3rd hour meeting on fostering love with members of the LGBTQ community

[NeuroTypical]

It's not every day our church invites non/former members to speak.  BYU had Baptist Rev. Al Mohler in 2014, and we hosted the Christian Apologist Ravi Zacharias at the tabernacle back in 2004.  Some recent news caught my attention. 

It sounds like a ward in Riverton had a rather interesting 3rd hour combined meeting last Sunday.  The topic was learning to love people in the LGBTQ community.  The multiple speakers included active LDS members of that community, parents of a son who had committed suicide, and to my surprise - people who had stepped away from the church also spoke.

I'm getting this information from public facebook posts from Bishop and his wife Susie N Paul Augenstein.
This post contains the Bishop's outline from the 28 Jan 2017 third hour combined meeting.  Also see this post, and this post. 
Parkway Ward - LDS.org 

It sounds like it was very well received, love was fostered and understanding increased.  I found the whole thing fascinating.  I'm seeing some folks are having some strong reactions to the thing.

What do y'all think?

[eVa]

I can't pull up the outline per work proxy   It sounds very interesting to me for sure.  I have always found it difficult to balance loving one another without accepting their life choice.  If that makes sense.

[Grunt]

I'd be interested in seeing the video.  I get nervous when anything takes place that gives the impression of support or condoning sinful behavior.  

[NeuroTypical]

9 minutes ago, Grunt said:

 I get nervous when anything takes place that gives the impression of support or condoning sinful behavior.  

Yep - me too.  One of the speakers was a lady "happily married" to her wife.  Talking in our church, to us, during services, with our microphone. 

[Anddenex]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

It's not every day our church invites non/former members to speak.  BYU had Baptist Rev. Al Mohler in 2014, and we hosted the Christian Apologist Ravi Zacharias at the tabernacle back in 2004.  Some recent news caught my attention. 

It sounds like a ward in Riverton had a rather interesting 3rd hour combined meeting last Sunday.  The topic was learning to love people in the LGBTQ community.  The multiple speakers included active LDS members of that community, parents of a son who had committed suicide, and to my surprise - people who had stepped away from the church also spoke.

I'm getting this information from public facebook posts from Bishop and his wife Susie N Paul Augenstein.
This post contains the Bishop's outline from the 28 Jan 2017 third hour combined meeting.  Also see this post, and this post. 
Parkway Ward - LDS.org 

It sounds like it was very well received, love was fostered and understanding increased.  I found the whole thing fascinating.  I'm seeing some folks are having some strong reactions to the thing.

What do y'all think?

I would hope they received permission from the stake president regarding guest speakers in this manner. If so, the concept is very important. We are to love, and I agree with @Grunt as long as this isn't fostering condoning actions that are contrary to the will of God, but to love our fellow brothers and sisters. The concept of love is good.

[Guest MormonGator]

Come gather around people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone
And if your breath to you is worth saving
Then you better start swimming or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changing

 

[Colirio]

I suppose I can see the benefits of helping so many people with distorted views of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints to come and partake of the love and concern that their Savior, and the saints by extension, have for them. 

 

Like @Grunt mentioned, I do wonder whether justification for sin is the take away for some in the congregation. 

[NeuroTypical]

40 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Come gather around people
Wherever you roam

Great, now I want to watch the edited version of Watchmen again.

[Guest]

I have two sets of neighbors.  A lesbian couple living in immorality, and an unmarried heterosexual couple living in immorality.

Is there really much of a difference between them in the eyes of the Lord?  I am not so sure.  Both are breaking the law of chastity, probably out of ignorance.

I guess it could be argued the lesbian couple could never legitimize their relationship through marriage if they decided to get baptized.  But should this point translate into me behaving differently towards the lesbian couple?

I fully support the Church and it's stance on LGBT.  I also am trying to follow the spirit as well as the letter of the Churchs LGBT guidelines.  Outside of those guidelines, however, I am going to try and open lines of communication and befriend as much as I can.

Edited February 3, 2018 by DoctorLemon

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, DoctorLemon said:

I have two sets of neighbors.  A lesbian couple living in immorality, and an unmarried heterosexual couple living in immorality.

Is there really much of a difference between them in the eyes of the Lord?  I am not so sure.  Both are breaking the law of chastity, probably out of ignorance.

