Schisms in the Church

[Grunt]

Maybe "schism" isn't the right word, but I can't think of a better one.    Recently the news reported a group of religious folks from various sects (including Latter-day Saints) who staged a peaceful protest at a library hosting a drag queen reading hour.   Later the Stake President released a statement:

Quote

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not sanction or support these protests. Our faith does not support divisive or hateful behavior toward our brothers and sisters. We strive to follow the example of Jesus Christ to love one another,” said Cameron D. Brower, Chubbuck Idaho Stake president and the local representative for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in Tuesday's statement.

Where is the line?   Is this something they would be disciplined for?  Does the Church actually have a position on whether drag queen library hour is good or bad?   What are your individual thoughts?   

 

https://www.idahostatejournal.com/freeaccess/members-of-local-christian-congregations-hold-sit-in-protest-against-pocatello-drag-queen-reading-program/article_e00393e2-abfb-11ed-823a-db574748bf88.html

Edited February 21, 2023 by Grunt

[Carborendum]

15 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Later the Stake President released a statement:

At best: I think he was trying to cover his own anatomy.  Nothing more than that.

At worst: He's a woke Stake President who wants to excommunicate all those who participate.

He's most likely something in between.

[The Folk Prophet]

34 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Maybe "schism" isn't the right word, but I can't think of a better one.    Recently the news reported a group of religious folks from various sects (including Latter-day Saints) who staged a peaceful protest at a library hosting a drag queen reading hour.   Later the Stake President released a statement:

34 minutes ago, Grunt said:

“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did not sanction or support these protests. Our faith does not support divisive or hateful behavior toward our brothers and sisters. We strive to follow the example of Jesus Christ to love one another,” said Cameron D. Brower, Chubbuck Idaho Stake president and the local representative for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in Tuesday's statement.

Where is the line?   Is this something they would be disciplined for?  Does the Church actually have a position on whether drag queen library hour is good or bad?   What are your individual thoughts?   

Um... that quote from the Stake president is ridiculous! Like....seriously problematic.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

At best: I think he was trying to cover his own anatomy.  Nothing more than that.

I disagree. There is very much something wrong with making such a false a terrible statement that throws faithful, righteous members under the bus by stating their desire to protect children is hateful.

Edit: I just noticed you wrote "nothing more than that". I had read it as "nothing wrong with that". My view is the same...but my "disagreement" with what you said isn't. Sorry for that.

Edited February 21, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

I’m going to try to be charitable and assume that the SP has some local knowledge that is being omitted from the article.

Even assuming that the protestors were fastidiously polite:  the bottom line is that they crashed someone else’s event and flooded a venue that someone else had properly reserved.  If applied to our missionaries who were trying to hold a community information session at a public library seminar room which they had properly booked, I think we would be fine calling the tactic “divisive” or even “hateful”.  It seems to me that the better approach here would have been to name and fire the library personnel who let this happen or, if the personnel situation is incurable because of tenure or what-have-you, de-fund the library.  (In the spirit of bipartisanship and as a friendly nod to my friends across the ideological aisle, I’ll leave it deliberately ambiguous as to what I mean by “de-fund”.)

The issue, of course, is that LGBTQ advocates are fond of applying those labels (“divisive” and “hateful”) to our positions, quite irrespective of our behavior as we express those positions; and the million-dollar question is how carefully the SP was using those terms.  (The TWO-million dollar question is whether the reporter will release his/her entire correspondence chain with the SP; and based on past experience, I’m betting the answer will be “no”.)

Edited February 21, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

@Just_A_Guy I was going to say something similar.

Actually what I was going to say was more along the lines that protesting is STUPID!

I hate it. It's not a fine American tradition. It's a childish hippy-inspired get-a-life activity.

I can be forgiving of those who believe it's a good idea though. Barely.

That being said...if anything ever deserved protesting, it's drag shows for kids.

But I fully agree that there are better, appropriate, and correct ways to affect change that should never involve marching in circles with signs or the like.

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

If applied to our missionaries who were trying to hold a community information session at a public library seminar room which they had properly booked, I think we would be fine calling the tactic “divisive” or even “hateful”.

There's a flaw with just calling something hateful though. The plain fact is that I do, very much, hate drag shows for kids. I mean I hate drag shows for adults too. But especially for kids. But the narrative is that must mean I hate the individuals involved...or even worse, it implies I wish them harm. (That's also a relative word, because if it means going to jail for exposing sexual things to children, then I do wish that upon them...but if it means physical beatings or death, I do not. Of course calling something hateful always implies the latter).

