Those of you who know me personally, or from previous posts here, will know that I'm a gay, non-believing former member (excommunicated 30 years ago) of the SLC-based LD$ church.

My main gripe with the them is their blatant child abuse: they willingly teach their young to publicly lie about the "truthfulness" of mormonism. Second is their relentless collection of tithing from members who can ill-afford to pay it. Third is their whitewashing of their real church history. I have MANY other complaints.

So, when my friend Scott Osmond (also a gay mormon, but still on the roles) announced that he was going to speak at his Saturday night Stake Conference as an openly gay member, and when he asked that I and others come to hear him & support him, I had mixed feelings. I have not attended LD$ meetings for more than 30 years (except for baby blessings, etc.)

I wanted to support him. And I wanted to see what it was like for a gay person to speak openly over an LD$ pulpit. Scott was told that he could say whatever he liked. But they did encourage him to address the "ministry" to closeted gay members and their families. When I told my liberal-thinking but still active LD$ daughter and her husband about Scott's talk, they immediately said they'd like to go.

So last night, I went. Here's what happened.

Opening song, opening prayer, etc. (BORING!)
The speakers included
- a grandmother who had doubted mormonism, but had come back "into the fold."
- a weepy former catholic divorcee who had been rejected by both catholicism AND mormonism, because she was divorced.
- a mission president couple (they stood at the pulpit together & kept switching back & forth - very annoying!)
- an openly gay man who sang a solo from the pulpit.
and
- my friend Scott.

His message was sincere & open about how he had been bullied as a young boy, and how that hostility & judgment had continued
through high school, and even during his mission.

But now he's completely and happily out as a gay man. He's also no longer active, and does not plan to return.

His talk was only 10 minutes long, but it was full of love and sincerity. I wished I had heard such a talk when I was active. Scott's strong message was a plea was for the members to stop judging and start loving gay people in their families.

The best part of the evening was after the meeting when Scott came down from the stand and hugged and kissed us all. Right there in front of the GA & SP & Bishops and all the suits and prairie dresses!

I'm glad I went, if for no other reason than to see that.

Now for the cynical side of this experience. The messages from the non-gay speakers were decidedly one-sided: they want all bullied and formerly rejected people to return to activity in the LD$ church. "Repent!" said the visiting GA about 30 times, his accusatory finger pointing to the congregation.

I, for one, will have no problem with NOT going to an LD$ meeting for another 30 years.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2019 11:07AM by PapaKen.

And the members are supposed to listen to their spiritual promptings about bringing us all back.

Hell, I hate the church.

BUT, I do hope there were some people who listened to Scott. How did your daughter feel about the meeting?

I believe it took A LOT OF COURAGE for Scott to speak there. I'm also glad that he hugged and kissed you guys in front of the "holy." I'm glad you were there to support him. The most important thing people can do is to save any more young and old gay people from killing themselves.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2019 11:17AM by cl2.

Yes, it DID take a lot of courage for Scott to speak. He was nervous at first, but soon gained confidence & spoke his true mind & heart. I would not have agreed to give that talk, but I was glad he did it.

My daughter & husband both said several very positive things afterwards. She doesn't think being gay is a sin, and is hopeful things will change in the church and in the world.

While I have my doubts that things in the church will change in any substantial way, they are certainly changing in the world wrt gay issues.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2019 06:26PM by Tevai.

That's was the first step out of "the Church" for me, when I realized that the Bishop didn't have a bit of interest in spiritual prompting, instead referred to the Church handbook when advising members. I was struggling with a decision to divorce a serial irresponsible and not willing to hold down a job husband and was basically never supported by hearing that maybe divorcing was right in this case.

Ran into a former Bishop who confided that they are not allowed to advise divorce, instead they "church handbook" tells them to never support that decision.

So no spiritual insights or prompting, just.... you know, endure the bad marriage and be an enabler????

Anyway, after that, I realized the don't believe in God, they believe in and follow religion.

I was pretty much done with them..... or seeing them as having any credibility as spiritual leaders.

I'm sure my abused mother was told that divorce was not an option.

She stayed with my abusive father until her death at a young age--63.

She believed her priesthood leaders were inspired AND had her best interest at heart. Neither of these things were true.

Several bishops told her she was the problem. She needed to be more spiritual, more submissive.

This is exactly the reason I find religions so very harmful.