I have long held this position. But I think I'm abandoning it. I'm tired of the spiritual and emotional contortions necessary to hold it. True enough, unrepentant fornicators of the heterosexual variety will not inherit celestial glory, just like unrepentant anyones. But there is a difference in nature between homosexual and heterosexual intimacy, even between unmarried people, and it's more than just the gut-level, "ooooh gross" disgust factor.

Male-female sexual relations are intrinsically good, in some sense. They result in the creation of life, and perhaps as importantly in the creation of a male-female couple. If a man and a woman were cast away on a desert island somewhere and covenanted with each other to live as married people, I believe God himself would recognize and sanctify their marriage, at least for this life. The same cannot be said for a homosexual couple. Sexual relations between those of the same sex are intrinsically a perversion of sex, which is intended to create life and create love between a man and a woman -- the very foundation of all human society.

Heterosexual fornication is still fornication, and if not repented of will condemn the man and woman who practice it. And for sure, there are plenty of perverse heterosexual relationships -- heterosexuality alone doesn't confer sacred status on them. But it's simply ignoring reality to pretend that a homosexual couple is on the exact same moral footing as an unmarried heterosexual couple. That simply is not the case. That is not a judgment of the individual relationships, but of the nature of homosexual vs. heterosexual intimacy.

[Guest MormonGator]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

I have long held this position. But I think I'm abandoning it. I'm tired of the spiritual and emotional contortions necessary to hold it. True enough, unrepentant fornicators of the heterosexual variety will not inherit celestial glory, just like unrepentant anyones. But there is a difference in nature between homosexual and heterosexual intimacy, even between unmarried people, and it's more than just the gut-level, "ooooh gross" disgust factor.

Male-female sexual relations are intrinsically good, in some sense. They result in the creation of life, and perhaps as importantly in the creation of a male-female couple. If a man and a woman were cast away on a desert island somewhere and covenanted with each other to live as married people, I believe God himself would recognize and sanctify their marriage, at least for this life. The same cannot be said for a homosexual couple. Sexual relations between those of the same sex are intrinsically a perversion of sex, which is intended to create life and create love between a man and a woman -- the very foundation of all human society.

Heterosexual fornication is still fornication, and if not repented of will condemn the man and woman who practice it. And for sure, there are plenty of perverse heterosexual relationships -- heterosexuality alone doesn't confer sacred status on them. But it's simply ignoring reality to pretend that a homosexual couple is on the exact same moral footing as an unmarried heterosexual couple. That simply is not the case. That is not a judgment of the individual relationships, but of the nature of homosexual vs. heterosexual intimacy.

So gay marriage-you are in the middle on this issue right? Could go either way? 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

I have long held this position. But I think I'm abandoning it. I'm tired of the spiritual and emotional contortions necessary to hold it. True enough, unrepentant fornicators of the heterosexual variety will not inherit celestial glory, just like unrepentant anyones. But there is a difference in nature between homosexual and heterosexual intimacy, even between unmarried people, and it's more than just the gut-level, "ooooh gross" disgust factor.

Male-female sexual relations are intrinsically good, in some sense. They result in the creation of life, and perhaps as importantly in the creation of a male-female couple. If a man and a woman were cast away on a desert island somewhere and covenanted with each other to live as married people, I believe God himself would recognize and sanctify their marriage, at least for this life. The same cannot be said for a homosexual couple. Sexual relations between those of the same sex are intrinsically a perversion of sex, which is intended to create life and create love between a man and a woman -- the very foundation of all human society.

Heterosexual fornication is still fornication, and if not repented of will condemn the man and woman who practice it. And for sure, there are plenty of perverse heterosexual relationships -- heterosexuality alone doesn't confer sacred status on them. But it's simply ignoring reality to pretend that a homosexual couple is on the exact same moral footing as an unmarried heterosexual couple. That simply is not the case. That is not a judgment of the individual relationships, but of the nature of homosexual vs. heterosexual intimacy.

Well said!

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, DoctorLemon said:

I have two sets of neighbors.  A lesbian couple living in immorality, and an unmarried heterosexual couple living in immorality.

Is there really much of a difference between them in the eyes of the Lord?  I am not so sure.  Both are breaking the law of chastity, probably out of ignorance.

I guess it could be argued the lesbian couple could never legitimize their relationship through marriage if they decided to get baptized.  But should this point translate into me behaving differently towards the lesbian couple?

