- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Got an email about an upcoming stake fireside entitled “Building Zion by Welcoming All.” Here is the text (times, places, and names redacted): Quote:Join us for a panel discussion about how we build Zion in our congregations. Christ’s New Testament church was characterized by diversity. In our day, we likewise have great diversity among members of our stake and in our communities. The panel will discuss increasing unity and strength by following the Savior and welcoming, supporting, and drawing strength from all members of our congregations and families, with a special focus on those who identify as same-gender attracted or as LGBTQ+. These identifiers describe some of our beloved fellow disciples of Christ. Our goal is to build understanding and unity throughout the stake. Parents are welcome to invite their teenage children.
“For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many.”
(1 Corinthians 12:12-14)
I have many thoughts about this.
Foremost I applaud the idea, especially the part that talks about the special focus on LGBTQ+ members. But that comes with reservations:
1. It’s great for individuals and families to try to help LGBTQ+ members feel more welcome, and I try to do so on a personal level myself. BUT we’re swimming upstream and not getting far because the church as an institution (and it’s senior leadership) actively opposes and works against those efforts (in other words, LGBTQ+ folks are marginalized second class citizens at best);
2. Our SP is quite conservative/orthodox and I don’t see real support from him (the email came from a high councilor);
3. All the member (and former member) LGBTQ+ people I know are aware of their status noted in reservation 1 and want little to do with the church, although I think they also understand there are members who don’t buy all the church rhetoric and are sincere in their love and respect;
4. The panel: The email lists 5 people, 3 male and 2 female, including 1 married couple. They are all from the same ward (which leads me to believe this was originally meant to be a ward event) and none of them are openly gay (all but one are married). Only one is “older” with adult children, none of which I believe are LGBTQ+, but it is possible the married couple have a LGBTQ+ child (teenager). I can’t dismiss them all out of hand because in these times most of us have family members, friends, or members of our wards who are out and have sincere love and concern for them. I just think it would be nice to hear from an LGBTQ+ member (or former member) or a family member of someone we do know is out.
5. I believe those who attend will be the “choir” or those who would take an interest anyway. I am doubtful any of those who might really need to hear the message will attend or if they do will not absorb the message. I am not going to know that for sure because I won’t be attending.
I am hopeful that this fireside is coming from a place of humility and grace. “Welcoming, supporting, and drawing strength from all members of our congregations and families, with a special focus on those who identify as same-gender attracted or as LGBTQ+.”
:thumbup: I remember a pastor saying that there are LGBTQ+ members of the congregation and also members of the congregation with LGBTQ+ children, siblings and other family members. He was trying to remind everyone to be kind with their words lest they cause pain to others.
I would hope that this fireside would aim for that spirit.
I hope for that as well, Roy. I can be negative and pessimistic, and that shows in my post and reaction. I’ve been stewing on this for a few days which probably also doesn’t help. I forgot to mention that I think it is interesting (and positive) that this is happening during Pride Month.
And I also didn’t mention that while I don’t know any of the panelists really well, and a couple of them not at all, of what I do know they tend to be on the more progressive side of things.
:thumbup: I apologize in advance where my pessimism bleeds through in my post. First the optimism. This is a baby step. Baby steps have to occur before babies learn to walk. I’m echoing your bullet points #1 and #5 with this.
It’s not lost on me that this panel mirrors a larger systemic issue in the church, it points down the hierarchy. It’s stake leaders putting on a panel for members of the stake to listen and learn. When are we going to have a panel where LGBTQ+ people in the stake speak to stake, area, and general leaders, where it’s the
leadersthat are sitting, listening, and learning? DarkJedi wrote:
1. It’s great for individuals and families to try to help LGBTQ+ members feel more welcome, and I try to do so on a personal level myself. BUT we’re swimming upstream and not getting far because the church as an institution (and it’s senior leadership) actively opposes and works against those efforts (in other words, LGBTQ+ folks are marginalized second class citizens at best);
Not even a year ago the church updated their policies on church participation for people that identify as transgender. Those included the following:
For overnight activities for a specific gender they can only attend for the activity that corresponds to their biological sex at birth.
- For overnight activities that are not for a specific gender they
must leave the activity at night. They’re not allowed to stay the night like everyone else. - Must have a calling that corresponds to their biological sex at birth.
- Can’t be called to a teaching role.
- Can’t be called to work with children or youth.
- Must use single occupancy restrooms or have someone check the gender specific restroom to make sure it’s completely empty before they can go inside.
This isn’t directed at anyone specific, this is me venting. So have your little panel discussion to talk about how everyone is welcome at church… so long as they bend the knee, conform, and comport themselves just so. Once you’ve beaten your individuality into submission then you’re one of us. If not, you’re the sinner, just know that we welcome you with open arms.
🙄 But it’s a baby step. In an organization that is thoroughly controlled from the top down, this is the only way change can start, by grassroots meetings where people try to show a little love and empathy towards people while still trying to color both inside and outside the lines.
It feels to me kinda like someone trying to hook up their “besties” i.e. the church community and the church adjacent community associated with those letters and their allies. I agree it is a laudable thing to undertake and all the other considerations mentioned here.
