Stacey Harkey comes out


Fether
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, person0 said:

As suspected, in Bergs case he's just completely rejecting the gospel.  I presume the same about Harkey.

I can't find anything Adam's said to insinuate that he is completely rejecting the gospel. Harkey was part of an article by the (hated in these parts) SL Tribune in January, where he expressed to his bishop that he was going to start dating men, and his bishop seemed to thinK he was okay as long as no "homosexual behavior" occurred. I know from other corners of the internet there is a long debate over whether homoromantic behaviors are the same as homosexual behaviors, and it sometimes seems people's opinion on whether or not someone is in line with the Gospel depend on where they draw that line.

Personally, I wish Adam and Stacey the best. I want to hope that they will find some way to stay in the Church, but I have seen enough LGBTQ+ people who feel led by God to leave the Church that, in the end, I hope they find happiness either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I have seen enough LGBTQ+ people who feel led by God to leave the Church that, in the end, I hope they find happiness either way.

A nice-sounding sentiment, but there is no lasting happiness outside the kingdom of God, which is the Restored Church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know we sometimes get a little uncomfortable with some of our universalist beliefs, but I try to believe that God can lead someone out of the Church for now, then bring them back -- even it needs be in the next life. There may not be lasting happiness outside of the Church, but I believe God can bring everyone (or nearly everyone) into the Church if we are patient with His timing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I can't find anything Adam's said to insinuate that he is completely rejecting the gospel.

When I look at his Twitter feed over the last few months, it's hard to understand how that isn't representative of such.

2 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I hope they find happiness either way.

Happiness? Yes.  Eternal life? No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I know we sometimes get a little uncomfortable with some of our universalist beliefs, but I try to believe that God can lead someone out of the Church for now, then bring them back -- even it needs be in the next life. There may not be lasting happiness outside of the Church, but I believe God can bring everyone (or nearly everyone) into the Church if we are patient with His timing.

God doesn't bring anyone into the fold. He invites all to follow and obey and they either come to Him or they do not, based on their own free will and choice.

Edit: I know "bring" is a subjective idea, but the point remains... it is upon our agency.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MrShorty said:

his bishop that he was going to start dating men, and his bishop seemed to thinK he was okay as long as no "homosexual behavior" occurred. I know from other corners of the internet there is a long debate over whether homoromantic behaviors are the same as homosexual behaviors, and it sometimes seems people's opinion on whether or not someone is in line with the Gospel depend on where they draw that line.

This line of thinking is so very odd for any bishop to suggest. Dating men is a homosexual act. He isn't just going out with friends.

I wonder if his bishop would say to a married man the same thing if he came to him saying, "I love my wife, but I'm going to start dating other women. It isn't adultery, as I'm just dating other women I'm attracted to."

I still don't understand how easily some people seek to split hairs when it comes to a decision with homosexuality. It is as clear as the day light is from the dark night. It is as clear as a married man deciding to date other women -- although technically not adultery. The debate is there due to people listing to obey the wrong spirit.

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Anddenex said:

This line of thinking is so very odd for any bishop to suggest. Dating men is a homosexual act. He isn't just going out with friends.

I wonder if his bishop would say to a married man the same thing if he came to him saying, "I love my wife, but I'm going to start dating other women. It isn't adultery, as I'm just dating other women I'm attracted to."

I still don't understand how easily some people seek to split hairs when it comes to a decision with homosexuality. It is as clear as the day light is from the dark night. It is as clear as a married man deciding to date other women -- although technically not adultery. The debate is there due to people listing to obey the wrong spirit.

One of the wonderful things about being a Latter-day Saint is that I can lie every day and twice on Sunday about what “my bishop told me” in a private meeting; and my bishop is prohibited from publicly refuting my lies by covenant, church policy, and (in jurisdictions that recognize priest/penitent privilege) by applicable evidentiary law.

I wouldn’t be surprised if his bishop had said “well, that’s not excommunicable behavior”. But then again:  It is also not excommunicable behavior to cut off my own arm, or inject crystallized caffeine intravenously, or throw myself from the topmost pinnacle of the Salt Lake Temple in anticipation of being caught by heavenly angels.

But, given that I claim to accept the Gospel and given what the Gospel teaches I am to strive to become—my doing any of the above would be pretty darned stupid.  And I’ve never seen a bishop use his priesthood authority to explicitly approve of darned stupid behavior.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Anddenex said:

This line of thinking is so very odd for any bishop to suggest. Dating men is a homosexual act. He isn't just going out with friends.

I wonder if his bishop would say to a married man the same thing if he came to him saying, "I love my wife, but I'm going to start dating other women. It isn't adultery, as I'm just dating other women I'm attracted to."

I still don't understand how easily some people seek to split hairs when it comes to a decision with homosexuality. It is as clear as the day light is from the dark night. It is as clear as a married man deciding to date other women -- although technically not adultery. The debate is there due to people listing to obey the wrong spirit.