Not everyone finds the ability to take their power back. Especially when surrounded by the Mormon bubble. Plenty of support and comfort to "stay" in a bad situation, not much for getting out.


Fortunately for me, I was not raised in "the Church", my family was not Mormon, had a job and could support myself and was exposed to other "non-Mormon" perspectives. And I have a bit of a temper and there is only so much I'll put up with.

All of the things that make one (especially women, but men too), independent are discouraged by religions.

I'm mostly impressed at your support for a friend.

Whether or not this changes any Mormon minds about what it is like to be gay and the damage the church does remains to be seen. Maybe he got used by the church.

At least it gave you (and us) a chance to see the REPENT mindset is alive and well. That will continue to damage everyone who goes near them.


Thanks for the report!

I understand Elder Old Dog was there? Did you happen to run into him?

I knew he might come, but I don't know him by sight, so I'm not sure if he did.

Repent of what? Not returning to a church that has bullied and demeaned you?

It sounds like a net positive that you attended to support your friend, Papa Ken. He delivered a message that the membership needs to hear. Whether it got through to them remains to be seen.

I'm saddened. I had inferred from your earlier posts that the church was doing this for gay people, not for a range of people; also that it was an effort at outreach. What you describe here, however, is a program designed to get people to return on the church's terms.

That isn't an attempt at dialogue. Merely having the the older woman and the divorcee on the stand meant that the homosexual "problem" became marginal; gay people became just another group of disaffected ex-Mormons who must overcome their dissatisfactions, "repent," and get in line. Whoever arranged that meeting was either insincere in calling for dialogue or duped by higher ranking authorities.

There probably was value for any gay kid in the audience, which is important, but that does not sound at all like a genuine attempt to heal the rifts between the church and LGBTQ people.

Interesting. This sounds like it was exactly as I imagined it.

Personally I wouldn't allow the Mormon church to use me in such a way, I don't care what "message" I thought I was communicating.

You can't really believe they meant this for anything other than their own gain, however twisted that might be.

notmonotloggedin

I got there early and nabbed a primo parking spot and backed in, so that I could make a quick escape, should that become a factor. I was dressed in brown slacks and a brownish sports coat, pink shirt and an obnoxious 100% silk tie. And I showed up all Mexican-looking, with pretty wild hair. Seriously, I’ve been letting my hair grow out and it’s achieved a fairly wild state. 40 years ago it would have been close to being an Afro, but time has taken its toll and there’s so much thinning going on and now it barely is able to defy gravity.

It was obvious that I was not of a type with which los mormones were familiar. Saucie thinks I looked simply darling, but that’s just Saucie being Saucie...

Despite getting there early, all the center seating was taken. But I had a choice of where to sit on the side rows and grabbed an aisle seat and hung on to it, making White people step by me, like in the movie theatre. Four of them did so. The first two, a couple, slid all the way down to the far end of our side row. It wasn’t until it got crowded and they opened the overflow curtains that two older women asked me if I were saving seats. When I said I wasn’t, they may have expected me to move down, but I didn’t.

The older lady who ended up sitting next to me did offer to shake my hand. She gave me her first name and I responded with my first name. She then asked what ward I was in. I told her I didn’t know, which obviously piqued her curiosity, but I interrupted that flow of discourse and asked her what this meeting was all about. She said she didn’t know and said that she was a very recent convert (probably why she didn't 'mormon-ignore me) and was simply aware that the meeting was scheduled, so she and her friend showed up. She then gushed about how wonderful her life had become because she’d converted. I “uh-huh’d” at the appropriate intervals and then the meeting began. I do recall that once she joined the church, her doctors finally started figuring out what her medicals needs were, and were meeting those needs, so yay! Baptism!

The presiding dude welcomed us to the Saturday evening session of stake conference, which was being presided over by Elder Clayton, and the program was reviewed, in terms of who was speaking and their order, which was nice because there was no written program. Then we sang #336 in a songbook with which I had no familiarity. I sang with gusto because, in for a penny, in for a pound. I retain no recollection whatsoever of the opening prayer. And yes, I peeked.

Then came the first speaker, the grandmother. Hers was the only talk I heard in its entirety because she spoke with measured tones that my one good ear was able to completely decipher. She started off by stating that she had had many doubts about the veracity of the church, because she’d been influenced by friends who had retired from participating in the church. I took the gist of her talk to be that despite all the horrible answers to “secondary” questions, the church was true because the answers to the “primary” questions make it so.

