Interesting MoTab guest conductor

[NeuroTypical]

Didn't really expect to read a headline like this:
Conductor of San Francisco Gay Men’s Chorus directs Mormon Tabernacle Choir in special event

Here's the video:

 What do you all think?

[NeuroTypical]

Sort of goes along with that ward in Riverton that had a third hour dedicated to fostering love with the LGBT community, and had openly gay speakers.  Here's that thread. 

 

[Sunday21]

Yeah! We have fences to mend. Glad, very glad! 

[Guest MormonGator]

 

[Grunt]

Personally, all this courting of the LGBT community has me concerned.  

[estradling75]

8 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Personally, all this courting of the LGBT community has me concerned.  

I do not see it as courting...  I see it as the church practicing what it preaches and following the commands God has given.

MoTab has always been a Good Will Ambassador for the Church.  Homosexual acts and/or behavior have nothing to do with being able to conduct music.

As for the church following commands I give you D&C 121

43 Reproving betimes with sharpness, (Anyone who thinks the church has not done this on the subject of homosexuality is not paying attention) when moved upon by the Holy Ghost; and then showing forth afterwards an increase of love toward him whom thou hast reproved, lest he esteem thee to be his enemy; (And this second bit is what I say we are seeing now... The problem is that we are so primed to view things in terms of friends and enemies that we fail to see that the Lord requires more from us.)

[BeccaKirstyn]

I didn't get to attend the event, but in the Virginia area there was a fireside recently called "A Gay Mormon's Perspective on Faith and Family" by a man named Tom Christofferson who wrote a book by that title. 

I actually wish I could have gone. May have to pick up the book and see what that says. 

[zil]

24 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Personally, all this courting of the LGBT community has me concerned.  

I can understand.  However, as @estradling75 showed, only the willfully blind will think the Church is / will look favorably upon homosexual behavior.  One could instead see this as Matthew 5:43-44 (love your enemy) in action.  Further, I see in this something I used for my RS lesson on ministering last Sunday - "The worth of souls is great in the sight of God."

Compare how the Nephites (in the days of the sons of Mosiah) viewed the Lamanites, as described here:

Quote

23 Now do ye remember, my brethren, that we said unto our brethren in the land of Zarahemla, we go up to the land of Nephi, to preach unto our brethren, the Lamanites, and they laughed us to scorn?

24 For they said unto us: Do ye suppose that ye can bring the Lamanites to the knowledge of the truth? Do ye suppose that ye can convince the Lamanites of the incorrectness of the traditions of their fathers, as stiffnecked a people as they are; whose hearts delight in the shedding of blood; whose days have been spent in the grossest iniquity; whose ways have been the ways of a transgressor from the beginning? Now my brethren, ye remember that this was their language.

25 And moreover they did say: Let us take up arms against them, that we destroy them and their iniquity out of the land, lest they overrun us and destroy us.

...now compare that to how the sons of Mosiah viewed the Lamanites as described here and here:

Quote

1 Now it came to pass that after the sons of Mosiah had done all these things, they took a small number with them and returned to their father, the king, and desired of him that he would grant unto them that they might, with these whom they had selected, go up to the land of Nephi that they might preach the things which they had heard, and that they might impart the word of God to their brethren, the Lamanites—

2 That perhaps they might bring them to the knowledge of the Lord their God, and convince them of the iniquity of their fathers; and that perhaps they might cure them of their hatred towards the Nephites, that they might also be brought to rejoice in the Lord their God, that they might become friendly to one another, and that there should be no more contentions in all the land which the Lord their God had given them.

3 Now they were desirous that salvation should be declared to every creature, for they could not bear that any human soul should perish; yea, even the very thoughts that any soul should endure endless torment did cause them to quake and tremble.

Quote

26 But behold, my beloved brethren, we came into the wilderness not with the intent to destroy our brethren, but with the intent that perhaps we might save some few of their souls.

What if MoTab's performance creates enough good will in exactly one person such that this one person turns from sin.  Is that a good enough reason for this performance?  I'm thinking it is.

[Grunt]

13 minutes ago, zil said:

I can understand.  However, as @estradling75 showed, only the willfully blind will think the Church is / will look favorably upon homosexual behavior.  One could instead see this as Matthew 5:43-44 (love your enemy) in action.  Further, I see in this something I used for my RS lesson on ministering last Sunday - "The worth of souls is great in the sight of God."

