Did your ward/branch have the letter read?

[NeuroTypical]

Church Leaders Counsel Members After Supreme Court Same-Sex Marriage Decision

 

The following letter from the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles is being read in Church meetings across the United States and Canada beginning Sunday, July 5. 

 

 

 

I'm curious if folks saw this happen today, and if there were any reactions.   From what I can tell, our membership is at varying levels of understanding this issue and what the church is teaching about it.  Last week I saw a YW leader post in our Stake YW facebook page, some pretty old-school fire-and-brimstone stuff from Leviticus in an attempt to explain our church's stance on things.  I'm not hearing a lot of talk of "cutting off" souls who "commit any of these abominations" come from our church, but I know some folks believe and act that way.

 

So, anyone have news?

Edited July 5, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[David13]

The only news I have is no news.

They had a special meeting for ym/yw today to read the letter and "discuss" it.  And next week will be the same for adults.

I really don't see any need to "discuss" the matter.

The letter sets out the official position of the church.

I know I will never approve of, nor "celebrate" perversion, sin, abomination, no matter how trendy or 'latest fad' or "modern" anybody wants to call it.  And it matters not how many people jump on the popular bandwagon and say I should, nor if the Buffoon in Chief says I should.

And I full well know that no one is "born that way".  We all learn how to be men and women, unless we choose perversion.  We were babies before we learned.

I wouldn't wish homosexuality on my worst enemy.

dc

[mirkwood]

Not read.

[Guest]

The bishopric split up and read it in Priesthood, RS, and YW. I serve in YW, so that's where I was, and where the bishop came to read. He read the letter, asked if there were any questions, and there weren't, so we went on with our meeting.

 

It's noteworthy to me that the letter was less (or not at all) about condemning the Supreme Court's actions, and more about stating and affirming that we still believe what we believe, and that we shouldn't be forced to change how we do things in the Church.

[Just_A_Guy]

Next week, for us.

[pam]

They didn't read it in my ward this week.  But can I just tell you how wonderful it was to FINALLY have Sacrament Meeting first?

[Guest]

My bishop said that the Brethren asked that it be read either this week or next. 

[Palerider]

My bishop said that the Brethren asked that it be read either this week or next.

That is correct ..... We had it read today. It was all good. Just a few comments and they were positive comments. Nothing unusual happened.

[james12]

We actually had two separate meetings today during second and third hour so all adults were able to hear the letter read and then participate in a discussion lead by a member of the bishopric. Some points came up about how to discuss SSM with older children, how the law of chastity will not change, and showing love and compassion.

It was interesting to find out how many people had immediate family members who were homosexual. Some felt the need to talk to there kids rather openly about it because of there situation.

[Backroads]

No idea. We were late and then I subbed in Primary.

[AngelMarvel]

I have no idea either. I woke up this morning in a full blown asthma attack and didn't make it to church. Prayers welcomed.

[Iggy]

Read in Gospel Doctrine to the adults, then read to the youth in their ss class. We had one older gentleman who was really angry that those *perverts* (his word) are able to hold callings, receive their endowment and go to the temple and receive the sacrament.

 

He didn't want to hear that ALL worthy adults can be endowed, have callings, go to the temple, and receive sacrament. So the Branch President asked him to come to his office after SS so that they could discuss this further and not hold up Gospel Doctrine class.

 

I had read it prior to going to church today - so listening to the Branch President read it just clarified it more for me. Also our Branch President is an emotional man. He doesn't hold back the tears when the Holy Ghost *whispers* to him. He had a few teary moments reading the letter.

 

He did state, clearly and enunciated each and every word - clearly: I will NOT be performing same gender marriages, and this House of the Lord will not be host to any reception of same gender marriages.

 

He had printed off several copies- this man knows his flock - there are a number of widowed sisters who do not have computers, and they wanted their own copies.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Iggy

[Average Joe]

The letter was read in a combined P-Hood, RS, YW opening exercise. The few comments were not controversial. 

[Leah]

Not read in my ward in the meetings I attended - Sacrament meeting (yes, I know the intention was for it not to be read in Sacrament meeting), Gospel Doctrine and Relief Society, nor any mention made of it anywhere today that I could tell.

 

I was desperately hoping they would cut the Relief Society lesson - probably the least-inclusive lesson ever - short and read it there.  T

[Connie]

Nope, not this week. Probably will get it next week.

[NeuroTypical]

Here and other places, I'm finding interesting responses.