Secondary questions are ones like “was Joseph Smith imperfect?”, “did Joseph marry women who already had husbands”, “has church history been purified?”, “was the church racist in its past?”, etc. She acknowledged that the list of secondary questions gets longer and longer, right? And because of research she’d done, there was a time that she doubted the divinity of TSCC.

BUT!!!!...Thanks to more research, and guidance from SLC, she was able to understand that those secondary questions DON’T MATTER! What matters are the four Primary Questions: 1) Is there a heavenly father; 2) Is his son Jesus Christ; 3) Was Joseph Smith a prophet; 4) Is the COJCOL-DS the one true church?

And you, yes YOU!, can answer yes to all four by using the four correct ways to learn truth. These four methodologies are Scientific, Analytical, Academic & Divine. And she explained how each system works, and how each one proves the correct responses for the four Primary Questions! And once those are taken care of, the secondary questions become mere piffle, they don’t matter!!! The big truths ingest, digest and then crap the silly secondary questions, and their answers, leaving the church to be true! True I say…in Jesus name, amen.

Next was the Crying Lady, the second in the parade of mormon “cripples”, which I’ll explain in a bit. She is divorced. She remembers vividly kneeling at the altar in the temple, across from her WORTHY husband and knowing that she was now a participant in the gospel plan of Eternal Salvation! Growing up devotedly Catholic helped her really appreciate the temple experience because it’s so like Catholicism: recite a lot, repetitively, stand up, sit down, fight, fight, fight.

If she explained how the divorce came about, I didn’t hear it. There was a good deal of crying, and she’d brought her own little crying towel, rather than depend on the box of tissues next to the lectern. Then we learned, I think, that after the divorce she decided to get her AA. Then she got her BA, and went on to get her MA, all in six years. And she ran 13 miles that morning. (That was impressive! But she later mentioned, I think, routinely running 32 miles, and how without running she’d probably have screaming fits because life is so…lifeish.) Then there was more crying as she recounted how when doing temple work, she would not do sealings, but finally she girded up her loins and did some sealings and it brought back to her just how wonderful ghawd’s plan is! And I waited for her to say, “ghawd will match me up with someone worthy!” but she didn’t. Quite the letdown… But the big finish was there: Families are Forever and she loves everyone.

During Crying Lady’s talk, when she was praising how much the temple meant to her, I asked the lady next to me if she’d been yet. She said she was preparing herself. “Yay!”, I said back to her. We never spoke again.

Then came Scott Osmond, whose name I didn’t know until papaken revealed it to me in his report. Scott’s speech pattern was bad for those with less than perfect hearing. I probably missed a good third of what he was saying. He reviewed the shock and surprise that it was when his door was knocked on and it was some mormon officials. His immediate intuitive leap was that he was going to be given notice of his very own personal Court of Love. But the visit was to invite him to speak! He mentioned that another Gay man had been invited to speak at the previous stake conference, and gave that man’s name. Until papaken corrected it above, I’d had the impression that Scott was an active member of the church. So I’m now doubly gob-smacked that Scott was up there speaking! WTF, man!!

And it was at this point that my “bunch of cripples” notion occurred to me: the Doubter who came back, the Divorcee making a go of the gospel, and now the Gay guy, whose purpose for being there still escapes me. But I then had the follow-up notion, maybe the GA was going to tie it up with a nice ribbon and we’ll know the church’s position in these arenas.

With regard to Scott’s talk, I missed a lot of detail because I couldn’t understand a lot of what he was saying. I completely missed his name, which he revealed to much laughter, after the story of Lee(?) the bus driver who shielded Scott for years from the bullying he endured from his school bus mates. Scott said that he knew he was Gay from a very early age and asked, “Do you know what it’s like to grow up Gay in Utah with the last name Osmond?” Only I didn’t hear “Osmond”, so thanks to papaken for that info. The audience thought it was funny and there was laughter.

But I did hear Scott tell us all that ghawd loves him and ghawd has included him in the Plan. Yes, ghawd loves him as a Gay man and made him that way, and he’s grateful he is a Gay man. Yes, he used that phrasing, that he is grateful to be a Gay man. Scott believes that all that he endured is just part of the plan. His two years of missionary service in Denmark were all part of it and no one should judge the Gays, they should just love them.

