As a reminder for anyone who might be interested, my gay friend Scott Osmond (NOT ME) will be speaking at a Saturday night session of his local Stake Conference near Long Beach, CA.

He's openly gay, and is still on the church records. He was invited to speak by the SP, and also has the approval of the visiting GA. (see my earlier post for details)

It should be interesting to see what Scott says, and how this goes. I personally have never been in an LDS church meeting where people discuss LGBTQ+ issues over the pulpit.

Here's the info Scott provided for this Saturday night:

"I will also be delivering a message at the next Stake Conference on June 8th at 7pm for our Stake. I have received special permission to do so from the attending General Authority and I am being given access to the pulpit to talk about what I wish with the theme being Ministry to the LGBT+ members of the church. I would really appreciate anyone and everyone who could attend and support me.

"Long Beach California East Stake
4142 Cerritos Avenue
Los Alamitos, CA 90720

"All regardless of religion are welcome to attend. I promise to speak my truth and am grateful for the opportunity. We all recognize these things often have limits and they don't often last. But while I have a listening ear and a chance to gain traction to help others understand, I will take it and run with it as far as I can and would appreciate any support you can offer me in so doing."

I (PapaKen) will be there, and so will my still-active daughter and her husband. I'd love to know if anyone from exmo.org will be there too.

I shall return & report.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2019 12:40PM by PapaKen.

I'd love to attend but unfortunately I'm having my fingernails pulled out that day. :)


Seriously, PapaKen, thanks for keeping us filled in on this. Very anxious for details. Can't help hoping it gets crazy, though. Would that be wrong?

I've spent many hours/days in that very building. I love the area but loathe the building (crazy memories with that stake and Pres. Richards).

Hope it goes well.

Only time I go to Long Beach is for the Indy Car race. Best "Party on the Beach" ever.

I seriously do hope that things go well for your friend, but the statement, "the theme being Ministry to the LGBT+ members of the church" brings to mind "lambs to the slaughter".

Maybe this is a sign of better things in the future, but it's my gut feeling that this is a one off with "rouge" leadership and is likely very localized. I'm still shocked that he got permission to speak at all and I worry what will be said before and after he speaks.

Anyway, good luck to him. I do think his intentions are in the right place, I just worry about the church's.

Dear Papaken: nobody here wants to go back to the mormon church.

I don't care if Gladys Knight and the Pips are going to be there or if they'll be handing out $100 bills. I will never go back.

Please stop inviting us. This is proselytizing. It should bot be allowed.

Aloysius Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> or if they'll be handing out $100 bills. I will never go back.


If they were handing out $100 bills I might go back! ;)


Of course, if they were handing out money, it'd likely be MORmONopoly money valid only at the company store (and not even for tithing)! ;)

It would be rebates on their underwear.

> Please stop inviting us.
> This is proselytizing.
> It should not be allowed.

An interesting take. Also utter bullshit.

I was 75-25 to going, which I had previously indicated. Now I'm 95-05, going.

"Gut reactions" can come from anywhere along the 7.5 meter (24.72 feet) length of the large and small intestines. But some reactions are definitely from within inches of the exit.

Excuse me, but is he or is he not telling people to come back to church to hear a great message from the mouth of an active member at the pulpit?

What is proselytizing?

I don't appreciate your language.

Enjoy time in church. Count me out.

Aloysius,

As you know, PapaKen is an old-timer here and someone with no sympathy for the church. He is asking people to attend to help him and his friend try to help victims of Mormonism.

What he is doing strikes me as honorable. I understand your perspective and think it fine that you don't want to darken a chapel ever again. But sometimes it is more difficult for those of us who have friends and loved ones in the church and who care about their fate whether or not they have left yet or will ever leave. PapaKen is negotiating that set of challenges and wants to know if others, similarly situated, would like to join him in doing so in this particular way at this particular time. He is neither proselytizing for the church nor proselytizing for a movement against the church.

While your sentiment is entirely reasonable, I think your expression of it was unnecessarily harsh.

Harsher than EOD's expression. No.

Harsh? Nah. Just a little disagreement with flair.

Of all people, I can hardly gainsay that!

PapaKen who is gay and not Mormon still has family and friends that are. He is simply alerting anyone interested that this is happening because it involves a friend of his. He is in no way recommending going to church or trying to change anyone's mind about anything-- if I have him pegged right?

If I went this would not be like attending a meeting but more like rubbernecking a bad accident on the freeway.

Although I would never go, the meeting interests me because as a gay exMo I have a huge problem with the gays who try to make being gay and being Mormon work--especially if they are old enough to know better. I call this being a Judas Goat. This is pandering to the Mormon Gerontocracy and is likely to fool some of the vulnerable young gay Mormon kids that things are better or acceptable. They are not. Same vile church as always pretending to be welcoming.

