Saturday, September 25, 2010

A meeting and apology by Elder Jensen regarding Prop 8 harm

Excerpts of Elder Marlin Jensen Personally Apologizes for Proposition 8, published by John Dehlin at Mormon Matters, a report of a special conference & stake conference by Linda Schweidel
--

Oakland Stake, September 19.

... there was a “by invitation only” meeting with the visiting seventy, Marlin Jensen, about reactions to Prop. 8.... at which non‑gay Mormons, gay Mormons, gay former Mormons, and non‑Mormon gays can all get together and try to understand one another.

... the GA who’s coming to speak has the opportunity to find out if there are any issue of “particular interest” ... who were affected/disaffected by Prop 8.  ...  and then every other person who got up was eloquent, articulate, and right on point. ... Marlin Jensen sat there and listened.  He’d that he appreciated the opportunity [to] come listen and promised to take what he learned “back to the Brethren.”  ...  after everybody got up, and told of the suffering that Prop 8 had caused – the division, heartache, anger, frustration and pain – and when the last guy who spoke told him that the Mormon church owed the gay community an apology, he stood and said, “To the [extent that] it’s within my power to apologize, I want to tell you that I am sorry.  I am very sorry.”  People were audibly weeping.  ... It was very, very powerful.  It felt very healing.

Stake conference was good too.  [Stake President Criddle] talked about “extending the tent” and including everyone ...  He asked should we go to dinner with couples of the same gender, and love them and accept them?  “OF COURSE WE SHOULD!”  ...

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

Love this! The Oakland Stake is miles ahead of the rest of us. Would love it if every stake president could read this.

Stevie D said...

I highly doubt this stake president, by saying "accept them", meant giving them a LDS marriage. But that seems to be the only "acceptance" that will be acceptable to gays. It is not going to and never will happen. President Monson has stated simply, and clearly, "The doctrine is clear, marriage is between a man and woman". Need I site the "Proclamation to the World" that further makes the doctrine absolutely clear. I see nothing new here. And I do not see a shadow of turning from one way to the other. But sure, going out to eat in a social setting - absolutely and why not?!

I can foresee the day when gay marriages will be performed outside of the LDS faith everywhere. And do you think the gays will then leave the LDS church alone to worship as they please? I will not take that bet.

Anonymous said...

You are right SD. I'm sure there is not acceptance.

Seems like there is a fear of gay people, like they are going to take over the church, the world, and bring everything down with em. Gay people are no different than you. They walk, talk, take out the trash, pay their bills, work, sleep, get scared, get lonely, have relationships, want to connect with others, etc.... just like everyone else. Gay people have the need to connect and have relationships just like straight people. And by the way, there is no black and white when it comes to gay or straight. I know lots of gay people that play like they are straight...now that scares me. How would you like a gay man marrying your daughter in the temple or visa versa? Where do you think that is headed? And as far as gay people wanting to marrying in temples, help me understand why a gay person would want to be married in the church that despises them?

Why is it that the most conservative thing gay people want to do.....get married, they are the most hated for? Seems like people are more comfortable if the gays are out swinging in the bars or bathhouses, which is so destructive.

I have no idea where the issue of homosexuality, bisexuality, etc. will end up, but churches are not where they need to be on this. I don't know what the answers are, but we are not there yet! More work needs to be done.

The Punkaman & JASPER said...

The Snite Parable by Hugh Nibley

A young man once long ago claimed he had found a large diamond in his field as he was ploughing. He put the stone on display to the public free of charge, and everyone took sides. A psychologist showed, by citing some famous case studies, that the young man was suffering from a well-known form of delusion. An historian showed that other men have also claimed to have found diamonds in fields and been deceived. A geologist proved that there were no diamonds in the area but only quartz: the young man had been fooled by a quartz. When asked to inspect the stone itself, the geologist declined with a weary, tolerant smile and a kindly shake of the head. An English professor showed that the young man in describing his stone used the very same language that others had used in describing uncut diamonds: he was, therefore, simply speaking the common language of his time. A sociologist showed that only three out of 177 florists' assistants in four major cities believed the stone was genuine. A clergyman wrote a book to show that it was not the young man but someone else who had found the stone.
Finally an indigent jeweler named Snite pointed out that since the stone was still available for examination the answer to the question of whether it was a diamond or not had absolutely nothing to do with who found it, or whether the finder was honest or sane, or who believed him, or whether he would know a diamond from a brick, or whether diamonds had ever been found in fields, or whether people had ever been fooled by quartz or glass, but was to be answered simply and solely by putting the stone to certain well-known tests for diamonds. Experts on diamonds were called in. Some of them declared it genuine. The others made nervous jokes about it and declared that they could not very well jeopardize their dignity and reputations by appearing to take the thing too seriously. To hide the bad impression thus made, someone came out with the theory that the stone was really a synthetic diamond, very skilfully made, but a fake just the same. The objection to this is that the production of a good synthetic diamond 120 years ago would have been an even more remarkable feat than the finding of a real one.

Let those of us who believe it is a real diamond do so, and if you do believe it to be so, leave it alone. If the LDS faith isn't true why should you care if they accept your homosexual relationship as a legitimate action. From a retired College Professor with 10 children and 37 grandchildren...............