- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I think it’s understandable that he was asked to cut her off, given how so many members feel so intensely persecuted by the normalization of homosexuality. Her message didn’t contain just your average, everyday doctrinal mistake or personal disagreement. It contained a rejection of one of the Church’s key differentiators, and of possibly the doctrinal hill it’s chosen to die on. The message from Salt Lake is clear: gay marriage is Satan’s counterfeit, deviously designed to deceive the very elect and lead them carefully down to hell. Fear of such terrible outcomes led to the mic cutoff, probably rationalized as having been done to keep virulent thought diseases from being transmitted from the pulpit to impressionable youth. Dogma before love. Loyalty before truth. Sanctity and certainty before knowledge. The Church has all of this bass-ackwards. It even thinks the persecution is going exactly the wrong direction.
Part of me wants this to blow up badly enough to induce change. I have to keep reminding myself that my parents wanted something terrible to happen to my sister to drive her back to the Church, and in both cases it’s just vengeance. Couldn’t something wonderful happen to induce change instead? Besides, the last thing gay kids in this church need is more entrenchment.
I still want to see copycats, though.
Reuben wrote:
I think it’s understandable that he was asked to cut her off, given how so many members feel so intensely persecuted by the normalization of homosexuality. Her message didn’t contain just your average, everyday doctrinal mistake or personal disagreement. It contained a rejection of one of the Church’s key differentiators, and of possibly the doctrinal hill it’s chosen to die on. The message from Salt Lake is clear: gay marriage is Satan’s counterfeit, deviously designed to deceive the very elect and lead them carefully down to hell. Fear of such terrible outcomes led to the mic cutoff, probably rationalized as having been done to keep virulent thought diseases from being transmitted from the pulpit to impressionable youth.Right — this perspective is one the church holds whether we like it or not. So, if we are trying to understand why the leaders acted the way they did, we have to look at it from their perspective.
I think the general tone on this forum is that we would like the church to be more inclusive, but unfortunately, that ain’t happening. And so, leaders act this way out of existing doctrine and belief to which they have subscribed.
A non-member looking in, or someone who has written off the church in their own minds, or someone who doesn’t understand the imperatives the leaders are under — these people would be indignant, and many here would not blame the non-members or disaffected for that sentiment.
But I understand why the leaders did what they did given a) the doctrine b) the expectations of TBM on whom they depend for support in the ward and c) the watchful eye of high councilors, stake leaders, and the church as a whole if the video is viral. All these factors put pressure on them to act when someone decides to go totally contrarion in our “premiere” meeting of the week.
I am very surprised members are calling for the Stake Leaders resignation…unless this happened in a very liberal Ward, I would think most TBM members would be supportive or at least tolerant of what the leaders did when the 12 year old girl spoke.
Now, I have a question — as a Stake leader, would you get more criticism for shutting down the testimony when you SHOULD NOT HAVE, or letting the girl speak the full time when you should not have? Which would cause the least harm?
Quote:I don’t think that anything a local leader can do will have any long-term effect on whether or not an LGBT individual stays in the church. Like I said above, the Q15 have set things up so that we must choose between being damned in the garden of Eden and leaving so we can live up to our full potential.
I agree with this.
If the church comes out with an instruction to local leaders on this, either as a result of this publicity or copycats, I’d expect them to be non-interventionist. F&T is basically open mic time. Nothing anybody says is authoritative or binding on the members, and it’s just one person’s feelings. No harm in that, almost no matter what they say. For the leader to shut her down makes him look weak and bad. It’s a dick move. It’s regrettable he felt that was the right thing to do because it probably would have blown over by now if he hadn’t tried to kill the grease fire with water. Even if it hadn’t blown over, the story could have been that people were loving and understanding toward a 12 year old girl even if they don’t agree.
Elder Christofferson said officially in 2015 that members can support gay marriage, including on social media and marching in Gay Pride parades, as long as they are not actively attacking the LDS Church and trying to pull people away from membership. Based on that, nothing should have been done by the local leadership in this girl’s case. She should have been allowed to finish her testimony.
Old Timer wrote:
Elder Christofferson said officially in 2015 that members can support gay marriage, including on social media and marching in Gay Pride parades, as long as they are not actively attacking the LDS Church and trying to pull people away from membership.Based on that, nothing should have been done by the local leadership in this girl’s case. She should have been allowed to finish her testimony.
This was before the November policy update, right? I think that even if the Church’s position on SSM advocacy hasn’t officially changed, its position is de facto different now. There’s been a lot of boundary drawing and persecution rhetoric since Elder Christofferson’s statement.
But I’m all for cherry-picking statements that represent the position I think the Church ought to have. Doing so is especially helpful when communicating with less nuanced members. Thanks for the reminder.
We have a term for expressing nuanced views in language acceptable to all members:
sheepese. Is there a term for recognizing the Church as it is, but emphasizing evidence that suggests that it’s already what we want it to be? Cherry-pickingis accurate but has negative connotations. Maybe something with the word “aspirational” in it? Or is this just another aspect of sheepese?
Christofferson’s statement was given before the “November policy” Reuben. However, I don’t think this is cherry picking any more than many other things are cherry picking. Mormons are pretty good at cherry picking in this manner – taking an obscure scripture or isolated quote and making it a big deal. Other churches are also very good at it. Every anti-gay scripture is such cherry picking. Likewise, we Mormons like to take quotes from long ago and make them relevant. How many people still quote McConkie? I recently attended a priesthood lesson where I don’t think a single quote used was more recent that the 1960s. Cherry picking, maybe, but definitely relevant. I actually believe the example of this girl (Savannah) is the exception to the rule. I don’t believe most leaders would have cut her off, although that may be because they didn’t think of it in the moment. On the other hand, I also believe most leaders do have a modicum of respect for those speaking, even and maybe especially for youth, and some “professionalism” in what they do.
FWIW, I am aware of several members of my own ward, and some in the stake, including myself, who have openly expressed support of civil gay marriage without repercussion. I think that’s typical.
The official policy about members supporting same-sex marriage publicly, as stated in 2015, hasn’t changed one bit. The only change has been the November baptism restriction. It is a big change, but it didn’t impact the previous statement in the slightest. This isn’t cherry-picking. It is stating the current policy.
I also need to make something very clear: I don’t believe there is a “bad guy” in the actual, original experience. Savannah was sincere; her parents didn’t set it up to be what it became; the SP Counselor let it go all the way until she started talking about hoping for a same-sex marrriage (which I think is fine to say, but I understand why he felt uncomfortable with it); etc. It looks like good, sincere people trying to deal with a tricky situation, even if we wish it wasn’t so tricky.
I hope nobody demonizes the SP Counselor who was put in a spot for which he probably had not planned and which he didn’t anticipate. All of us have made mistakes in the heat of the moment, including mistakes against children (probably). I hope we don’t use this as a hammer, one way or another, or we will be guilty of “using” this sweet girl in a real and reprehensible way.
I agree that there are no bad guys in this. However the organization does passively inflict harm upon gay individuals. It is a hard thing if there is nobody to blame. On one hand we do not want people to blame all the membership and assume that all members are “homophobic” simply by being a member. On the other hand there is nobody specific to blame either, it certainly does not seem like President Monson is behind it. I have no problem laying the responsibility at the feet of the overall leadership for a long time and the decisions that have created the issue for homosexual members. None. The policies created the reaction. I just don’t want to cast the SP Counselor as an uncaring bigot, as I have seen done elsewhere. Nothing in the video proves either aspect of that portrayal.
I concur. he seemed to have responded in a somewhat awkward and unprepared fashion.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.