Then Clayton jumped up to invite a young couple to come up and bear their testimonies. This was apparently a surprise to everyone. The young couple went up to the stand together and I didn’t make any notes, so I now can’t remember (I’m old!) what the male said that made people laugh, and then when it was the female’s turn, she remarked that “…only Elder Clayton could make me do this…” and then started a tearful testimony, but then Clayton got up, tapped her on the shoulder, said something to her and then she finished quickly with the usual stuff … in Jesus name, amen. Then they returned to their seats.

Then came the what-else-could-he-be-but-Gay man who’d been sitting completely alone, with a zone of avoidance around him, who got up, went to the podium, waited while the lectern was raised by remote control, and then sang his song, with a rich baritone. Quite lovely… something about what a nice ghawd Jesus is, or something along those lines. Later Elder Clayton confirmed something I suspected, when he said, “I’ve never heard that song before.” Meaning Ballard would have had a hissy fit!

Then came the out-going Mission President and his wife. They have finished up their three years and will be released next month. They stood together at the mic as each spoke, each with an arm around the other. He explained that first we’d hear from his wife and then he’d wrap it up. I don’t recall anything she said. Sad, huh? But I do remember the guy’s talk. He actually said something useful, from the LDS point of view. (Unless you’re a missionary!) He said that the best thing to do to convert people is just to say, “Come and see...”. And by living a good life and letting people see you live this good life, you, too, can convert a neighbor, like they did. They would invite this neighbor family to do things with them and by their example, they were able to impress the father of that family. It took a while, but the father finally converted. The wife and kids weren’t having it, but they got the dad! All by just being friends and Good Examples!

Now, how would that fly with this MP’s charges, his missionaries? “Hey, we’re the missionaries! Let’s all just hang out and have fun together and by the example of our monastic life styles, you’ll eventually have the then current set of missionaries baptize you because of the examples we all set for you, six to twelve weeks at a time!

Finally, Clayton comes to the stand. And I was certain that he would review the talks given by the mormon ‘cripples’: the Doubter, the Divorcee & the Gay man, and explain how the gospel plan, as carried out by the ‘Complete & Whole’ members, needed to include these ‘cripples’ as full partners! Made sense to me!
But Clayton never made reference to any of the previous speakers. Instead, he harped on REPENTANCE!!!

But he did mention Rusty, which I enjoyed. Clayton said that the GAs, meaning the Big 15 and the 70s, those that are in town, meet the first Thursday of every month in the temple. That first meeting, after Rusty was sworn in, he, Rusty, promised to listen carefully to what ghawd tells him and to give us this truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. All the GAs in attendance were SO EXCITED! Rusty is the real deal and he’s doing the lord’s work and the lord is going to work miracles through Rusty!

Then we got to the Repentance message. I recorded all of Clayton's talk, the whole thing, and it’s extremely unlikely that I’ll ever listen to it. Clayton is a very polished speaker and he loves connecting with the little people. He did a power-pointish mini-presentation using his state of the art $5,000+ MacBook, along with a tablet, AND a cell phone when the tablet took a dump. He had a microphone passed around and had different people read power point items displayed on the big screen and then Clayton would comment. Early on, he seemed to be encouraging audience participation; he asked us all to raise our hands. “No! Higher!! Get those arms ups! Now be sure to raise you arm if you want to comment!” But that trend never really developed. It was just, 'next reader!' And then Clayton would comment.

I learned that Alma is his homeboy! But which Alma? We revisited good ol’ Mosiah 3:19…Wheeee! Then he told a story about converting someone as a missionary and the purge they did of the guy’s house, removing inappropriate videos, naughty books, etc., including all the guy’s Coca Cola. Then they go with him to church and follow the bishop into the parking lot and park next to him, and when they all get out, a Coke can dropped out of the bishop’s car. Oops! Everyone laughs! And I’m wondering, did the convert laugh when it happened?