But the greater flaw is the equation you're making. It's buying into the lefty woke-mob logic. They would like to have us believe that protesting a bunch of dudes dressed up as over sexualized women, doing crude and suggesting things in front of children, is exactly equivalent to protesting missionaries. But it's not. I expect Putin would have us all believe that his invasion of Ukraine was exactly equivalent to the Allies invading Germany at the end of WWII. Or the people who claim putting up a Satanic display next to a manger scene at Christmas is exactly equivalent.

We do not have to accept those types of claims.

[Just_A_Guy]

51 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But the greater flaw is the equation you're making. It's buying into the lefty woke-mob logic. They would like to have us believe that protesting a bunch of dudes dressed up as over sexualized women, doing crude and suggesting things in front of children, is exactly equivalent to protesting missionaries. But it's not. I expect Putin would have us all believe that his invasion of Ukraine was exactly equivalent to the Allies invading Germany at the end of WWII. Or the people who claim putting up a Satanic display next to a manger scene at Christmas is exactly equivalent.

We do not have to accept those types of claims.

From a moral perspective, you're no doubt right.  

From a civil standpoint, though:  We cannot claim law and order and due process and a degree of common courtesy for ourselves in the face of a majority that considers us to be the morally abhorrent ones, unless we are willing to grant a certain degree of deference to a government that accommodates similar claims from folks whose own moral abhorrence is plain to see. 

I agree that the authorities shouldn't have given that particular event space at the library; but once the authorities at the library allowed it space at a particular time--the physical occupation of that space with the intent to break up the meeting seems deeply problematic in its own right (and could escalate into physical violence at the drop of a hat).  I'm not sure that the explanation of "but, they're . . . they're . . . WRONG!  And, GROSS!  And, those parents shouldn't be allowed to expose their own children to THAT!  Surely in such circumstances, the right to assemble/ the right to have one's contracts honored/ the right to instruct one's children in accordance with one's own values don't apply!" (or the corollary, "you can't afford your own meeting space, so I and my friends in the majority reserve the right to bust up your meetings wherever and whenever they occur!")  is really the field I want to be playing on--or, more to the point, that I want to see the Church playing on.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

From a moral perspective, you're no doubt right.  

From a civil standpoint, though:  

Politics is the debate of what should be civil based on what is moral.

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We cannot claim law and order and due process and a degree of common courtesy for ourselves in the face of a majority that considers us to be the morally abhorrent ones, unless we are willing to grant the claims of others making those same claims. 

I do not believe the majority yet considers drag shows for kids morally equivalent to missionaries preaching. We may be getting their quickly. But not yet.

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

the physical occupation of that space with the intent to break up the meeting seems deeply problematic in its own right

I agree, except perhaps with the word "deeply".

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

and I'm not sure that the explanation of "but, they're . . . they're . . . WRONG!  And, GROSS!  And, those parents shouldn't be allowed to expose their own children to THAT!!!" is really the field I want to be playing on.

Depends on what you mean by playing on the field I guess. As I've said, I think protesting is stupid. But not because what's being done isn't wrong and gross. If it comes to proper methods though...voting, establishing laws, getting people fired, etc., then that's pretty much the only field to play on. What other point can be made of the matter than it's wrong and gross and that children should be protected from that which is wrong and gross?

Edited February 22, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[Just_A_Guy]

[I tweaked my post a bit while you were responding; so I'll leave this for a while in case you want to make any amendments.  Catch you later!   ]

[The Folk Prophet]

8 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Surely in such circumstances, the right to assemble/ the right to have one's contracts honored/ the right to instruct one's children in accordance with one's own values don't apply!"

Where do you draw the line then? Strip shows in front of children -- as long as the contracts are being honored? Pornographic movies? Live sex shows?

When is it appropriate for society at large to step in and say, "Nope. Not allowed. I don't care about your contracts or your parental rights. This cannot stand." ??

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

[I tweaked my post a bit while you were responding; so I'll leave this for a while in case you want to make any amendments.  Catch you later!   ]

I think my response stands as to basically communicating what I'm trying to. Maybe. Sort of.

[Anddenex]

The stake president should have left it at the first sentence, "The Church of Jesus Christ did not sanction...these protests." The stake president though doesn't speak for the Church, so adding "support" was his own words.

Members have the individual right to "peaceful" protest and it appears they peacefully protested.