 

* David13's use of scare quotes in his post around normally unthreatening words like "discuss".

 

* Some LDS Facebook buddys from the other side of this issue also using scare quotes.  Multiple reports of declining to attend church in order to avoid hearing this letter read. 

 

* Iggy's report of the older gentleman getting mad. (My favorite so far)

 

* Interesting to hear about the wards that kept the grown ups and YM/YW separate.  I wonder why?  (My ward had everyone show up in the chapel, read the letter, and then we all went back to our 3rd hour.)

 

It's good to see feathers getting ruffled.  A few weeks ago I taught the lesson about how prophets aren't always going to be telling us things that we want to hear and make us comfortable. 

Edited July 6, 2015 by NeuroTypical

[Just_A_Guy]

I like the general idea that the Gospel is supposed to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comforted.  But the downside to that notion is when a class of persons decides that they have been historically "afflicted" and therefore, hereafter, deserve nothing but perpetual "comforting".  That's what I'm seeing from a gay cousin of mine on Facebook--outrage that the Church would dare to broach the topic at all.

[Palerider]

Here and other places, I'm finding interesting responses.

 

* David13's use of scare quotes in his post around normally unthreatening words like "discuss".

 

* Some LDS Facebook buddys from the other side of this issue also using scare quotes.  Multiple reports of declining to attend church in order to avoid hearing this letter read. 

 

* Iggy's report of the older gentleman getting mad. (My favorite so far)

 

* Interesting to hear about the wards that kept the grown ups and YM/YW separate.  I wonder why?  (My ward had everyone show up in the chapel, read the letter, and then we all went back to our 3rd hour.)

 

It's good to see feathers getting ruffled.  A few weeks ago I taught the lesson about how prophets aren't always going to be telling us things that we want to hear and make us comfortable.

My opinion I think it's better to read the letter to the Youth separate. When they are in a room with adults they more than likely won't ask any questions. If they are in their own setting they just may ask questions. That's my take

[Floridagal]

It was read in 3rd hr here but I had to leave early so didn't get to hear-but have all ideas everything was pretty issue free.

[samizdat]

Not read here, but then again I think this is only a US/CAN affair.  Since I live in MX nothing too much here.  The Lamanite membership is dead set against the idea of SSM.

[Iggy]

Here and other places, I'm finding interesting responses. <<snip>>

 

* Iggy's report of the older gentleman getting mad. (My favorite so far)

 

* Interesting to hear about the wards that kept the grown ups and YM/YW separate.  I wonder why?  (My ward had everyone show up in the chapel, read the letter, and then we all went back to our 3rd hour.)

 

It's good to see feathers getting ruffled.  A few weeks ago I taught the lesson about how prophets aren't always going to be telling us things that we want to hear and make us comfortable. 

 

 

My opinion I think it's better to read the letter to the Youth separate. When they are in a room with adults they more than likely won't ask any questions. If they are in their own setting they just may ask questions. That's my take

Thank you Neuro-Typical.

Talked with my Branch President after the block, asked him how the youth took to the letter. He said that the youth SS teacher had prepared a lesson that would segue into the letter - which was great because the reading of it, and the questions and answers afterwards took up the rest of the time. He got much better responses from the youth than he did from the adults.

 

His two sons are in YM and they have quite the time remembering to call him President while at church - he said for the first time all of the other kids called him Dad too.

 

I really love our youth. The ones whose parents are royal pains have grandparents who have taught them good values, respect for their elders and have open and meaningful conversations. The kids in their last year of Primary are awesome too. Their parents have already read the letter and gone over it at home with them, knowing that they would not be included at church. These kids come to the library after the block and talk with me. They were our shared babies in Primary when I was 2nd councilor. They help me by taking out my trash, straitening up the videos and DVD's, etc.

 

When the Branch President showed up for our 'after the blocks' conversation, they asked when was he going to talk to them about the letter. His eyebrows raised and then he said, well let me talk to all of your parents and see if they want to set up a time and place.

 

Of all the Branch Presidents and Bishops I have had over the years, he is by far the best Father of the Ward/Branch that I have ever had. He is young enough to be our son, yet I feel like I can converse with him as I would my own father.

 

My husband and I both have family members (cousins, niece and nephews) who are homosexuals. Some were LDS, most are not. Sheesh, can't find a politically correct way to say they do not practice celibacy. The few who were LDS, requested that their names be removed from the church. Broke our hearts - but then again, if they ever change their sexual orientation, perhaps starting from fresh if they come back to church would be easier (?).