Recall that I was interested in going because I was curious about the possibility that the church had a plan for upping the status of the Gays in mormonosity. Were they onto to something that would get the enlightened segment of humanity off their backs regarding the church’s treatment of the Gays? ...And the other ‘cripples’, as viewed currently by the church, the Doubters and the Divorced/Alone…

Nope. Nada. Same old, same old. Repent! Toe the line! Be faithful to the end! Prattle, prattle, prattle! And he was so goddam full of himself! He knows all these things are true, and everyone should listen to him and things will be fine! There is no secret plan for plugging up the hole in the hull caused by the manner in which the church has treated and does treat the Gays.

Could Scott Osmond, even as a faithful Gay member, go to the temple? And if he could, why would he?

Is there a way out of the Gay quandary for the church? Not in any way that would allow the church to be the same Restored Gospel Joe Smith revealed/made up.

So on one level I don’t regret the time I spent attending this meeting. I have DVR, but didn't even set anything to be recorded. I would have been breathing in and breathing out wherever I was during this time...

But on the levels that kinda really count with me, I loathed and detested what I endured. There was no physical trauma, and I’ll quickly shake off any mental trauma. I already knew, as in strongly suspected, that there are mormons who appear to be toeing the line and that there will always be mormons who pledge their loyalty to the church. But I sincerely believe that the percentage that are trying to repent and become perfect little morgbots is dwindling. And will continue to dwindle. Attending this meeting, in my mind, helps confirm this. What a colossal waste of dressing up and doing nothing.

After the closing song, which I remembered from my past, and which I thought was sung too dirge-like, the closing prayer dismissed us. I hung around, hoping to say hi to papaken, and maybe even get a chance to shake hands with Scott Osmond, with maybe a chance to gain further light and knowledge regarding just what the hell he thinks is going on!!

I positioned myself in the now deserted middle of the center seating section, amongst the folding chairs in the overflow area, about 10 feet back of the line the curtain makes when it’s closed. I was now in my own empty space of avoidance. There were the usual small, medium and large groups of people chatting with each other. I stood there for 12 minutes by the clock. I think I ID’d some Gay men who’d possibly shown up to support Bro. Osmond. Was I correct? I have no idea. The bon homie was thick, but very contained. Heads were tilting back to allow hearty laughter to blossom, but the sound wasn’t carrying.

The scrums at the front of the chapel, the people around Clayton, the people around Bro. Osmond, remained in place that entire time. And there didn’t seem to be any signs of it slackening any time soon. And in thinking back, I have no idea what happened to Doubting lady and the Divorcee. I don’t think there were any scrums around them. If there were, they were very small scrums.

And then I decided that enough was enough. I walked out of the building, passing people and being studiously ignored. It had to be the hair…

Thank you for that.

Regarding the "cripples," I got the same impression. If it is a meeting about homosexuals and the church, the speakers should have been homosexuals and church people. By bringing in the other freaks, the church made it a freak show--with gays being just another category of freaks. Instead of a dialogue between different groups about a single problem, it became the church versus every disenchanted group. And when dealing with such a menagerie, there can only be one message from the powerful: get in line. From the gay perspective, this "dialogue" was set up to fail from the beginning.

And Clayton, isn't he the one who accompanied Ballard on his tour of trouble spots just before Kate Kelly, John Dehlin and a couple others were excommunicated? If I'd seen his name on the program ahead of time, I'd have lost interest. He is not a negotiator or community builder: he's a storm trooper.

> He is not a negotiator or
> community builder: he's a
> storm trooper.

Clayton did rhapsodize about admiring what a War Horse Ballard is! That was a phrase I wrote down, "Ballard is a War Horse".

But I will credit Clayton in that he is not bombastic. And his threats were of the "I'll be so sad if you don't make" back-handed style.

Obviously I dislike the person I saw doing his churchy GA thing, but he's in for the penny as well as the pound. The church is getting its money's worth with him and morgbots eat that crap up.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> And then I decided that enough was enough. I
> walked out of the building, passing people and
> being studiously ignored. It had to be the
> hair…

This post es la bomba x a zillion! THANK YOU!

Thank you EOD. Only with your point of view could this have been interesting at all. Exactly what I thought it would be. The Mormons provided the perfect set-up with the other speakers to devaluate Scott's speech.

It's like giving them a little of the bad stuff a little at a time to innoculate, to built a resistance. This was a booster shot and nothing more.

I hope it did Scott some good. I would bet it did.


For me, it was so important for me to have my family know who I really was and why exactly I had left their church and that I had NOT TESTIMONY WHATSOEVER. (That was for you cl2) And I think that is what Scott got out of it perhaps. Leaving tall. It matters.



