MAD Censors a Struggling Gay LDS

[_Mister Scratch]

Some interesting developments over on the aptly named MADboard. It seems that, quite like our own beloved "Selah," a poster named Sebaztyan---a TBM with same-sex attraction---has been given the short shrift by the "Christlike" folks at MAD. Here is his OP, from a thread entitled, "Homophobia: Appropriate Actions":

I am a member of the church I also have been dealing with SSA (same sex attraction) for as long as I can remember. I am faithful and temple worthy. I have a delima though and it is really eating at me. I encounter the cruelest persecution from inside the church. My own Brothers and sisters do hateful acts to me because of thier fear and ignorance. They even go as far as tell the bishop they don't think I am worthy. But I have no sexual realations at all and I don't show any affection to guys unless they ask for it ( hugs and back massages only, I give great back rubs, to guys and girls!). I am being discriminated in my own place of solace and no one cares how I feel. Am I a non-person?

Well anyway, my dilema is what action should I take if any. The bishop doesn't seem to care if rumors go around and hurt me. Should I confront those people or let them slide. It drives me mad. They wouldn't call a black member the "n" word and tell everyone to watch thier backs and then make up crazy stories about him and tell the bishop they were uncomfortable with him cause he's black. That would he hateful.That would be so unchrist-like. So wy should it be different for me. I am "gay". I choose not to live that way and choose to live the gospel regardless. So to always assume that any guy who is "gay" is a sex feind ready to nab any guy he meets, isn't that the same hateful discrimination? I never did anything to any of these people and yet they go out of thier way to hurt me.

I am ready to leave the church all together. I f I didn't know it was true I would go. But I know it is and I know the Lord will make al things right in the end. I endure. Even thorugh all the persecution I recieve in my place of solace I am still here.

I am sorry I am venting but I would like to know your opinions on if I should confront those people.

Thanks
Sebaztyan

Some of the responses were kind, such as this one from Severian:

I think the ward, the Bishop and the Church have a duty to care for all of their flock, whether they are homosexual, disabled or green. As long as they are all Children of God, then this duty should extend to all.

A poster called Rick gave this advice:

This is sexual harrassment, plain and simple.

1. I would inform anyone you catch slandering your worthiness and address them by stating that you do not appreciate such statements. (I would record the name of the individual, time and date.)

2. If the individual makes a similiar statement again, record the time and incident and report to the Bishop. By law he must act. The individual has been warned by you that you do not appreciate such actions.

3. If the Bishop fails to act in a reasonable amount of time, (two weeks) with an appropriate form of action, such as a formal talking with threat of disfellowship if such action continues, take it to the Stake President.

4. If it has escalated and the Stake President fails to act, take it outside the church to your local Gay and Lesbian chapter and they will know which is the appropriate trustworthy law enforcement or District Attourney to contact to file a complaint against the local church leadership.

This is beyond rehensible.

Humorously, he was chastized, quite severely, by Pahoran for this:

Have you ever read the Bible, Rick? The Saints are supposed to work out their differences in-house. We are not supposed to drag each other into secular courts. We are certainly not supposed to use threats and legal coercion in order to exercise unrighteous dominion over the Lord's servants. Secular courts have no jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters, and no-one who values religious liberty wants to give them any.

Finally, the thread was shut down by Skylla:

No personal threads.

Skylla

What's a guy like Sebaztyan to do? If you know anything about MAD, and about struggling TBMs, then you know the answer is: Start another thread, of course! His next OP is as follows:

Just curious. Whats wrong with personal threads? There is alot of great information and lessons learned through people's personal experiences. Also, it promotes free agency and freedom of speach? This is not a post to oppose the guidelines , just curious as to the reasoning.

Sebaztyan

Great question! Here's Slacktime's hypocritical reply (and it makes me wonder if Skylla is a Slacktime sockpuppet):

We don't allow a thread to be centered around a specific poster (although there have been exceptions... the Bill Keller thread is an example of an exception) because it rarely builds understanding and generally becomes a ad hominem bash on one side or the other.

Personal experiences are often used to discuss topics and this is fine. We just don't want threads saying "I like the postings of <insert fav name>. Kapish?

-SlackTime

(emphasis added)

Ah, I see. Thank you for clarifying, ST. Personal threads are no bueno if they demonstrate LDS prejudice, but if they are aimed at smearing a critic, then they are A-okay. I thought so! (Note to SlackTime: it is spelled "capiche.")

Next, Skylla swoops in and shuts down this thread:

We don't allow personal threads because they usually lead to personal attacks. Thread closed.

Skylla

Come now, Skylla! Why aren't you being as honest and forthright as SlackTime? Why not just say, "We only allow personalized attacks on critics."

In a last-ditch effort, Sebaztyan gives it one last try, this time rephrasing his question by addressing concrete Church policy, in a thread called, "Discrimination In The Church: Handbook":

What does the handbook say about how to deal with discrimination in the church?

This is your last warning about bringing your personal agenda to this board. Thread closed again.

(red moderator text ibid)

How intriguing! Does anyone want to take bets on how long it will be before Sebaztyan defects to a more sympathetic (and less censorious) forum? Further, it is nice to see such an apparently naïve admission from SlackTime on how biased the MADmoderating team really is. All in all, a fascinating turn of events. Also, it seems that there is a rather deep homophobic streak which runs through the MAD community (and by extension the LDS community). But did anyone really need to be told that?

(Special thanks to my confidential informant for bringing this to my attention.)

[_Yoda]

"No Personal Threads" has always been the rule on FAIR/MAD.