I fully support the Church and it's stance on LGBT.  I also am trying to follow the spirit as well as the letter of the Churchs LGBT guidelines.  Outside of those guidelines, however, I am going to try and open lines of communication and befriend as much as I can.

Sin is sin.  While some sins aren't as severe as others, they are still sins.  

I completely and wholeheartedly agree that we should follow the spirit, not judge, and love everyone.  It's hard for me at times, but I strive towards it.    However, my issue isn't with that stance or philosophy.  My issue is the manifestation of it.  This is work we need to do internally as members to soften our hearts and be more welcoming.  I don't think that necessarily includes having church time devoted to people willfully living sinful lives telling the congregation that it's ok to do so or how we should accept it.  Honest question:  would the same ward open its doors to non-members and single people of opposite sexes living in violation of the Law of Chastity so they could tell us it's normal?

Edited February 3, 2018 by Grunt

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, DoctorLemon said:

I have two sets of neighbors.  A lesbian couple living in immorality, and an unmarried heterosexual couple living in immorality.

Maybe the "lesbians" just tell you that so you'll quit hitting on them.

I mean, given your choice of home locations...

[lostinwater]

i don't claim to fully understand the feelings of someone who has same-sex attraction, but i think this Pastor does a pretty good job of presenting a reasonably balanced view.  It's worth a watch if you have the time.

 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I think that's beautiful.   For this reason, "Our baptismal covenant reminds us daily to bare one another’s burdens and I invite everyone to do just this by following the counsel of Elder Ballard and reaching out to all of your lgbtq brothers and sisters and really listen to them and try to understand what it may be like to walk in their shoes. My life is better because I listened."  
 

[Guest Godless]

13 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Great, now I want to watch the edited version of Watchmen again.

My thoughts exactly! 

[Guest]

15 hours ago, DoctorLemon said:

I have two sets of neighbors.  A lesbian couple living in immorality, and an unmarried heterosexual couple living in immorality.

Is there really much of a difference between them in the eyes of the Lord?  I am not so sure.  Both are breaking the law of chastity, probably out of ignorance.

To me, there is a difference.  The fact that the heterosexual couple are not married is a cultural distinction.  And if it weren't for that cultural distinction, I personally believe there would be no moral one.  

Today a marriage is not "legitimate" unless the law says it is.  Well, there are some states that still legally accept common law marriages.  So, they're legal.  Thus, they're ok as far as the Law of Chastity.

In ancient times, a man took a woman to wife and they were married. End of story.  Some were religiously solemnized, but that was less of an issue with morality as it was of religiosity.

There is NO cultural distinction which makes homosexual coupling acceptable before the Lord.

[Jane_Doe]

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

To me, there is a difference.  The fact that the heterosexual couple are not married is a cultural distinction.  And if it weren't for that cultural distinction, I personally believe there would be no moral one.  

Today a marriage is not "legitimate" unless the law says it is.  Well, there are some states that still legally accept common law marriages.  So, they're legal.  Thus, they're ok as far as the Law of Chastity.

In ancient times, a man took a woman to wife and they were married. End of story.  Some were religiously solemnized, but that was less of an issue with morality as it was of religiosity.

There is NO cultural distinction which makes homosexual coupling acceptable before the Lord.

I disagree with you here.  

Being married is more than a legality.  It is about committing yourself to another person (and hopefully to the Lord).  The state I grew up in legally accepts common law marriages, but in order to be baptized, such a couple still had to actually say "I do".  Same with other countries I know where common law marriage is FAR more prevalent than actually saying "I do".   The "I do" matters.

Now, of course the culture/practice/customs around saying (in essence) "I do" vary wildly across space and time.  It's not the customs that's important- it's the promise to each other (and hopefully God and the community). 

 

 

How does this vary between homosexual and heterosexual: a heterosexual couple that's shacking up has the potential to be a covenant marriage in the eyes of the Lord.  The girl and guy can repent of their fornication, and make a covenant with the Lord.   But as the Lord declares marriage is between a man and a woman, a homosexual couple doesn't have that potential- repentance involves walking away from each other.  (Of course we should still love and support these people- they have a heavy journey ahead of them).

Edited February 3, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Vort]

27 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Being married is more than a legality.  It is about committing yourself to another person (and hopefully to the Lord).