Life is so, well, . . . lifeish! Gotta love that term.

Those people just aren't used to seeing such a handsome

Man, or it could be that "I belonga Saucie" embroidered

on the back of you jacket.

Thanks for the return & report, PapaKen. It was nice of you to support your friend.

So you advertised a a mormon stake conference meeting and invited rfm to come multiple times. Some people (including yours truly) called you out and said it would be a bunch of preaching, calls to repent, and a scheme to bring people back to the fold. Other people (eod) said my view was "bullshit."

You and EOD went. Turns out, it was a bunch of preaching, calls to repentance, and a scheme to bring people back to the fold. EOD and you both describe it this way. And as very boring.

Now, who was right? Hint: it wasn't you, papaken, and it wasn't eod.

Here's the quote:

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

An interesting take. Also utter bullshit.



My commentary was on your middle statement: "This is proselyting."

It was never proselyting. You were wrong then and you're wrong now. But I like how proud you are.

I was as clear and as concise as is possible for someone born with terminal loquaciousness. He wasn't proselyting and the whole point was to see if the church was 'up to something new' with regard to the Gay situation. It was a 20-minute drive for me and there was nothing on TV to tempt me. In the long run, I'm glad I went. Know thy enemy.

Yes, yes, you hate the church, but it pays to keep tabs on one's enemies. Thankfully there was no fire, just a lot of bullcrap smoke.

Everything is planned.

The narrative is controlled.

The church delivers its propaganda.

I think most of us knew how this meeting was going to play out; just like their contrived court of love.

Here's what I think is scaring the bejesus out of the church: Many members are tolerant (and some love) the gays; especially in liberal California. The church is scared silly that members will go against the church leadership and not follow their bigotry.

Yes

But why, WHY, was an inactive mormon/active Gay man asked to speak at a session of Stake Conference?

I still don't know, much less understand, their motivation.

He's actively Gay, meaning that if they wanted to, they could excommunicate him, as he admitted knowing.

was it just a brain fart and they hoped ghawd would make something magical happen?

Yes, the west coast major cities are WAY more Gay tolerant than most of the rest of the country.

Maybe it's as simple as, "Hey, we let a Gay man speak in church! See? We're tolerant! Don't go freakin' out about us being intolerant! Believe what is best for us and forget the facts!"

I'm completely in the dark about Bro. Osmond's motivation. He may believe that there's a ghawd and that ghawd made him the way he is and that ghawd loves him, but what has that got to do with mormonism, which does not share in the last two of those three beliefs.

It could also be that there were competing agendas behind the meeting. Perhaps the SP wanted to do something progressive, something pro-equality, but that he checked with SLC and they said to let Clayton participate. Then Clayton changed the format to de-emphasize the local leaders' priorities.

The meeting sounds like it evolved away from the stated purpose. Clayton's record indicates to me that he is just the sort to insist on that.

When people started to sit on the stand, the mission presidency couple were at my far left, as I sat in the audience. Then came the Doubter lady and then the Divorcee, and then a nonentity/announcer, then Bro. Clayton.

Then there were empty seats, another nonentity, an empty seat and then bearded Bro. Osmond. Before the meeting began, Clayton moved over and sat in the empty seat, between the nonentity and Bro. Osmond.

After Osmond spoke, Bro. Clayton put his arm around the back of Osmond's chair, signaling his approval.

I failed to notice what Clayton did after the final prayer. But in the 'scrumming' that followed, Clayton remained on the stand, surrounded by devotees, while Osmond came down off the stand, to mingle right there in front of the stand, with his fans. There were a lot of people around him, and I suppose that that was where papaken was. There were a number of scrums between where I was standing and Bro. Osmond's little grouping.

I'm wondering if the agenda changed beforehand.

Something like SP and others plan the thing, then ask SLC. SLC says yes, so SP invited PK's friend. Then SLC "suggests" adding some other "crippled" groups like intellectuals and divorced women. The local leaders are upset but feel they have to obey. So what started as a "dialogue with gay people" becomes "empathy for cripples who have trouble walking the narrow path." With this, homosexuals have been downgraded from the central topic to one of several marginal concerns subsumed under the subject "reactivating those who have strayed."