I would add the additional concern that those who are facilitating these conversations may show up on the radar for those issuing church discipline.
I think this carries over to other programs of the church as well. For example, the addiction recovery program. As I understand it, all addictions meet together & are treated the same. Alcoholics & shopping addiction are not
the same thing. Plus, there is the gossip factor.
Appearing to be helping, understanding, inclusive and being a positive influence for good, is not the same thing as actually
doing it.
a side note: I don’t know much about the addiction recovery program. Can someone fill me in?
. Has it helped?
. Do many people attend?
. I don’t hear anything about it anymore.
We had a semi-related discussion during EQ about being welcoming to all. It was in reference to the growing political divide. The conversation began and ended with saying that we shouldn’t let political differences divide us and that we should find ways to discuss differences civilly. That’s fine and everything but it felt like we were still dodging the issues. It’s easy to
saywe should be nice to one another when we’re talking in generalities and avoiding specifics. It’s quite another thing when the rubber meets the road. “Let’s talk about [hot button political issue where one camp feels wronged], remembering that the goal is to heal the divide.”
In other words, don’t have a discussion about hypothetical discussions,
havethe discussion. That’s how these panels feel. They tend to be more focused on theoretical welcoming. It’s often been my experience that theoretical talks help us feel like we’re more welcoming without actually having to make any changes. It is a start however. I’d rather the discussion occur than not.
One thing that I often hear that I fear is detrimental to the discussion is when leaders focus on how we’re all god’s children. They typically frame it as something that
supplantsa LGBTQ+ identity rather than it being an identity in addition toa LGBTQ+ identity. I fully understand that leaders are looking for something that unifies all of us, I just caution that it’s not either/or, it’s and/also. You are LGBTQ+ anda child of god. DJ, I think you’re in a more rural area, correct? It’s interesting that you’re having this discussion because I usually make an assumption that more rural communities typically lag behind more urban communities on being more welcoming of people that are LGBTQ+. Maybe something to do with relative isolation and limited exposure.
At any rate, it starts with a discussion and it’s good that the discussion has the goal of being more welcoming.
AmyJ wrote:
I would add the additional concern that those who are facilitating these conversations may show up on the radar for those issuing church discipline.
It is stake sanctioned, billed as a stake fireside, and sent out through the church system. Most of the panelists are known in the stake (having had previous stake callings, etc.). So I don’t think there’s a concern about discipline in this case. Were it just a group of folks doing this on their own I’d be more concerned.
nibbler wrote:
One thing that I often hear that I fear is detrimental to the discussion is when leaders focus on how we’re all god’s children. They typically frame it as something thatsupplantsa LGBTQ+ identity rather than it being an identity in addition toa LGBTQ+ identity. I fully understand that leaders are looking for something that unifies all of us, I just caution that it’s not either/or, it’s and/also. You are LGBTQ+ anda child of god. I agree, like so many other things in the church I’m not sure the black and white type thinkers can grasp Mormon
andgay. Of course there are a fair amount of LGBTQ+ folks who maybe tried to be Mormon and gay and it wasn’t working – so now they’re not Mormon, just gay (and I fully support them as well). Quote:DJ, I think you’re in a more rural area, correct? It’s interesting that you’re having this discussion because I usually make an assumption that more rural communities typically lag behind more urban communities on being more welcoming of people that are LGBTQ+. Maybe something to do with relative isolation and limited exposure.
Yes, I do live in a rural area that leans pretty conservative. In society in general here, just like other places, there is much more tolerance than there was 10 or 20 years ago. The mayor of our little town is lesbian and since it really is a place where everybody knows everybody it’s no secret she’s gay. She has been the mayor for quite some time. And we have a couple other gay couples in town and rainbow flags are not especially unusual (not nearly as common as a certain president’s flag though). My small ward does not have any active LGBTQ+ members, but we have adults who grew up here who are openly gay (I’m not sure of any of their current membership status other than they are not active and mostly don’t live here). That said, we do have a small city college town within the stake which is very liberal. It should be no surprise that’s the ward where all of the panelists are from, but the fireside is at the stake center and not their ward building. I do believe that ward has some at least quasi active LGBTQ+ members, as does one other ward.
nibbler wrote:
One thing that I often hear that I fear is detrimental to the discussion is when leaders focus on how we’re all god’s children. They typically frame it as something that supplants a LGBTQ+ identity rather than it being an identity in addition to a LGBTQ+ identity. I fully understand that leaders are looking for something that unifies all of us, I just caution that it’s not either/or, it’s and/also. You are LGBTQ+ and a child of god.
This is a pet peave of mine. We admonish LGBTQ+ individuals to not label themselves but we glory in our own labels.
For me these are: straight, white, cisgendered, male, american, son, brother, father, husband.
These all are labels that are promoted. Nobody says, “Don’t label yourself with those other things – you are a child of God.”
Saying you are a child of God can be an attempt to control and frame the narrative. As if to say, “If God exists and you are his child and the purpose of your life and existence is to become like him then you need to put aside this earthy confusion and submit to the church for your own eternal wellbeing.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.