Overnight Letter to Monson

[_Mister Scratch]

And I think history shows us that often, direct and straight shooting statements are unfortunately the only way to bring equality by "civil disobedience" (ala Martin Luther King), to organizations that are so set in their archaic ways that it takes outsiders to set action in motion.

History teaches us many things, not the least of which is how people can grossly misjudge others, and dysfunctionaly resort to judging others, all under the guise of some presumably higher and morally superior imparative.

I think Dr. Martin Luther King instructive here as well. There were not a few people who misjudged his motives (some rashly thought him driven our of hatred and fear of the "white man", and were loath to being persuaded otherwise). However, unlike with the reverends Jackson and Sharpton, who engaged in divisive, selective and prejudiced finger-pointing, Dr. King focused instead on working with people of all races towards the realization of his uniting "dream".

Actually, King was sharply critical of his fellow religious leaders, who were engaging in hand-wringing over the issue of Civil Rights and desegregation. (C'mon, Wade, haven't you read the "Letter from Birmingham Jail"?) Many in the South---including these religious leaders---wanted to take a gradualist approach, sort of like what the LDS Church seems to be doing. Would you say, Wade, that King was wrong to criticize these religious leaders, and that he was "disrespectful," "divisive," etc?

I would answer your questions were I to believe you were asking in good faith and you had the capacity to understand and respect the answers. But, in each of those respects, you've long convinced me otherwise.

That doesn't make a lot of sense, Wade. Here you are carrying on about "good faith" in post after post, and yet you don't live by example. I reckon that this is just another instance of you expecting others to meet demands which you yourself will not meet.

[_Mercury]

How about your own "Center for Same-Sex Attraction Disorders"? Would that count as a "good faith effort"?

In all seriousness I perceive wades "Center for same-sex attraction disorder" as a method for him to pick up tail.

Is there anyone else, with even a modicum of familiarity with my long dormant (since 2000), and now defunct SAD web page, who thinks "mercury's" alleged serious perception makes even the least bit of sense?

If so, would you be so kind as to explain how the conjectured "method" is supposed to work as suggested?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sure. It puts you in contact with individuals you could hook up with. It was a way for you to come in contact with said individuals.

Did you give them a back massage as part of therapy?

[_the road to hana]

I know I'm in the minority here, but I've seen so many key doctrines change just in my lifetime, that I think it is possible that there might be some relaxing of the restrictions in the distant future.

I share that view. I think what we can expect to see from LDS leadership in the near future is a shift from emphasis on marriage to an option for living chastely and not marrying for some people (might not be exactly what those who are gay and lesbian in the LDS community are looking for, but it will be a start--at least they'll stop forcing them into marriages they cannot really contract and make work).

[_wenglund]

I'm not interested in "serving" the church, just hoping for my human brothers and sisters to gain equal rights and respects.

Your hope has less chance of being realized as long as you persist in disrespecting the Church.

I will and do respect the church for being an organization that many around me give reverence to. I see it as any other company or business. It exerts its authority and influence on its members as it chooses.

I do not give it any more or less credit than any other company that is required to allow certain civil rights to its members. As long as they (it) disrespects certain "types" of people, outsiders need to intervene to right the wrongs therein. This is happening -- slowly, but at least progress is being made, and the dialogue Monson has consented to is a promising step.

I wasn't referring at all to how you may legally categorize the Church, or what credit you may or may not give the Church accordingly.

Rather, I was referring to your not respecting that the Church leaders may know better than you what is motivating their policies and actions, and your not respecting us/them by wrongfully, prejudically (stereotypically), and judgementally ascribing to us/them pejoritive motives that are quite apart from their general character and beliefs.

Granted, doing so is a cheap rhetorical strategy (like discriminately and dismisively tossing around the "homophobia" label), though with eaqually cheap results.

Now, you may not agree with past or present policies, and may even think them harmful to gays, and that is fine. People can disagree on such things respectfully. But, let's not degrade the laudible effort towards mutually uplifting interest and understanding, by pushing the matter beyond simple disagreement and resorting to disrespectful and counterproductive judgementalism either way.