I don't think so. I think Carb has it right. That is, I agree that marriage should be "about committing yourself to another person". At least in word, that has been the western European ideal of marriage since at least the middle ages.

But marriage is first and foremost a legal and social construct designed to provide a solid foundation for society. It is the unification of a man and a woman into a legally recognizable, socially acknowledged family. I could easily envision a society where "marriage" was formalized by a man and woman simply declaring themselves to be married. Indeed, that is exactly what we do today, only with a bit more paperwork and the formalism of having a legally recognized and sanctioned party declare the marriage valid.

I don't know how the Church handles common-law marriage. That is a policy that can be modified across cultural boundaries; for example, in a culture where marriage was recognized by a simple statement, I am certain the Church would recognize such. If a common-law marriage is legally recognized, my guess is that the Church also recognizes it.

But however that may be, the bottom line is that marriage is a legal and social construct designed to provide a family foundation for society to be built upon. And that foundation consists of heterosexual couples. Of such is a stable, healthy society. Our western democracies will coast along for a generation or two on cultural momentum, but eventually the deconstruction of the institution of marriage -- including its redefinition to include homosexual "marriage" -- will undermine the societal foundation. If it takes forty years for that to happen, then it's entirely probable that many (perhaps most) people of the time won't recognize the connection between the desecration/deconstruction of heterosexual marriage and the crumbling of society. They're likely to blame the usual targets: conservatives, religious zealots, Republicans, the intolerant who cling ignorantly to their guns and religions, etc. But there will be those with eyes to see, even among the irreligious.

[Jane_Doe]

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't think so. I think Carb has it right. That is, I agree that marriage should be "about committing yourself to another person". At least in word, that has been the western European ideal of marriage since at least the middle ages.

But marriage is first and foremost a legal and social construct designed to provide a solid foundation for society. It is the unification of a man and a woman into a legally recognizable, socially acknowledged family. I could easily envision a society where "marriage" was formalized by a man and woman simply declaring themselves to be married. Indeed, that is exactly what we do today, only with a bit more paperwork and the formalism of having a legally recognized and sanctioned party declare the marriage valid.

And such marriages were recognizable and involved some form of commitment to each other, which was socially acknowledged. 

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

I don't know how the Church handles common-law marriage. That is a policy that can be modified across cultural boundaries; for example, in a culture where marriage was recognized by a simple statement, I am certain the Church would recognize such. If a common-law marriage is legally recognized, my guess is that the Church also recognizes it.

Speaking as to US states where common-law marriage is legally acknowledged, the Church still requires a formal "I do" before baptism.

Speaking as to Peru and Brazil and where common-law marriage is the norm and legal marriage is rare, the Church still requires a formal legal "I do" before baptism.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Vort]

5 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Speaking as to US states where common-law marriage is legally acknowledged, the Church still requires a formal "I do" before baptism.

Speaking as to Peru and Brazil and where common-law marriage is the norm and legal marriage is rare, the Church still requires a formal legal "I do" before baptism.

Do you have a source for this policy as a Church-wide declaration?

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Do you have a source for this policy as a Church-wide declaration?

If I were not legally married to my SO and had several children, would the church allow me to be baptized?

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

If I were not legally married to my SO and had several children, would the church allow me to be baptized?

In my ward, they schedule the baptism after the wedding... whenever that may be.

In other countries, it might not be the case.  I'm not entirely sure.

P.S. In the US, the Bishop can perform the wedding and it is legally recognized.

Edited February 3, 2018 by anatess2

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I disagree with you here.  

Being married is more than a legality.  It is about committing yourself to another person (and hopefully to the Lord).  The state I grew up in legally accepts common law marriages, but in order to be baptized, such a couple still had to actually say "I do".  Same with other countries I know where common law marriage is FAR more prevalent than actually saying "I do".   The "I do" matters.

There are current practices, and there is the underlying principle.  You may be arguing the current practice (with which I don't necessarily disagree -- I don't know).  But my point in my previous post was regarding the underlying principle.

My meaning behind the "technicality" is that we have obvious examples such as Kurt Russel and Goldie Hawn who have obviously committed to each other and have a meaningful relationship.  Yes, in practice, the Church would probably require that they get the "piece of paper" (I'm guessing). But there is a world of difference between that and either the heterosexual couple who are simply shacking up as a convenient way to have sex without commitment or the homosexual couple committed or not.