I do find it intriguing that Slack Time was so up front with his explanation, though.

An even more honest explanation would be the following:

No personal threads are allowed on MAD unless it conveniently furthers the agenda of Juliann or Dan G (owners of the board). Of course, these agendas change on a daily, sometimes an hourly basis.

What I find sad is that in Sebatzyan's last attempt, he was following the rules. He simply asked a question about church policy and was shut down.

The other thing that is surprising is that no one directed him to the Fellowship Forum. Had I been moderating, I probably would have moved his thread into that section, rather than shutting it down. Personal threads and more softball questions are allowed in that forum.

[_moksha]

Too bad he could not have been referred to the Celestial Forum of this board or the Mormon Fellowship board of Beliefnet.com. Sounds like he needed to vent and receive some support.

[_Some Schmo]

Wow... I had almost forgotten just how far they have their heads wedged up their asses over there. At least Rick and Seven had useful things to say.

Oh, and I had also forgotten just how blatantly mentally handicapped Pahoran is.

[_Lucretia MacEvil]

Humorously, he was chastized, quite severely, by Pahoran for this:

Have you ever read the Bible, Rick? The Saints are supposed to work out their differences in-house. We are not supposed to drag each other into secular courts. We are certainly not supposed to use threats and legal coercion in order to exercise unrighteous dominion over the Lord's servants. Secular courts have no jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters, and no-one who values religious liberty wants to give them any.

This was supposed to be humorous?

[_Mister Scratch]

Humorously, he was chastized, quite severely, by Pahoran for this:

Have you ever read the Bible, Rick? The Saints are supposed to work out their differences in-house. We are not supposed to drag each other into secular courts. We are certainly not supposed to use threats and legal coercion in order to exercise unrighteous dominion over the Lord's servants. Secular courts have no jurisdiction in ecclesiastical matters, and no-one who values religious liberty wants to give them any.

This was supposed to be humorous?

No, it was just yet another example of vintage Pahoran---hence, it was funny. (Pahoran's idiocy, that is.)

[_Coggins7]

This is sexual harrassment, plain and simple.

1. I would inform anyone you catch slandering your worthiness and address them by stating that you do not appreciate such statements. (I would record the name of the individual, time and date.)

2. If the individual makes a similiar statement again, record the time and incident and report to the Bishop. By law he must act. The individual has been warned by you that you do not appreciate such actions.

3. If the Bishop fails to act in a reasonable amount of time, (two weeks) with an appropriate form of action, such as a formal talking with threat of disfellowship if such action continues, take it to the Stake President.

4. If it has escalated and the Stake President fails to act, take it outside the church to your local Gay and Lesbian chapter and they will know which is the appropriate trustworthy law enforcement or District Attourney to contact to file a complaint against the local church leadership.

This is beyond rehensible.

It looks like there was a very good reason Pahoran took this individual to task. There is no legal recourse in a free society for calling someone names, or calling into question his morality or any other personal attribute (unless it clearly meets the standard for the legal definition for liable or slander, which this kind of speech most patently does not). The grossly frivolous use of the term "slander" in this post is all one needs to see to understand the position form which this person sees the dynamics involved.

This person is a leftist. He is a politically correct cultural browns*** like Scratch of a kind our public schools and institutions of higher ed have been producing for upwards of twenty years now. Note that the entire purpose of the position he takes in the thread is, through intimidation, coercion, and legal threat, to shut down free speech between two individuals regarding moral, theological, and personal issues. If this person were to have is way, free speech would, for all intents and purposes, come to an end. Homosexuals for him are untouchables; a class set apart, special and anointed, for which special dispensations are granted, among which is to be able to sue someone for openly stating his disapproval of your lifestyle or character. He doesn't want this homosexual person to defend himself in his own way, using his own arguments and standing on his own two feet, against those who, it is claimed, are mischaracterizing him. No, he wants this guy to sue those he disagrees with into silence and remove from them their own constitutional rights to express their ideas. But, being part of a specially privileged class, he, in true Orwellian fashion, is more equal then others; his free speech is "freer" than the speech of his critics.

Clearly, this person believes that free speech is only for homosexuals and people (liberals) who support their lifestyle and ideology. For those who do not, and openly express such views, there is a separate legal status complete with separate rules, laws, and governing principles. This is how it works in Cuba, not in the Constitution, and anyone with the crude totalitarian mind set displayed by this individual should be denounced as the intellectual and moral hack that he is before he does further damage to others and the country of which he is, unfortunately, a part.

[_The Nehor]

As much as this treatment was wrong it is not sexual harrassment. You might have a case for discrimination but it would be very weak. My understanding of harassment is that to prosecute a case in any forum the victim has to be the target of sexual advances or a sexually uncomfortable environment due to advances or the sexualization of the victim.

Is my memory faulty on this point? A quick google search makes me think I'm right.

I'm wondering what this guy expected or if he is a troll. I've had friends in the Church who have coped with similar problems and it never gets out. I want more information. Why do these members of the Church think he's unworthy? How do they even know about his problems? The Bishop is not the head of the local ward rumor-mill and can't control it's content. Most members are sympathetic in my experience though most of those I know of who faced this problem knew not to tell the local gossip queens and morons about their problems.

Still smells like a troll to me. It seemed more like a rant. I would think a real story and cry for help would have had more details in it. I agree with previous poster this it should have just been moved to Fellowship where personal issues are open for discussion. It was a violation of board rules.

[_Chap]

Coggins the Christian:

He is a politically correct cultural browns***

Retching noises ...

[_Jason Bourne]

MAD would not be the place to take such an issue for help....clearly.