I can imagine a bit of a game of telephone.

Some individual goes to his bishop for a clear line.  The bishops may be vague in their counsel.  Then a discussion ensues.  And being human, they poorly worded statements come out in the course of a casual conversation.

Then the individual takes time to parse all the words and interprets the way, they want to hear them.  Then he repeats it to others.  Then others are interpreting...

Telephone.

The bottom line is that if someone is dead set on choosing evil, they will find a way to justify it to themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Since these two things are synonymous I'm having difficulty parsing out your thought here. 

Being fairly confident they will obtain at least a Telestial glory, I assumed we might consider that as "happiness" in the context.

Separate from that, I have traditionally separated in my mind the concepts of happiness and joy.  Joy being eternal; happiness being temporary, like fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

One of the wonderful things about being a Latter-day Saint is that I can lie every day and twice on Sunday about what “my bishop told me” in a private meeting; and my bishop is prohibited from publicly refuting my lies by covenant, church policy, and (in jurisdictions that recognize priest/penitent privilege) by applicable evidentiary law.

I wouldn’t be surprised if his bishop had said “well, that’s not excommunicable behavior”. But then again:  It is also not excommunicable behavior to cut off my own arm, or inject crystallized caffeine intravenously, or throw myself from the topmost pinnacle of the Salt Lake Temple in anticipation of being caught by heavenly angels.

But, given that I claim to accept the Gospel and given what the Gospel teaches I am to strive to become—my doing any of the above would be pretty darned stupid.  And I’ve never seen a bishop use his priesthood authority to explicitly approve of darned stupid behavior.

That is a valid point JAG with regards to the bishop. At times, we also hear what we want to hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, MrShorty said:

I have seen enough LGBTQ+ people who feel led by God to leave the Church that, in the end, I hope they find happiness either way.

I have seen far more people use “I prayed about it and God said…” to justify all sorts of decisions. One of my biggest frustrations with members is they will use prayer to cover their bad decisions or to do things they are embarrassed to admit it they wanted to do themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

God doesn't bring anyone into the fold. He invites all to follow and obey and they either come to Him or they do not, based on their own free will and choice.

Edit: I know "bring" is a subjective idea, but the point remains... it is upon our agency.

You caught me careless in my choice of words. Yes, God does not force us to Heaven. I believe that He will continue to invite us for as long as He possibly can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, person0 said:

Being fairly confident they will obtain at least a Telestial glory, I assumed we might consider that as "happiness" in the context.

Separate from that, I have traditionally separated in my mind the concepts of happiness and joy.  Joy being eternal; happiness being temporary, like fun.

I'll just leave this here for consideration. 

“Happiness is the object and design of our existence; and will be the end thereof, if we pursue the path that leads to it; and this path is virtue, uprightness, faithfulness, holiness, and keeping all the commandments of God.” - Joseph Smith

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MrShorty said:

You caught me careless in my choice of words. Yes, God does not force us to Heaven. I believe that He will continue to invite us for as long as He possibly can.

The idea that concerns me is your proposal that God leads people away from His church in order to lead them back to Him in the future.

Whereas God can and does work with our weaknesses to turn them to strengths, he doesn't, that I've ever learned or heard, inspire us to be weak, foolish, sinful, lazy, carnal, devilish, or anything other than Godly, humble, and righteous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The idea that concerns me is your proposal that God leads people away from His church in order to lead them back to Him in the future.

Whereas God can and does work with our weaknesses to turn them to strengths, he doesn't, that I've ever learned or heard, inspire us to be weak, foolish, sinful, lazy, carnal, devilish, or anything other than Godly, humble, and righteous.

I think there may be isolated instances where this may be true.  Thomas Kane could not have done what he did for the church if he were a baptized member.  I suspect Mother Theresa could not have accomplished what she did for humanity, as an LDS housewife.

But the Church fundamentally exists to teach people the way, not just to Christian goodness, but to exaltation.  LGBTQ Mormons who leave the Church aren’t just doing an “I-can’t-do-this-right-now” or a “good/better/best” analysis; they are openly rejecting exaltation.  Our Father is merciful, and I trust such people will attain eternal rest and “happiness”, after a fashion.  And maybe there really is progression between the kingdoms; and maybe they’ll eventually find not only repentance but even an opportunity to make the requisite covenants to reach exaltation.

But it’s a heckuva* risk to take, because there is nothing in our doctrine that explicitly promises anything better than a Telestial glory to those who died impenitent about having made their libido the foundation of their lives.  If those of us who have been taught the fullness want exaltation, then we need to fall in line—now.

* Literally!

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think there may be isolated instances where this may be true.  Thomas Kane could not have done what he did for the church if he were a baptized member.  I suspect Mother Theresa could not have accomplished what she did for humanity, as an LDS housewife.