The truth is, much of the Church's policies and actions regarding homosexuality is driven most certainly by love and a desire for all to become the very best people possible--though, not always has that motive been applied perfectly and in the most effective way. But, as you agree, things are improving.

And, not always have the policies and actions been correctly understood. Some people have, like you, confused healthy behavioral restrictions with violations of civil rights, and/or who have confused spiritual worthiness with self-worth. Not a few have gone so far in their confusion as to resort to drug-taking and suicide.

Such personal choices are tragic. However, if there is any hope of minimizing their occurance, it will not be through adding to or solidifying the confusion through misguided acquesence or by coercive judgementalism, but through clarification and understanding. At least that is what I figure.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mister Scratch]

Now, you may not agree with past or present policies, and may even think them harmful to gays, and that is fine. People can disagree on such things respectfully. But, let's not degrade the laudible effort towards mutually uplifting interest and understanding,

Again, Wade---what evidence do you have that the Church has ever engaged in this? Where's the "effort"? I earlier provided some examples of things which you *might* consider "evidence," though I think it's pretty obvious that those are highly problematic.

The truth is, much of the Church's policies and actions regarding homosexuality is driven most certainly by love and a desire for all to become the very best people possible

Wow, this is a staggering claim, with little or no basis in historical or contextual reality. The Church's policies cannot be said to have been driven by a "desire for all to become the very best people possible," since a portion of said policy involved total erasure of a person's sexual orientation! Further, how can you honestly say that Elder Packer's pro-violence advice is "driven most certainly by love"?

And, not always have the policies and actions been correctly understood. Some people have, like you, confused healthy behavioral restrictions with violations of civil rights, and/or who have confused spiritual worthiness with self-worth. Not a few have gone so far in their confusion as to resort to drug-taking and suicide.

Uh, that's because that's what the Church teaches, Wade. Self-worth and "spiritual worthiness" are virtual synonyms in the LDS Church.

Such personal choices are tragic. However, if there is any hope of minimizing their occurance, it will not be through adding to or solidifying the confusion through misguided acquesence or by coercive judgementalism, but through clarification and understanding.

Right. As soon as the distraught gay teenager gains better "clarification and understanding" of the BYU shock treatments, everything will be better!

[_Roger Morrison]

To help keep the thread in perspective pasted below is the letter to Pres Monson:

Here’s the full text of the letter you thought might give President Monson a chuckle every morning.



Quote:
Dear President Monson:

Please allow us to extend our deepest and most sincere sympathies upon the passing of President Gordon B. Hinckley. Our prayers go out to his family and to you and the other leaders who must guide the Church during this difficult time.

In addition, we extend to you an olive branch, a symbol of peace. We appreciate that the next several days and weeks will be extraordinarily busy for you, but when you are able, we would like to open a dialog with you to work together to find better ways to counsel and to support those Church members who are homosexual, as well as their family members and their Priesthood leaders. We believe that by working together this can be done in a manner consistent with Church doctrine and the teachings of the Savior. Although there are many areas of hurt and disagreement that have separated us, there are many more areas on which we can find agreement and, in so doing, become a blessing in the lives of many of the Saints, both straight and gay.

We hope that you might be moved to give serious and prayerful consideration to this invitation, and that you might do so in the spirit in which it is offered. Although the Church and Affirmation have had their differences in the past, and will probably continue to have differences in a few areas for some time to come, by seeking areas of agreement, we believe that all of us can better get on with the work of becoming more like the Savior and serving our fellow man. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,


AFFIRMATION: GAY AND LESBIAN Mormons

W. Olin Thomas III
Executive Director

David W. Melson
Assistant Executive Director

James Morris
Assistant Executive Director

How could anyone appeal with less vindictiveness, or with more equanimity? I don't know. Further i tend to think it is for that reason that a meeting has been arranged. A first to the best of my knowledge. Congrats to both parties!