Agreed. There are many, many problems with the mormon church. Its treatment of people who are gay is one.

This talk we are invited to is LITERALLY about ministering and bringing people into the fold. This invitation belongs somewhere else.

That the church intends the meeting to be about "ministering and bringing people into the fold" does not mean that the participants are there for the same reasons. For some it is a process that can be influenced; for others it is a statement of support for gay kids whether in or out of the church. Such support can save lives.

There are many ways to skin a cat. Your strategy and PK's differ, which is fine. Neither is wrong.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your strategy
> and PK's differ, which is fine. Neither is wrong.

I'm thinking Aloysius' strategy is better. I'm going to my daughters' mission farewell on Father's Day specifically for them. I haven't invited anyone.

Inviting relative strangers to a meeting for a show of support sounds like it should be a court of love and not a stake conference.

For example, say a never married TBM single mother was going to speak about her struggles in the church. One of my daughters is talking probably not seriously enough to act but about getting artificially inseminated or adopting after college and being in a career awhile. These things I believe aren't even actually "sins" that I know of but stuff I know TBMs would judge and do so harshly.

Let alone a gay TBM who if they acted on their natural urges is considered an absolute pariah.

I think of the story of throwing the first stone. A Mormon meeting is a place of judgement. Anything this guy says will be pissing in the wind in my opinion.

I have no dog in this fight. I personally haven't been back to a church with the single exception of when I went there to dress down the stake president for the church's continuing harassment of my family. I would also have a hard time attending this weekend's event.

But my feelings on the topic don't matter. If members of the ex-Mo community feel it appropriate to attend this sort of event for their own reasons, I say more power to them. They are doing what they feel is right.

Completely disagree. Couldn't disagree more.

The purpose of this special meeting is to show the world how accepting and awesome the mormon church is now. The SP who invited OP's friend to speak is hoping that friends, family, inactives, nevermos, and exmos will come so they will get warm fuzzies about the church and come into (or back to) the fold.

And I'm going so that if this is the case, I'll shine one light if by sea and two lights if by land.

But hopefully, you are now aware that there is no proselyting going on here, that there is no need to warn those with less moral fiber than yourself, and that your virtue signaling was not required.

Cool - hope to meet you on Saturday.

Look for an old Mexican male with a lot of salt & pepper hair (I'm trying out for a boy-band), a goatee, and a haunted look in his eyes. I'll be driving my blue 1974 Datsun B-210 with Sinaloa plates...

I'm really good at having righteous people ignore me. I'll be there a bit early, so I can claim and hold onto an aisle seat, in the middle aisle, near the front, where my recorder can pick up the speakers over my snoring.

Is the password, Pioneer47, with a capital, or lower case "p"? I gotz ta know!

I would say that is exactly what the meeting is. It is also an attempt by the Mormons to assuage their guilt for the damage they are doing. Crocodile tears. I don't doubt but that anyone who is interested to see it all first hand would see it the way you do. Still some want to see it. Maybe the old saying applies here: Hold your friends close and your enemies closer?

For me, the lower the turn out the better. Why give it the importance of numbers?

Right on, D & D. Thanks.

> Excuse me.


You're excused.

There is more to this than you may have appreciated. The 'invitation', which mormons ALWAYS extend to anyone who is listening', is coming from PapaKen's friend, who for whatever bizarre reason remains somewhat TBM while being of the Gay persuasion. PapaKen is attending because, from my perception, his friend asked him to (and we often do 'ugh' things for our friends) and because, like me, he is curious how the message is going to be received.

I just checked (https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,2225568,2225568#msg-2225568) and noted that you were the first one to respond to the original thread, with the same "I'm offended" response.

What you may not have ever understood is that the entire content of that OP, save the title, was from PapaKen's friend. Those were NOT PapaKen's words.

What developed after that was a discussion regarding the motivation behind the Gay friend being invited to speak, with apparent 'higher up' authority.

To me, the genesis of the 'invitation' was clear and not at all against forum rules. So, again, in my mind, a clear association between your reaction and the human anus existed. I'm just a little rough around the edges, what with being a second class human being...

Got it. It's now okay to try to get people to attend the mormon church.

Also, it's okay to personally attack people using swear words.

Thanks for clarifying.

Aloysius Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also, it's okay to personally attack people using
> swear words.

Why do people think this is personal???

> Please stop inviting us.
> This is proselytizing.
> It should not be allowed.

"An interesting take. Also utter bullshit."

It isn't. Is this hypersensitivity? Fragile ego?

The pronoun 'it' is used to replace the most recent item or action listed, therefore...

If that was directed to me, as in I was 'hypersensitive' in feeling the need to respond, I'll gladly wear it. As to the possible fragility of my ego...? No.

