for the big game coming up!"

The plight of these souls who are coming out of the woodwork around us, depends a great deal upon how people react to them, if they're (more or less) accepted, or if they're marginalized as freaks. The study indicating that since gay marriage, the suicide rate among teenagers has declined, reveals a lot.

[UTEopia]

What a journey. It's safe to say the vast majority of us don't know what it's like to have those kinds of feelings.

There are three basic reactions Mormons (or any other group in the same situation) will have to this story:

1. Try to be supportive, try to understand, appreciate the common humanity, keep loving the people in our lives.

2. Judge, freak out, blame it on Hollywood, etc.

3. "I can't wait for the big game coming up!"

The plight of these souls who are coming out of the woodwork around us, depends a great deal upon how people react to them, if they're (more or less) accepted, or if they're marginalized as freaks. The study indicating that since gay marriage, the suicide rate among teenagers has declined, reveals a lot.

My son recently told me about a close friend he has known for a number of years who has gone through the same transformation from husband, married in LDS Temple, returned missionary to a female. Needless to say, it has been a difficult road for this friend.

[tooblue]

What a journey. It's safe to say the vast majority of us don't know what it's like to have those kinds of feelings.

There are three basic reactions Mormons (or any other group in the same situation) will have to this story:

1. Try to be supportive, try to understand, appreciate the common humanity, keep loving the people in our lives.

2. Judge, freak out, blame it on Hollywood, etc.

3. "I can't wait for the big game coming up!"

The plight of these souls who are coming out of the woodwork around us, depends a great deal upon how people react to them, if they're (more or less) accepted, or if they're marginalized as freaks. The study indicating that since gay marriage, the suicide rate among teenagers has declined, reveals a lot.

Just for clarity sake, it's hopefully true that the suicide rate among LGBT teens has declined, but overall the suicide rate among all groups is surging:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate-surges-to-a-30-year-high.html

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/04/22/474888854/suicide-rates-climb-in-u-s-especially-among-adolescent-girls

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/22/us-suicide-rate-30-year-high-growing-epidemic-across-america

[Ma'ake]

Just for clarity sake, it's hopefully true that the suicide rate among LGBT teens has declined, but overall the suicide rate among all groups is surging:

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/22/health/us-suicide-rate-surges-to-a-30-year-high.html

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/04/22/474888854/suicide-rates-climb-in-u-s-especially-among-adolescent-girls

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/22/us-suicide-rate-30-year-high-growing-epidemic-across-america

The economic pressure on large segments of our population is gruesome. Hence, Trump. Hence, Bernie. Hence, "I don't care if Trump gives Putin all the nuclear codes lets him sleep with Melania, BRING BACK MY COAL MINING JOB!"

The opiod epidemic is scary as hell.