An act like this would not fall under church discipline for the stake president; however, if the stake president started organizing such events himself then this could easily be something that could lead to action from Church leaders.

An act like this would not fall under church discipline either for the members. If the stake president does, then I would hope the leaders above him would then bring him in also for an act of unrighteous dominion.

The Church's position is clear, we can love people while not condoning sin; however, it is unfortunate to see how many members condone sin while loving the sinner. We can protest events, ideas, etc... while still being polite and loving.

Elder Bednar mentioned clearly, in light of the actions with Covid, that we should never allow church attendance/worship to be less than buying/purchasing gas. That can only be done/accomplished with peaceful protests against actions that are unconstitutional or immoral/perversions.

[scottyg]

5 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

The stake president should have left it at the first sentence, "The Church of Jesus Christ did not sanction...these protests."

Bingo.

[NeuroTypical]

These two links cover my thoughts on such matters pretty well.

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/church-leaders-condemn-violence-and-lawless-behavior-during-times-of-unrest

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2020/10/17oaks?lang=eng

 

Absolutely we need to push back on some of the recent horrible cultural advances that bring schoolkids to drag shows in the name of tolerance and equity.  And throw "gender affirming" surgery for "trans minors" on the list too.   But no really - those two links are how to do it.

[The Folk Prophet]

I just read the news article. I've changed my view. The people involved in this protest were not stupid for protesting. They did nothing illegal or immoral. They weren't marching or shouting. They merely occupied seats open to the public. They have every right to do that.

[The Folk Prophet]

So I just watched a clip from Michael Knowles where he talks of this LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ dude who dresses as a woman but is being lauded by the conservative right for denouncing "pronouns". Michael Knowles makes the point, which which I agree, that we, as conservatives, continually lose by this very method. Essentially, he says, 50 years ago conservatives said feminism is fine but homosexual is crazy, then 30 years ago they said, homosexual is fine, but gay marriage is crazy, then 10 years ago...gay marriage is fine, but transgender is crazy, and now they say transgender is fine, but non-binary is crazy...etc., etc...

This relates to the discussion I was having with @Just_A_Guy as to when and where we draw the line. The plain fact is, we don't seem to ever draw the line. We just cave, and cave, and cave, and cave, letting the Overton window shift, and shift, and shift, and shift. It guarantees we'll lose. And we will. Because little by little, we accept the progressive narrative.

Not that long back the idea of drag queen story hour for kids would have been ridiculous. Parent who exposed their children to such things would have been thrown in jail, their children taken away. Now we're arguing that it's fine, as long as contracts and parental rights are in order and as long as no actual genitalia is exposed? Hmm. How long until the exposed genitalia is fine as long as the kids aren't forced to participate? Then how long until the kids being forced to participate is fine, as long as the parents are there? Then how long until......

Of course in saying this, I'm not proposing anything. I don't have an actual proposal. I respect and appreciate what parents did in this instance. But I don't think it will do any good. But isn't that defeatist? But maybe we should be defeatist. We can't win this. Because we keep buying into the progressive narrative...bit by bit, frogs boiling in the pot.

And @NeuroTypical, I accept what you shared fully. We should follow our church leaders and trust them. I trust that civility is the right course right now. But I don't understand it. I don't understand the idea that we should get along with evil. I don't know how the ideas presented by President Oakes fit in with the concepts about defense of our religion, faith, and family, as I understand them to be taught in the Book of Mormon.

It seems by the church's "civil" approach to the fight that we lose. I'm not saying that as a critical thing. I trust that's right. Apparently we're meant to lose the culture war. And, likely, we'd lose anyway...even if uncivil. Even if literally going to war...we'd probably lose the culture war.

I mean take what the church has done with Prop 8 and homosexuality, for example. They fought the good fight civilly and through proper politics and all that. And the result...we lost. Entirely. We lost. Gay marriage is fully culturally accepted and fully enshrined in law. Well...okay. I trust that the church's approach was still correct. And I can accept that being civil is more important than actually winning.

But here's where I get confused... if we know that being civil in our fight is going to lose, and being civil is the priority, then why are we even fighting? Why don't we just be civil and quit the fight? I mean politically and legally, of course. But that doesn't fit with the counsel we're given either to get involved.