LOL! No. It was the Aloysius. If RfM becomes so sensitive as to interpret disagreement and/or anger with naughty words as "personal attack" I don't think I will frequent as often.

You called what they wrote "bullshit" and they told you they didn't agree with you. It is the same without the colorfulness.

In another thread a poster perceived a hardline approach to letting their child have missionaries over with an angry naughty word response as a "personal attack" which it clearly wasn't.

Calling people names. Implying you are superior to them. Belittling. Trying to diminish their opinions through the sheer force of ego - those to me are personal attacks.

Fact checking. Disagreeing. Being angry without name calling. These things aren't in my opinion.

I want to make sure I understand the distinction: Telling a person that her or his opinion is "bullshit" and comes from the "anus" is not a personal attack? What, then, would be?

Disagreement with flare.

And I might add you can tell me my opinion is bullshit and you are offended by it and it still isn't personally attacking me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2019 04:16PM by Elder Berry.

Elder Berry, your opinion is bullshit.

I don't know what opinion we are talking about, but I thought it would be fun to say that.

IKR?

If I polish my opinions enough I may be able to transmute them into something less shitty?

Where is the fun in that?

The distinction is that one is attacking your opinion, the other is attacking you personally.

Personal attack: "You are an idiot for having that opinion"

Not a personal attack: "That idea is bullshit"

The first labels you as a person something, the other suggests something about the idea you have. The difference is subtle, but it's there.

When did I say that I was "offended" at being invited, EOD? Never. Neither in this post nor the previous post. I am not offended by evangelists, just annoyed.

I am, however, offended when people, like you, EOD, profanely attack me and my opinions on this board.

Aloysius Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> profanely attack me and my opinions on this
> board.

I disagree he did.


"...profanely attack my opinions on this board."

I agree. While I don't agree with you opinion on this I agree with your strategy and I think Lot's Wife does as well.

My opinion is that when people--Aloysius, EOD, EB, LW, D&D, PK and many others--who are on the same side of a conflict choose different tactics, their various decisions should be respected. I do not object to Aloysius's position but I do think it inaccurate to label, however implicitly, PK, EOD and others as somehow complicit in the church's efforts.

My personal inclination would be to attend even if it marginally helps the church. Why? Because I know kids who hated themselves and in some cases hurt themselves because of their isolation inside a church they naively trust. The first priority is triage: stopping those kids from killing themselves. I am all for letting gay Mormons know they are not alone. Their rejection of Mormonism will come soon enough.

Perhaps that makes me too willing to attend LDS meetings. If so, mea culpa. I haven't been in an LDS building for a very long time, but for something like this I very well might. In either case, however, I would never judge a gay person who chose not to attend, or one who did, by my personal preferences. That naturally goes both ways.

PK has dealt with ALL the complexity of being a homosexual in the LDS church and I will never second guess his tactical choices.

Aloysius,

Consider yourself "counted out," for whatever that's worth.

I'm not "telling" you to do anything. That would be silly.

If I were to adopt your thinking, I would be ignoring:

1. Closeted gay Mormons who might need some support.
2. My friend who I care about, and would like to support, even though I would not do what he's doing.
3. My own daughter's desire to support gay people like me.
4. My curiosity to know if anything has really changed regarding the LD$ church and gay people. I'm doubtful, but open-minded.

Luckily you do not speak for everyone on this board, and should not use "us" when speaking for yourself.

PapaKen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Aloysius,
>
> Consider yourself "counted out," for whatever
> that's worth.


Thanks!

> If I were to adopt your thinking, I would be
> ignoring:
>
> 1. Closeted gay Mormons who might need some
> support.

Reasonable people can disagree about this, but I completely disagree that the best way to support closeted gay mormons is to go to their church and support its sham efforts to fellowship them.


> 2. My friend who I care about, and would like to
> support, even though I would not do what he's
> doing.

How does not advertising mormon church meetings meaning you're not supporting your friend? I support my mom, but I don't go to her relief society events or recruit other people to go.

We can support mormons without endorsing their church activity.


> 3. My own daughter's desire to support gay people
> like me.

I don't understand this. How does advertising on here have anything to do with your daughter?


> 4. My curiosity to know if anything has really
> changed regarding the LD$ church and gay people.
> I'm doubtful, but open-minded.


This is fine, I guess. But I don't think playing the mormon church's game helps anybody.


> Luckily you do not speak for everyone on this
> board, and should not use "us" when speaking for
> yourself.

I know that I don't speak for everybody. Neither do you. My use of the pronouns "us" and "we" is rhetorical. I'm pretty sure I'm allowed to use any pronouns I like.

I get tired of the righteousness police rattling the bars of my cell with their billy clubs.

So do I. The problem, though, is figuring out who is who in your analogy.

We can take turns!

