Are the recent circling the wagons conference and other recent gay acceptance gatherings and videos church sponsored or is this a membership pushing a toleration must happen agenda?

If member driven, does the church push disciplinary actions?

Its starting to give the impression that the church is now accepting gays.

Why would you be confused about this? The church has ALWAYS accepted gays for the past couple of years.

note: Gays must be, 'remain' celebate.

No Exceptions for legally & lawfully married gay couples.

Sexuality is reserved for heterosexuals, It's all part of God's Plan.

According to the only 2 active member gay people I know, it accepts them, as long as they are not haveing "relations".

Both are "out" and both get asked by leadership if they do.

I don't have any idea how that is workign with their partners, but then, not my bidness.

I think the conference was sponsored by Affirmation, a group that has no ties the church and is pretty much despised by the church.

I have noticed a lot of articles coming out saying the church is softening its stance on gay people. That is TOTAL BS! The church and its representatives (aka Romney) can hire all the gay people and preach tolerance until they are blue in the face, but the reality is that the chuch will not accept a non-celibate gay person into the church. Essentially, they are saying, "we will hire you and "love" you, but just don't talk about that icky gay sex and stay celibate and alone so that we can feel better about how lucky we are to have stable eternal relationships".

What a piece of s*** organization.

I grew up gay in the mormon church. The idea of the church softening its stand on gays would be like the Nazi party softening its stand on Jews - We'll accept you as long as you're not a practicing Jew, and don't say anything"Jewish,' or do anything "Jewish." In fact, as long as you suppress anything even remotely connected to Judaism we'll be happy to have you.

The mormon church is saying the same thing. As long as you deny who you are and pretend to be something completely different, we'll welcome you with open arms. We don't discriminate at all (once you agree to comply with everything we demand).

+1,000,000!

Which is pretty much what they've been saying from the get go...Oh Mormonism...

I have a hard time believing they have softened their views on gays because they just came off from spending millions of dollars on Prop 8...

I think because of recent events, the church is sort of trying to cover their tracks but I don't think it's sincere nor do I think it's any different from what they have been teaching for years. Just trying to sugar coat it with smiles and friendship. They still have no interest in letting them be themselves.

What source do you have that the church is now "accepting gays?"

The church says you can be Mormon even if you have "gay urges" but you must NOT act on them, let alone get in a gay relationship.

I get what everyone is saying. But does the church try to give the perception that it's accepting gays even when we all knows it's completely insane to tell them we will accept you but you must remain celibate! Can two gay Men attend church and walk in holding hands. What about sitting next to each other with an arm around the other? What constitutes "safe" intimacy by Mormon standards?

No contact, no acting on any "urges". Hand holding would be a major scandal and would most likely result in the couple being asked to conform or leave.

Now I'm really confused! The law of chastity governs the sexual relations side and hinges on sexual relations with your lawful spouse. But does it govern hand holding? Why would the church frown upon two loving people embraced hand in hand walking into sacrament meeting together. Or a loving male testifying in testimony meeting how grateful he is for his counterpart similar to the same husband wife testimony.

The Mormon Church is in full "make nice and pretend we're not completely homophobic" PR mode. They and Zion's bank are co-sponsering this week;

Pioneers in HIV
An evening honoring Utahns at the forefront of HIV care
May 2nd, 6pm Reception
7pm Dinner and Award Presentation
Hilton Hotel
Salt Lake City Center
255 South West Temple

Their oficial logos are even on the Utah Aids Foundation Website promoting the event.

Without push from the outside and/or from members, the brethren would cruise right along with things like they've always been.

Sounds like my wife and our so called sex life. She only reacts and never initiates! Lol

Yes they are accepting Gays

The church just does not want them to be happy

Somebody call the curriculum department. A change to the manuals are in order.

Chapter 6: The Plan of Happiness*

*unless your gay.

They are accepting of gays as long as they do not DO or SAY anything "gay."

Something that they were born with that wasn't their fault - but must overcome.

I'm listening to the circling the wagons podcasts also. That group identifies as Mormon but the thing is not LDS approved or disapproved. (my impression only).
I only finished episode 1 so far do I don't know where it is headed. I did notice they added a few more initials to LGBT. Now it's LGBTQSSA. I know SSA stands for same sex attraction but don't know what the Q is. The fact they keep adding abbreviants means they will likely add more in the future.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2012 04:21PM by suckafoo.

They really added SSA? If you have SSA (same sex attraction) you are gay (sorry Thomas Monson, but that is the truth)! I hate how the church comes up with these stupid terms to make it sound like it is a disease that can be cured.

To answer your question, "Q" means "questioning". I am all for being inclusive to everyone, but I find the addition of "Q" to be insulting to LGBT people. For me, it makes it sound like being gay or transgendered is a choice, which it is definitely not!

Ohhhhh. Ok. Yeah. It's John Dehlin's podcast. They have to tread lightly and soft step a bit.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2012 10:15PM by suckafoo.

I don't believe that developing SSAttraction is impossible or 'doesn't happen; IOW, I don't think that sexuality/sexual preferences are 100.0% innate/inborn, 'natural' or whatever.

Humans are adaptive creatures, we're intensly in tune with what is or isn't socially acceptable behavior.

Also, I don't believe that science has given us evidence to support that notion.

That said, I had a gf who knew her youngest (not our) son was heading that way since about 4 yrs old.

I don't agree that anything 'has to be that way', I think that "reasoning" is Flawed from the get-go.

Q = queer. And just so you know, many in the gay community feel that we're starting to go overboard with all the initials. It's nice to include everyone, but you get to the point where it just looks like alphabet soup.

I don't know why I got censored. @#$%& should be q u e e r . You know, starts with a Q, rhymes with beer.

I am pretty sure the Q means questioning.

Totally agree on the lettering going overboard.

Confused Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are the recent circling the wagons conference and
> other recent gay acceptance gatherings and videos
> church sponsored or is this a membership pushing a
> toleration must happen agenda?
>
> If member driven, does the church push
> disciplinary actions?
>
> Its starting to give the impression that the
> church is now accepting gays.

The Circling the Wagons conferences are done by John Dehlin and the "Open Stories Foundation" (aka Mormon Stories). They are not church approved. They are not Affirmation or Evergreen approved (although people from both have attended).

The church probably sees these as rogue elements. I've heard rumors that John Dehlin has been called to meet with his bishop tonight. Ten days after the D.C. Circling the Wagons conference. Coincidence? Not if the Strengthening the Members committee has anything to say about it.

I have a friend that helped organize the conference and flew to D.C. (from Idaho) to attend. If the call Dehlin in for a disciplinary council, he'll be the first one to drive to Logan to protest. (Although, technically, the stake president would need to call a disciplinary council, not the bishop, because John is a Melchizedek Priesthood holder.)

They say it is OK to have same sex attraction but NOT Ok to act on it. They are still saying that it is wrong to actually BE gay, as in living a FULL authentic gay life.

They are putting lipstick on a pig.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/01/2012 06:10PM by MJ.

is remarkable. Women didn't get this sort of leeway for self led meetings during the rise of feminism in the 70s and 80s.

Self help groups in general are strongly discouraged - or forbidden.

It isn't nearly enough, and none of us are impressed. None the less it's kind of fascinating to watch.

I suppose they are just letting Dehlin play on his leash a little to see the response.

I'm gay and was raised in the LD$ church.

But more important, I'm offended that they have lied to me. They're homophobic, but I'm LIE-phobic.

The only real changes I will be impressed with will be when/IF (it's a big "IF," I know) they admit to and apologize for their lies and cover-ups.

(crickets)

And THAT is why I walked away.