- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Though Eric Huntsman spoke inspiring words at a BYU devotional and though members of Q12 have family members who are gay the following is taking place in the church http://www.kuer.org/post/lds-church-quietly-doubles-down-controversial-gay-policy#stream/0 Today John Dehlin received a letter from a missionary who came out to his mission president. The Elder has been put on some kind of a formal inquiry. The Elder is celibate but wanted to be honest. Now he has to wait for a member of the 12 to decide his fate.
Quote:Hello,
I just wanted to share something in hopes that it would help some people. If it is something that has happened just to me, I see no need to share it, but I expect there are more stories like mine. I will not tell my whole story, since the personal details are not as important as the policy itself. Suffice it to say, I am gay and felt like I would be well served by informing my mission President. Looking back, I don’t know why, but I came to that conclusion.
When I came out to my mission President, he was required by the church to complete a threat assessment. This threat assesment, I was informed, is given to those who have participated in child pornography, bestiality, and those who are gay. This discriminationatory policy is, as I’m sure you know, part of the church’s disturbing continuation of stone age thinking on LGBT issues.
The threat assesment asks you several probing and unnecessary questions, including requiring you to give detailed descriptions of not just sexual practices but all sexual thoughts. The most disturbing set of questions, is where you are asked if you can have “normal” relationships with someone who is a male-implying that anyone who is gay must be predatory towards every one of the same gender.
For me, the threat assesment lasted nearly an hour. It was then evaluated by Church Legal and counselors at the church, who recommended I go home, despite my mission President saying numerous times that I posed no threat. For them, it appears, that sexual orientation is enough of a reason to consider someone a threat, independent of all other facts and reason.
The only reason I share this is that, in the wake of Loveloud and other such initiatives, there is another extraordinarily discriminatory practice towards LGBT members that needs to get exposed and changed.
I was informed that the threat assesment would not have occured if I were straight. I was further informed that someone who has same sex attraction is considered more guilty in the eyes of the church than anyone who has committed serious violations of the law of chastity and is straight. EVEN if the person who is gay has never acted on it.
As I told my mission President when I was informed of the idea that I was a “high threat”: perhaps the church should spend more time protecting victims of sexual assault than conducting threat assesments of good missionaries.
I am still on my mission, and a final decision on whether or not that will remain will happen this next week by a member of the 12.
While I am still on a mission, and believe many things about the church, the fact that this policy exists is utterly ridiculous. It equates bestiality and child pornography with being gay. And while that is not the image that the church portrays in their “Mormon and Gay” videos, it does not make it any less hypocritical and disheartening.
I just thought I would send my story, in hopes that people may know this policy exists. If you are already aware, I apologize for wasting any of your time.
While I am on my mission, however, if complete anonymity could be used in sharing this, I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks for all you do in promoting more openness in the church. I truly hope that one day, leaders in the church will be able to find a place for more people like yourself. “
My heart is breaking.
And here I was under the impression that one could serve a mission if he or she were gay as long as they had not participated in gay sex. I do agree that sometimes it seems like one step forward, two steps back on this issue in particular but others as well. Another example is the BYU-I student who was not disciplined by the school for being at the party at which she was assaulted but was then denied her ecclesiastical endorsement by her bishop, accomplishing the same thing as though she had been disciplined by the honor code office.
:wtf: The potential good news is that none other than DFU is the head of the missionary department.
One more little side note, not meant to derail: Br. Huntsman’s devotional was great. The week prior another BYU professor did the devotional and while not quite as direct at times Sr. Wadsworth’s message is also one of inclusion and not judging and also specifically mentions LGBT+.
I must say that I am losing hope of change anytime soon and losing desire to associate with the church. Maybe my days on “stay LDS” are coming to an end. I think it was a really bad choice to come out on his mission. Sometimes you have to play the game. You get a lot more respect as an RM who “returns with honor”. He should have waited til after. However, if I was his mission president I would have told him to do the same thing and to finish his mission.
I’m not sure who’s worse – this lot or the gay rights extremists who smash up our chapels.
So the important things here are:
* He has not broken the law of chastity.
* He should be allowed to finish his mission which would allow both him and the church to retain some honor.
The threat assessment sounds like something right out of Orwell. I’m starting to feel more like what LookingHard describes. I moved this thread here to ask the following: Can we verify the accuracy of this letter and its contents?
There are gay people serving in temples. There are gay people serving missions. I need to know this is accurate before I comment further.