No thanks. I'm not into handcuffs.

I agree with Aloysius.

If the Mormon church were holding a meeting specifically to engage with the LGBT community as a way of repairing the hurt, I'd say maybe it's okay...

This is different though. This meeting is part of Stake Conference. I'm not sure when PapaKen's friend will speak, but it might not be till after others have spoken. Attendees will need to sit through an opening/closing prayer, hymns, and hear the opening/closing remarks of the bishop or whoever else is speaking. It's Stake Conference.

Mormons really think that inactives who return to church will feel the spirit and become active members again. That is what they are banking on. That is why Papa Ken's friend is allowed to speak at stake conference. I'm sure he's been told what he is allowed to say and that his talk has been reviewed in advance.

I'm still curious to hear all about it though.

> I'm still curious to hear
> all about it though.


Ta da! Somebody gets it!!!


So what if I'm bored by most of it? So what if mormons crowd around me, asking me for my autograph and "ooh'ing" and "ahhing" at a necktie I wore as a priest and then as a missionary (seriously, I still have all those ties! I never bought another tie!).

The key for me is that I get some ground zero information about a very unique situation: mormonism trying to live within the belly of the beast, their bête noire: humans who 'chose' to be Gay. It seems reasonable to me that the percentages of mormons vs. Gays in the City of Long Beach are dropping for mormons and increasing for Gays. I bet the church recognizes this and perhaps their response to PapaKen's friend's talk will reveal something of their current plans to address this. And like so much of what the church does, they have to resort to field testing, because there is no way for them to test this in the lab.


Why don't they simply rely on revelation...?

I’m not driving all day to go to your stake conference! Sorry not sorry.

Also, don’t advertise pro-LDS church stuff on this forum. Maybe post that on r/Mormon or something like that.

This post is directed at PapaKen.

Not everyone here thinks the same as you, Redskittle.

Advertise? No. I just thought some people here might be interested in knowing about it. And those who want to attend now have the information they'll need.

I even entertain the thought that I might meet some local exmos there, which is why I asked if anyone were going to attend.

Who knows? Maybe we can go out after & have a drink!

Whatever you do on Saturday night, Redskittle, I hope it makes you happy. Really.

PapaKen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Advertise? No. I just thought some people here
> might be interested in knowing about it. And
> those who want to attend now have the information
> they'll need.


That is literally the definition of "advertise":

Ad·ver·tise
verb
describe or draw attention to (a product, service, or event) in a public medium in order to promote sales or attendance.


> I even entertain the thought that I might meet
> some local exmos there, which is why I asked if
> anyone were going to attend.


If you are interested in meeting exmos, mormon church meetings are probably not the best place. May not be the worst, though, either.

I'm basking in the love! Can you slather it on any thicker?

Sorry if my statement came out as rude. I was just trying to warn you about posting stuff about church events on an exmormon website.

Anyways, I wish I can come down to meet you and drink a beer together but one, I am underage, and two, it is a 6-8 hour drive from where I live to your stake center and I don’t have time to drive that far, as I am going to an MLS game that night with close friends.

@PapaKen

You are new here and have no idea who PapaKen is. It might make sense to sit back and learn a bit before telling him what to do.

I do not have an idea who PapaKen is. Sorry if my response to his invitation sounded rude.

“Sit back and learn a bit.” Can you please explain?

I think Lot's Wife is trying to say that this board (like any community) has a pretty complicated social order. There are a lot of characters, gadflies, jokers, elder statespeople, bullies, self-promoters, royalty, newbies, and fly-by-nights.

People mostly learn the the ins and outs by watching, or "lurking," for a while before jumping in and engaging with long-time, high-profile users.

Lot's Wife--did I capture your sentiment?

I proudly claim the first three titles!

Laughter is my favorite thing, right after Saucie and sleeping.

Yes sir, you did.

PapaKen is seasoned, thoughtful, and positive. We may disagree with him in some instances; but no one doubts his commitment to our community and his values.

Redskittle, no worries about this. Just remember that people like PK have been here many, many years and know what they are doing. He understands the rules and abides by them.

If you have any questions about protocol, just watch what elderolddog does and do the opposite.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you have any questions about protocol, just
> watch what elderolddog does and do the opposite.

This is my m.o.

Suddenly, "just asking for a friend . . ." is imbued with a lot of new meaning. I'm actually laughing at this point, so thanks, PapaKen.

And not because I would ever go back or ever believe again, but because I'm just wondering what insanity they'll come up with now.

I do believe it is good for gays to help those kids who are gay and hate themselves, who have no clue there are others their age like them. Just like the valedictorian at BYU. The mormons took his coming out different than he meant it. He was making a point that many people completely missed. So I'm all for trying to keep gay kids from committing suicide.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/05/2019 11:47PM by cl2.