Wade's post, as i read it, is of the same spirit, and deserves a second paste below:

I don't think either party (gays or the Church) are served well by this sort of one-side, and uncharitable judgementalism from you. To me, challenges like the ones you described, and hopes for a culture of love, are best resolved and accomplished, not by a flury of prejudiced accusations and finger-pointing either way, but by good faith efforts on all sides in working out what is in the best interest of each going forward.

This does not mean that either side will see eye-to-eye in every respect. But, as long as one can rightly trust that love is ultimately the shared motivator, that should sufice.

Thanks, -Wade Englund

Thanks Wade, i totally agree with You. What past LDS leaders have said is irrelevant, other than their intolerances are now set aside, and need no more attention by anyone.

As a guy who did not sustain the LDS leadership as "God" chosen, i hold that they do deserve the repect of any Institutions' Executive. I see this as a most positive move on the Church's part. IMSCO, this brings the Church to a higher level. From that of braggadocio, ("only true") to that of reason and magnanimity that i expect from responsible, intelligent, educated people of all persuasions and genders.

I have no doubt that many of the current LDS policies that i find unacceptable will eventually change. It will happen as we all follow the suggestions well made by Wade... 1Cor13:1-8 It IS a law yet to be understood AND applied... Warm regards, Roger

[_BishopRic]

And, not always have the policies and actions been correctly understood. Some people have, like you, confused healthy behavioral restrictions with violations of civil rights, and/or who have confused spiritual worthiness with self-worth. Not a few have gone so far in their confusion as to resort to drug-taking and suicide.

Such personal choices are tragic. However, if there is any hope of minimizing their occurance, it will not be through adding to or solidifying the confusion through misguided acquesence or by coercive judgementalism, but through clarification and understanding. At least that is what I figure.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I'm sorry Wade, but I think it is you that misunderstands what "healthy behavioral restrictions" are! If I were to tell you to stop eating food forever, would that be a "healthy behavioral restriction?" There are certain human passions that we were born with that when unnaturally prevented causes much greater emotional disease than the "behavior" generally does. The sexual dysfunctions so prevalent in the church have not been created by "healthy behavioral restrictions."

I know we've had this discussion before, but all you need to do is look in the obituaries everyday and see the devastation to families losing their gay/lesbian family members to these processes. Of course it isn't unique to Mormonism, but I think it is clear to any who has nothing to defend that there is much in the LDS culture that promotes an attitude of judgmentalism and rejection to those that are not homogenous to the "normal" family, and I personally think a loving, accepting attitude towards our GLBT brothers and sisters is much more beneficial to them than telling them they are not whole and perfect as they are.

[_harmony]

Does anyone think... I mean really think... the LDS church is going to do anything more than meet with these people to shut them up? That the message will be "either toe the line or get out"? That the church is actually contemplating changing their stance on homosexuality?

Really?

[_Mercury]

Does anyone think... I mean really think... the LDS church is going to do anything more than meet with these people to shut them up? That the message will be "either toe the line or get out"? That the church is actually contemplating changing their stance on homosexuality?

Really?

Hell no. Nothing more than brow beating and laughable posturing.

[_Roger Morrison]

Does anyone think... I mean really think... the LDS church is going to do anything more than meet with these people to shut them up? That the message will be "either toe the line or get out"? That the church is actually contemplating changing their stance on homosexuality?

Really?

Why not--EVENTUALLY--change their stance? Impossible as that seems at the moment it is a PROBABLE eventuality. As others have pointed out LDSism survives by conforming to social-correctness, albeit at the last moment.

As leaders emerge from the baby-boomers--and from their children--better educated, wider travelled, less parochial they will be ashamed to continue in the proved state of their father's sins/ignorance. Tis the way of the Universe. Change begins in the imagination and evolves by advocacy of those with the courage of their convictions.

Read more National Geographics and less Mormon despair. Why not fan-the-spark? Dousing it with pessimism simply maintaines the stagnation you doomers deplore. Yes, THINK--REALLY--THINK of the future!! Not simply rehash the slosh of the past... Blah, Blah, BLAHING Roger :-)