Compare how the Nephites (in the days of the sons of Mosiah) viewed the Lamanites, as described here:

...now compare that to how the sons of Mosiah viewed the Lamanites as described here and here:

What if MoTab's performance creates enough good will in exactly one person such that this one person turns from sin.  Is that a good enough reason for this performance?  I'm thinking it is.

I don’t think the church has changed its view on homosexuality at all.  That isn’t my concern.  What IS my concern is that continued partnerships and financial support gives the appearance of acceptance and normalcy to a group who publicly promotes and advocates sinful behavior and a breakdown in family values.  

Other sinful behaviors we fully support aren’t out there openly campaigning to normalize and recruit into their sins. 

[BeccaKirstyn]

55 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I don’t think the church has changed its view on homosexuality at all.  That isn’t my concern.  What IS my concern is that continued partnerships and financial support gives the appearance of acceptance and normalcy to a group who publicly promotes and advocates sinful behavior and a breakdown in family values.  

Other sinful behaviors we fully support aren’t out there openly campaigning to normalize and recruit into their sins. 

I totally see where you are coming from. I look at it this way: the LGBTQ group is a very sensitive group of people (at least IMO). I think the church is appealing to their sensitivity, as this may be the best route for them to find some kind of peace with the LDS church. I don't think the Church is looking for their validation, but I think we are playing to their weakness in a sense so that we can try to find some kind of ground for them to actually learn and understand what we teach.

Many non-lds (and even lds) people think that the LDS church despises gays/LGBTQ individuals, and that we believe that they're going to Hell. Obviously this is incredibly false. But, if we don't open a path for them to see our beliefs, they'll continue to think that way. And this is just one of those scenarios that I think it is in our favor to "show our hand", if you will, in order to have at least one person sincerely look into our beliefs as an LGBTQ individual.

Hopefully that made sense...

[NeuroTypical]

Another way to look at it: We are commanded to love one another.  And to forgive all men.  If I can't find a way to genuinely love my gay neighbor, then I don't need to worry about ever making it to the Celestial kingdom - I won't qualify.  

(Of course, what love means, and what it doesn't mean, isn't so easy to understand.)

Edited June 28, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Grunt]

8 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Another way to look at it: We are commanded to love one another.  And to forgive all men.  If I can't find a way to genuinely love my gay neighbor, then I don't need to worry about ever making it to the Celestial kingdom - I won't qualify.  

(Of course, what love means, and what it doesn't mean, isn't so easy to understand.)

Again, I absolutely agree and understand.  However, I can fully love LGBT members individually without promoting their organizations, and by association their agendas.  

We need to be open and loving, not supportive of organizations that undermine our beliefs. 

Edited June 28, 2018 by Grunt

[BeccaKirstyn]

14 minutes ago, Grunt said:

We need to be open and loving, not supportive of organizations that undermine our beliefs. 

But how are we supporting their organization? I guess that's where I'm confused with this. 

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

We need to be open and loving, not supportive of organizations that undermine our beliefs. 

I do share similar thoughts with you, but ultimately I’m trying to learn the church’s motives and reasoning.

One question I ask myself in my concern and I’ll pose to you too is how is this different than guest singers that the church has invited in the past. 

Here is a list of them all: https://www.mormontabernaclechoir.org/about/guest-artists.html

I garauntee you at least one of them is on some board or heavily supports some organization that goes against our beliefs. If that is the case, why haven’t their appearance bugged us before? Why are we ok with a (potential) celebrity that openly supports planned parenthood, but are concerned with a gay person conducting the choir?

I don’t know haha. I assume that my concern is of no real concern.

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

But how are we supporting their organization? I guess that's where I'm confused with this. 

Because we aren’t focusing on the individual.  We’re focusing on various groups and organizations who exist to promote LGBT.  

[Grunt]

12 minutes ago, Fether said:

I do share similar thoughts with you, but ultimately I’m trying to learn the church’s motives and reasoning.

One question I ask myself in my concern and I’ll pose to you too is how is this different than guest singers that the church has invited in the past. 

Here is a list of them all: https://www.mormontabernaclechoir.org/about/guest-artists.html

I garauntee you at least one of them is on some board or heavily supports some organization that goes against our beliefs. If that is the case, why haven’t their appearance bugged us before? Why are we ok with a (potential) celebrity that openly supports planned parenthood, but are concerned with a gay person conducting the choir?

I don’t know haha. I assume that my concern is of no real concern.

For me, it depends on WHY that person is invited or what makes them a celebrity.  If the answer is “because they’re gay”, then it’s the wrong answer, in my opinion.  If this was one of any number of excellent singers and choirs it wouldn’t have been a media event.  