Also, the tone of the letter and the fact that, if it is accurate, it was sent to John directly, with the closing, makes my antenna tweak hard.
I love that you did this. I was just coming up to close it. I think verifying is important. My bad on that. It was a double whammy moment. Let’s keep it up here or pull it – I don’t care. I wonder if commenters on the thread will wonder what happened to the thread Should we give an explanation?
Good idea. I will do that right now. I sent you a PM, Mom. I think there’s more to the story that what we know from the Dehlin account – maybe even more than he knows. I am reminded of the case of Benji Schwimmer. If I remember correctly he had a relationship with another man that did not include intercourse (but with kissing and possible making out, etc.). Benji confessed this to his bishop. In addition to some sort of informal discipline Benji had a star or red flag put on his membership records that would preclude him from working with the youth of the church in the future. I do believe that the church is looking to prevent cases of child sexual abuse with this practice. The church does not do professional background checks. If a person confessed to sexual challenges with one bishop but then moved and was given access to young people and something terrible happened, I believe that the church could be financially liable. Unfortunately, like the registered sex offender program it seems to paint with too broad a brush and forever label people as dangerous that may have just been guilty of a youthful mistake (or homosexual orientation).
Maybe (pure speculation on my part because I am not privy to the facts) there is something like a “threat assessment” done to weed out the potentially dangerous individuals from the one time mistake group. I could see there being a useful purpose for that.
DarkJedi wrote:
And here I was under the impression that one could serve a mission if he or she were gay as long as they had not participated in gay sex.
Technically the author of the letter never says that he did not participate in gay sex. He states that “I will not tell my whole story, since the personal details are not as important as the policy itself. Suffice it to say, I am gay and felt like I would be well served by informing my mission President.” and “the threat assesment would not have occured if I were straight.” I am not offended by gay sexual activity between consenting adults, I just wish to clarify that the author does not specify one way or the other.
It may also be the case (given some of the content and wording of the letter) that church leaders are just as concerned by this young man’s attitude conflicting with the work of proselyting as they might be about his actual orientation. I imagine that if I ever uttered the phrase “the church’s disturbing continuation of stone age thinking on LGBT issues” to my mission president, I would have landed in some serious hot water. What is the process for a missionary that is suspected of apostasy?
I cannot say for sure what might be going on here. I am just throwing out possibilities. I do suspect that there may be more to the story and I am willing to withhold judgment on all concerned.
Roy wrote:
I am reminded of the case of Benji Schwimmer. If I remember correctly he had a relationship with another man that did not include intercourse (but with kissing and possible making out, etc.). Benji confessed this to his bishop. In addition to some sort of informal discipline Benji had a star or red flag put on his membership records that would preclude him from working with the youth of the church in the future.I do believe that the church is looking to prevent cases of child sexual abuse with this practice. The church does not do professional background checks. If a person confessed to sexual challenges with one bishop but then moved and was given access to young people and something terrible happened, I believe that the church could be financially liable. Unfortunately, like the registered sex offender program it seems to paint with too broad a brush and forever label people as dangerous that may have just been guilty of a youthful mistake (or homosexual orientation).
Maybe (pure speculation on my part because I am not privy to the facts) there is something like a “threat assessment” done to weed out the potentially dangerous individuals from the one time mistake group. I could see there being a useful purpose for that.
First, I think we need to be very careful of intimating that all homosexuals are pedophiles or predators. There are heterosexual pedophiles and predators as well. Being homosexual or heterosexual does not make one a pedophile or predator. Being a pedophile or predator makes one a pedophile or predator.
I’ve never heard of a formal “threat assessment” as this young man refers to it, but undoubtedly the church does need to protect itself from the Catholic abuse or BSA abuse situations. I vaguely recall the Schwimmer case, and there are real flags on member records (which include things besides sexual sins). The flags are there so new bishops and bishops of new wards for the individual are aware, thus preventing just moving to get away from the situation/restrictions. Overall the flags are great IMO because they prevent a known predator from moving to a new ward in a different part of the country and being given callings they should not have. The same is true of having to wait for records to give a calling to a new person. I do think if the facts of the Schwimmer case are correct as you laid out, Schwimmer was unjustly treated.