Pardon my confusion, but are you suggesting God purposefully and explicitly invited Thomas Kane or Mother Theresa to NOT come unto Him and partake of his gospel? Are you suggesting that if Thomas Kane or Mother Theresa had exercised their agency to join His church that God's work would have been hindered?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Mother Theresa could not have accomplished what she did for humanity

Look, it’s a dirty job but someone has to say this. She wasn’t all cupcakes and rainbows. In fact, she had this odd obsession with keeping the poor miserable because of the Catholic teachings on suffering and how it brings people closer to Christ. That’s all fine and dandy, but when it was her time to seek treatment, she flew to the best hospitals in the world. Odd how that works. 
 

I am NOT saying she was evil, or cruel. She did a lot to help the poor. But her record is much more complex then is known. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Dating men is a homosexual act. He isn't just going out with friends.

I wonder if his bishop would say to a married man the same thing if he came to him saying, "I love my wife, but I'm going to start dating other women. It isn't adultery, as I'm just dating other women I'm attracted to."

I'm not convinced that dating is a homosexual act. I also don't think the false equivalence (or is it more of fallacious slippery slope argument) between permitting same sex couples to go see a movie together automatically and inevitably means that we also have to ignore the strong romantic exclusivity promise that is part of marriage (and many dating relationships approaching marriage).

If you have read the Tribune article I mentioned, the big question in the article is whether or not dating and other romantic behaviors (that we don't bat an eye at when opposite sex couples engage in them) are okay for same sex couples. Many people feel that the Church has not been clear about that, so they feel drawn to make their own decisions. I just listened to an episode of Questions from the Closet (An episode titled Can I date from Jan 2021, if you want). For those unfamiliar with the podcast, Questions from the closet is hosted by Ben Schilaty (a gay man working in the BYU honor code office) and Charlie Bird (also gay and active LDS) talk about LGBT issues. In this particular episode they talk about their own experiences (including experiences with God/The Spirit approving of decisions to date or pursue romantic relationships). In they end, they don't officially want to give anyone permission to date, but they believe that it is an individual choice made as most of us make difficult decisions, by counseling with God and priesthood leaders. I also recently listened to an episode of Richard Ostler's Listen Learn Love podcast (episode 511) where Ostler interviews a David Bingham who is gay, left the Church in his youth, returned later (at the time of the podcast he had been in full fellowship for a few years and was then 60 years old) who is also in an exclusive same sex romantic relationship while staying in full fellowship. He seems to feel that God and the Church are fine with his status. I know these are not the only examples, but I would suggest that they show that there are at least some priesthood leaders/Bishops and congregations where active Church members are not bothered by same sex romantic relationships. Are we certain that they are forbidden by God?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

The idea that concerns me is your proposal that God leads people away from His church in order to lead them back to Him in the future.

Whereas God can and does work with our weaknesses to turn them to strengths, he doesn't, that I've ever learned or heard, inspire us to be weak, foolish, sinful, lazy, carnal, devilish, or anything other than Godly, humble, and righteous. 

I get it, but I see too many examples of people who claim exactly that -- that God lead them away from the Church and/or led them to not embrace the Church when brought to their attention. Perhaps they are merely deluded, I can't say. If I take their experiences at face value, then I have to conclude that God sometimes does exactly what you say He would not do.

In some ways, this is part of why I lean universalist. In this life, we all too often see through a glass darkly, leading to plenty of confusion and uncertainty. It seems to me that, for God to be perfectly just, He must allow for adequate time/space in the next life to clarify all the things we thought we knew but really didn't and give us each an adequate opportunity to accept the truth when it is clear to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Perhaps they are merely deluded

They are.

4 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

If I take their experiences at face value

You shouldn't if they are in opposition to established truth.  A lady in my ward claims she has received confirmation by the Spirit that one day Homosexual sealings will be approved.  Should I take her experience at face value? Or should I stick to the doctrine?  I think the latter.

6 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I lean universalist

It is hard to get more universalist than the Restored Gospel already is.  Doing so requires embracing falsehoods and at that point, it is useless because it isn't true.

11 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

He must allow for adequate time/space in the next life to clarify. . .

Like, perhaps, Christ's millennial reign?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

I'm not convinced that dating is a homosexual act.

I'm not sure how you expect to have an honest discussion on something when your thesis is so blatantly dishonest. Perhaps you aren't dishonest intentionally. Maybe you've simply allowed yourself to be duped by other's dishonesty. But the point remains. This discussion cannot move forward openly and honestly as long as it's corrupted by straight up falsehoods.

At the least you're buying into the dishonest standard of redefining terms that progressive types seem to so often engage in.

If you aren't bought into the common understanding that dating is defined by romanticism and the ultimate objective of sex then you're going to talk right past every reasonable person on the matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Pardon my confusion, but are you suggesting God purposefully and explicitly invited Thomas Kane or Mother Theresa to NOT come unto Him and partake of his gospel? Are you suggesting that if Thomas Kane or Mother Theresa had exercised their agency to join His church that God's work would have been hindered?

Maybe.  Might be worth a different thread to explore; but I don’t want to hijack the discussion here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share