[BeccaKirstyn]

Just now, Grunt said:

For me, it depends on WHY that person is invited or what makes them a celebrity.  If the answer is “because they’re gay”, then it’s the wrong answer, in my opinion.  If this was one of any number of excellent singers and choirs it wouldn’t have been a media event.  

But what is wrong with specifically inviting a conductor for a Gay Men's Chorus? We're opening the door of inclusion and love. These individuals are still children of God, just like you and me. They may never join the Church in this lifetime. But that shouldn't stop us from working with them or being their friend. Are we to never interact with any group, whether it be for music purposes, service purposes, etc. that affiliate themselves with the LGBTQ organization? 

[Fether]

6 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

But what is wrong with specifically inviting a conductor for a Gay Men's Chorus? We're opening the door of inclusion and love. These individuals are still children of God, just like you and me. They may never join the Church in this lifetime. But that shouldn't stop us from working with them or being their friend. Are we to never interact with any group, whether it be for music purposes, service purposes, etc. that affiliate themselves with the LGBTQ organization? 

I agree. We are at war with sin, not sinners

[estradling75]

The church has many tools in its arsenal in trying to win people over.  The most important one is the message of the Gospel itself.

Secondary to that one the church has other ones like its humanitarian aid and MoTab.  Those who reject the message of the Gospel we try to share can still potentially be reached/helped/softened/whatever by these other services.

If there was a disaster we would not deny some one or group of someones our humanitarian aid just because they were part a counter organization.  Nor do we withhold MoTab... for pretty much exactly the same reasons.

[Grunt]

18 minutes ago, BeccaKirstyn said:

But what is wrong with specifically inviting a conductor for a Gay Men's Chorus? We're opening the door of inclusion and love. These individuals are still children of God, just like you and me. They may never join the Church in this lifetime. But that shouldn't stop us from working with them or being their friend. Are we to never interact with any group, whether it be for music purposes, service purposes, etc. that affiliate themselves with the LGBTQ organization? 

I explained my feelings on it and why I felt that way.  I don’t really want to argue the point, though.  

[bytebear]

So, culturally gay relationships are becoming normal.  That's just a fact.  The church has a standard on marriage which I see not changing any time soon, and rightly so, but that standard also includes restrictions on straight sexual relationships outside of marriage.  There are also has specific restrictions on smoking, drinking, coffee, modesty in dress, and all sorts of commandments that fly in the face of cultural norms. Yes, gay relationships are tough to accept, but it wasn't that long ago, that having a straight couple move in together without getting married would be scandalous.  So, the gospel and the covenants of it are in the world, but not of the world.  We adapt to our surroundings.   And I think the leaders of the church are very smart to be an inclusive voice to the gay community than to be screaming repentance from over a wall.  Society will eventually catch up, and realize that gay rights don't mean forcing religions to conform any more than smokers rights.  Imagine if we had protests at our temples that we weren't allowing smokers join.  Same concept, just a different sin.  And, frankly, I find an uncommitted straight couple having children far more abhorrent.  So, we accept straight people who are not living to gospel standards into our cultural spaces, and hope to influence them to prepare their lives so they can participate in our spiritual spaces.  Why not do the same for gay people?

 

Edited June 28, 2018 by bytebear

[Grunt]

9 minutes ago, bytebear said:

  Why not do the same for gay people?

 

We should.  Again, there is a difference between individuals and groups.   There also aren’t many lobbying groups and community organizations pushing for unwed parenthood or encouraging people that smoking is great and should be taught in schools.  

[bytebear]

6 minutes ago, Grunt said:

We should.  Again, there is a difference between individuals and groups.   There also aren’t many lobbying groups and community organizations pushing for unwed parenthood or encouraging people that smoking is great and should be taught in schools.  

No, but we are in a cultural transition period.  How about interracial marriage?  How about polygamy?   Those have been controversial practices.  And I do think there is a push for unwed parenthood, and frankly, we've been a bit too timid on our condemnation of it.

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, bytebear said:

No, but we are in a cultural transition period.  How about interracial marriage?  How about polygamy?   Those have been controversial practices.  And I do think there is a push for unwed parenthood, and frankly, we've been a bit too timid on our condemnation of it.

Is interracial marriage a sin?   Is the church reaching out to, giving money to, and publicizing relationships with poly organizations?  

[bytebear]

It was discouraged before the priesthood ban was lifted.