So this is how it reads to me. These parents, desperate to protect children, but trying their best to do it in a legal and peaceful manner, and trying to get involved, are reprimanded and called hateful and divisive by their stake presidency. Apparently, they shouldn't be trying to protect children. Nope. They should be protecting the feelings of perverted freaks who get their kicks by dressing up as overly sexualized women in front of children. Because despite the theory that it should be handled through the law and those in charge should be fired....that is never going to happen. Efforts to that end will fail as surely as prop 8 failed. These parents know that. Which is why they acted as they did. They can't go through the proper means to protect children and have any measure of success. But doing as they did, they successfully (in this instance), protected children, and the library is reconsidering hosting such events because of concerns of escalating violence. They got results! But nope...hateful and divisive. How dare they?

And I feel like in the near future, continuing along this course, my children might be forcibly (but fully legally) removed from my care so they can be transgendered and raped, because protecting my children from such is clearly hateful and divisive, and my response should be to let it happen because we believe in honoring and obeying the law.

"That's ridiculous," they say. "Clearly that's not going to be the societal standard. Your slippery slope argument is a fallacy." But of course they said the exact same thing 50 years ago, and then 30, and then 10....

The writing is pretty clearly on the wall. And it scares me. And I don't know what to do. And when I do see someone stand up and fight on behalf of what feels right, they get reprimanded for being hateful and divisive?

My mind cannot reconcile that. So it doesn't. I just...I don't know...blindly obey I guess.

I'm going to go curl up in a blanket and suck my thumb for a while.

Edited February 22, 2023 by The Folk Prophet

[Carborendum]

Interesting related item:

When Anatess visited with me, she and her husband talked about how in her "conservative Florida" they are dealing with a gospel doctrine instructor who proudly wears a rainbow pin on her lapel each week at Church.  I'm assuming she wears it everywhere.

The story was that this instructor was giving a lesson on "judging".  In said "lesson" she told everyone in the room,

Quote

If you're not wearing this pin proudly, you are without charity because you don't love your brothers and sisters.  You should just turn in your temple recommend right now!

(If Anatess is reading this, please forgive me if I misquoted you.  But that was the flavor of the story).

You know, I just gave a lesson a few weeks about about how we are ALL sinners.  The difference is that the righteous, while still sinners, are also repenters.  She was surprised I still remembered that from her posts here earlier.  That was a few years ago.

The thing about the movement is that it encourages people to continue in sin.  In fact, it encourages a sin that most of the young, impressionable individuals would never have even considered.

Yes, we all sin.  Thus we all need to repent, not continue in sin.  That is the primary problem (from a salvation perspective) of this movement.  It introduces a sin that no one in their right mind would even consider.  And then it encourages them to continue with religious zeal.

Alma's counsel to Corianton: 

Quote

And now, my son, I desire that ye should let these things trouble you no more, and only let your sins trouble you, with that trouble which shall bring you down unto repentance.

O my son, I desire that ye should deny the justice of God no more. Do not endeavor to excuse yourself in the least point because of your sins, by denying the justice of God; but do you let the justice of God, and his mercy, and his long-suffering have full sway in your heart; and let it bring you down to the dust in humility.

  -- Alma 42:29-30

Happiness is not the belief that we don't need to change our way of thinking.  It is knowing that we CAN change to become more like the Savior.  And by the Grace of God, we WILL become like Him.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Carborendum said:

If you're not wearing this pin proudly, you are without charity because you don't love your brothers and sisters.  You should just turn in your temple recommend right now!

I'd be tattling to my bishop so fast on this sort of thing!   And if he blew it off I'd tattle up the chain. I'm a rat fink, apparently.

[scottyg]

21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Not that long back the idea of drag queen story hour for kids would have been ridiculous. Parent who exposed their children to such things would have been thrown in jail, their children taken away. Now we're arguing that it's fine, as long as contracts and parental rights are in order and as long as no actual genitalia is exposed? Hmm. How long until the exposed genitalia is fine as long as the kids aren't forced to participate? Then how long until the kids being forced to participate is fine, as long as the parents are there? Then how long until......

In less than 2 years we will be seeing the advocacy for early childhood sexual encounters with "experienced adults".  Parents will also leave their kids at daycares that openly state they will have practical sexual education with the kids. The progressives will say "how else will our children know at an early age that they are gay or transgender? We need them to have sexual encounters with others of the same gender as early as possible so their transformation be more effective...because we all know from "science" that transitions are more effective the earlier it is started."  Children being allowed to live with pedophiles as a "civil union" will soon follow.