Quote:Technically the author of the letter never says that he did not participate in gay sex. He states that “I will not tell my whole story, since the personal details are not as important as the policy itself. Suffice it to say, I am gay and felt like I would be well served by informing my mission President.” and “the threat assesment would not have occured if I were straight.” I am not offended by gay sexual activity between consenting adults, I just wish to clarify that the author does not specify one way or the other.
Agreed. My hunch is that he actually went to confess to the MP that he had homosexual relations, not that he was simply homosexual. We don’t know those details because the author (and/or Dehlin) doesn’t provide them. If he did confess homosexual relations, it would seem he is being treated just as a heterosexual who confesses to his MP (minus the “threat assessment”). I have not seen the handbook in some time, but as I recall one indiscriminate instance prior to the mission is one thing, multiple instances and/or multiple partners are quite another (the latter disqualifies heterosexuals and homosexuals from serving). From talking to my sons who have served missions (one served several months in the office) such confessions of pre-mission sex are not uncommon and are treated on a case-by-case basis which always involves the mission dept. in SLC.
Quote:It may also be the case (given some of the content and wording of the letter) that church leaders are just as concerned by this young man’s attitude conflicting with the work of proselyting as they might be about his actual orientation. I imagine that if I ever uttered the phrase “the church’s disturbing continuation of stone age thinking on LGBT issues” to my mission president, I would have landed in some serious hot water. What is the process for a missionary that is suspected of apostasy?
I cannot say for sure what might be going on here. I am just throwing out possibilities. I do suspect that there may be more to the story and I am willing to withhold judgment on all concerned.
Agreed, and me too with the speculation. The likelihood of our speculations being correct is quite high, I think, because there really are few variables. I think missionaries suspected of apostasy are treated the same as anyone else suspected of apostasy except it’s the MP who deals with it initially then passes it off to the home bishop and SP. My son who served in the office (and was privy to the MP handbook at the time) said that missionaries cannot be sent home for breaking mission rules, they can only be disciplined for breaking commandments.
I also locked the explanation post to keep anyone from asking about details and having the thread become what it would have been with the original post. Thank you, Mom3, for understanding. I have done far “worse” here. Please don’t feel bad.
DarkJedi wrote:
First, I think we need to be very careful of intimating that all homosexuals are pedophiles or predators. There are heterosexual pedophiles and predators as well. Being homosexual or heterosexual does not make one a pedophile or predator. Being a pedophile or predator makes one a pedophile or predator.
I agree. Period. Full stop. I also believe that the church just does not know what to do with gays in general. We want them to live and serve in our community without becoming attracted to or entering into a romantic relationship with anybody. I can see leaders being squeamish about having a gay and unmarried man working with the YM for some of the same reasons why we would not have a straight man working with the YW. Remember that it is our church that has funny hang-ups against an adult man being alone ang giving a ride home to an adult woman. I could also imagine church leaders not being entirely comfortable if a gay man was a super amazing young men’s leader and beloved by all the boys. Even just having the boys become more aware and sympathetic to his situation could raise questions that the church does not have good answers for at this present time. I assume that the church would prefer that gay men work almost exclusively with the married heterosexual men within the EQ.
DarkJedi wrote:
I do think if the facts of the Schwimmer case are correct as you laid out, Schwimmer was unjustly treated.
Yes, but I believe the situation for all gay members of the church is unfair. Again I can see how a policy that “anybody with a flag on their membership record does not get a calling working with the youth” comes about. It is a bright red line that can be clearly and uniformly enforced. No need for interpretation and leadership roulette (with the potential for financial liability). Perhaps this policy has been relaxed since the time When Benji came into contact with it. I hope so.
DarkJedi wrote:
My son who served in the office (and was privy to the MP handbook at the time) said that missionaries cannot be sent home for breaking mission rules
I suppose that depends on just how flagrant and defiant a particular missionary might be in breaking mission rules.
😈 Quote:I also locked the explanation post to keep anyone from asking about details and having the thread become what it would have been with the original post.
Thank you, Mom3, for understanding. I have done far “worse” here. Please don’t feel bad.
Locking is good.
I am usually balanced, but it hit me like a double whammy. I actually hurt for the church and the LGBTQ community. Neither side knows what to do with the other side. It keeps ratcheting up. I worry about the full fall out on either side.
In haste I responded. As the day wore on I felt like I was adding to the war. Pulling the post cooled some of it. Clarifying felt important to. This wasn’t a, “Why do we still sing “Come ye Saints” thread. It was hot. Hot has to be handled carefully.
I just need to take a Zen pill every now and again.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.