Folks can scoff at this all they want, but if Barak Obama openly campaigned on the left's current platform in either 2008 or 2012, he wouldn't have won a single electoral vote in any state. Now almost half the country advocates for (or at least turns a blind eye to) this madness. Mankind's morality falls very, very fast.

[scottyg]

8 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The story was that this instructor was giving a lesson on "judging".

If that's true they need to take a long look in the mirror.

[Carborendum]

3 minutes ago, scottyg said:

If that's true they need to take a long look in the mirror.

Yes, that was also Anatess's and her husband's reaction.

[Carborendum]

11 minutes ago, scottyg said:

In less than 2 years we will be seeing the advocacy for early childhood sexual encounters with "experienced adults".  Parents will also leave their kids at daycares that openly state they will have practical sexual education with the kids.

About 14 years ago, I said something similar in a different forum.  Someone on a mostly conservative forum was absolutely shocked that some parents were so irresponsible with the raising of their children that they spewed out the idea 

Quote

People should be required to have some training an approval for marriage and training and licensing to have kids.

I responded:  Oh, yeah, I can just see it now. 

Wait, you're both virgins and you want to get married?  No, I'm afraid you're going to have to be more experienced before we can license such a union.

Nope, you can't have children yet, you haven't even been married 7 years yet.  We know that it takes that long before the two of you will be fit parents.  I'm afraid you're going to have to abort the baby or we'll have to take it and put it in foster care.

You both observe the same religion?  No, we can't let you raise this child in such an intolerant home.  Either abort or foster it.

You don't think that two year olds can be trans?  Oh, I'm afraid that such ignorance indicates you're not fit to be a parent.

When there is NO HOPE of raising a child up unto the Lord, the shortening of days shall commence.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

About 14 years ago, I said something similar in a different forum.  Someone on a mostly conservative forum was absolutely shocked that some parents were so irresponsible with the raising of their children that they spewed out the idea 

I responded:  Oh, yeah, I can just see it now. 

Wait, you're both virgins and you want to get married?  No, I'm afraid you're going to have to be more experienced before we can license such a union.

Nope, you can't have children yet, you haven't even been married 7 years yet.  We know that it takes that long before the two of you will be fit parents.  I'm afraid you're going to have to abort the baby or we'll have to take it and put it in foster care.

You both observe the same religion?  No, we can't let you raise this child in such an intolerant home.  Either abort or foster it.

You don't think that two year olds can be trans?  Oh, I'm afraid that such ignorance indicates you're not fit to be a parent.

When there is NO HOPE of raising a child up unto the Lord, the shortening of days shall commence.

So this does tie into my earlier thoughts and does support what @Just_A_Guy is suggesting. There is a certain level where if I want to be left alone to raise my children the way I want to, then I have to be willing to let others be left alone and raise their children the way they want to...no matter how terrible I think their parenting choices are.

It just feels awfully different to say something such as one parent should have the right to deny their children sugar while another has the right to give their child sugar, vs. one parent has the right to protect their children from perverse sexual ideologies while another has the right to expose their children to pornography, convince them they're trans, and chop off their body parts. In theory...I get the point...it just.......... really?

It really goes back to my overall political philosophy. Nothing works out if people are evil.

People are evil. We're doomed. Now back to sucking my thumb.

[Carborendum]

28 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So this does tie into my earlier thoughts and does support what @Just_A_Guy is suggesting. There is a certain level where if I want to be left alone to raise my children the way I want to, then I have to be willing to let others be left alone and raise their children the way they want to...no matter how terrible I think their parenting choices are.

It just feels awfully different to say something such as one parent should have the right to deny their children sugar while another has the right to give their child sugar, vs. one parent has the right to protect their children from perverse sexual ideologies while another has the right to expose their children to pornography, convince them they're trans, and chop off their body parts. In theory...I get the point...it just.......... really?

It really goes back to my overall political philosophy. Nothing works out if people are evil.

People are evil. We're doomed. Now back to sucking my thumb.

It is a little better than you make it out to be (at least, in my view).

• If all men were angels, we'd have no need of government.
• If kings were saints, we'd have no need of democracy.

Quote

Now it is not common that the voice of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law—to do your business by the voice of the people.

And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.

 -- Mosiah 29:26-27

Of course, the Nephite form of government was a republic rather than a direct democracy for the very same reason the founding fathers also chose a representative republic.

Edited February 22, 2023 by Carborendum

[LDSGator]

Does this have anything to do with what @Just_A_Guy and I were talking about last week?  Is the LDS hard right looking for a reason to think the church has gone moderate?