By this point the progressives have lost the war. The SP and his friends hope they can still claw out some sort of statement of recognition of, and openness to, homosexuality," but this is a rearguard action. Then Clayton steps in with the "repent" mantra, indicating that gays, intellectuals, and disenchanted intellectuals are all sinners and must repent by resuming full activity. If something like this is what happened, then the SP was sincere but was outmaneuvered by SLC in the form of Clayton.

Powerful bureaucracies often win by changing the speaking order, adding another speaker or two, and then doing the closing peroration. They can say "yes" to the locals and then smilingly, quietly, impose a "no."

Home field advantage and an insane (really, check their meds) fan base.

Elderoldog,

I sat on the next-to-the-last row of cushioned pews, on the left bank. My daughter and SIL sat with me. We didn't speak to anyone else.

After the meeting, we went to the back of the chapel where there were other gay friends of Scott's, as well as Scott's family members. I stayed in that area until we all left.

I never saw anyone fitting your description, although I did look around for you several times.

My conversations and picture-taking with Scott's friends and family took up all the time before we had to leave.

Again, I'm sorry we didn't connect.

>"But why, WHY, was an inactive mormon/active Gay man asked to speak at a session of Stake Conference?"

Based on what I remember about these types of things. The "GA" at the meeting sets the theme for the meeting and hammers it home with their talk. From what both you and PapaKen describe, the message was was "Repent and come back", with heavy focus on "Repent". They trotted out a bunch of people who had left for "sinning" or "questioning" but who were either back in full, or were people they could convince to speak to make it look like it was a good idea to stay (i.e. Scott Osmond). It's pretty clear from the agenda of the meeting; doubters and sinners who at one point left, a missionary message, and a REPENT! message (with multimedia!) to wrap things up.

>"Maybe it's as simple as, 'Hey, we let a Gay man speak in church!...'"

Sure they want to look tolerant, but I think there's more to it than that. They got an inactive gay man to come to their Stake Conference to speak at a meeting about Repentance. Think of the message that sends. It fits right in with "Repent and come back" or even, "Repent and don't leave in the first place".

I don't know if they outright lied to him about the purpose of the meeting or if it changed later. It's likely that the theme of the meeting was set before they spoke to PapaKen's friend. The Bishop knew about Scott and thought he'd fit right in, with this message about outreach to the LGBT+ community. Except that's not exactly what the meeting was about. It was about getting those who had left or, more likely, those who were thinking about leaving, to repent of such thoughts and say.

The point of having a gay man speak was to legitimize their message. "Scott believes that all that he endured is just part of the plan." This is the part of his talk that will be be used if anyone comes to a bishop in the Stake asking about their "troubles" with homosexuality. "It's all part of the plan" they will say, "You must endure"... And very likely, "You must endure alone, unless you think you can marry a someone of the opposite sex in the temple. Don't worry, God will fix you when you're dead."

Maybe I'm cynical. I want to say, and I honestly hope, that Scott's talk was heard by some and it helps them. But the message from the top seems to be the same old message of hopelessness if you don't fit the mold. Live a celibate life or marry someone you don't truly love and be miserable. They used PapaKen's friend to sell it.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But why, WHY, was an inactive mormon/active Gay

Easy. He was invited to speak because then they can say they did, he was allowed to speak so they can say he was.

It's how they work. Marie Osmond "supported" her gay daughter's wedding this week to show how "supporting", "loving" and wonderful she is (and Mormonism by association). However, in the comments on her social media posts many are raising the question of whether or not Mormonism is "for" gay marriage and pointing out the duplicity of Marie's endorsement.

messygoop Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Everything is planned.
>
> The narrative is controlled.
>
> The church delivers its propaganda.
>
> I think most of us knew how this meeting was going
> to play out;


Then why were some people here urging attendance? Did they hope to witness the great turning point so they could see that it was safe to return to the mormon church?

> Here's what I think is scaring the bejesus out of
> the church: Many members are tolerant (and some
> love) the gays; especially in liberal California.
> The church is scared silly that members will go
> against the church leadership and not follow their
> bigotry.

I agree with this. But no matter how accepting the mormon church becomes, it will never be time to go back.

> Then why were some people
> here urging attendance?

Urging attendance? Really? That's how you read it?



> Did they hope to witness
> the great turning point
> so they could see that it
> was safe to return to the
> mormon church?


Thank ghawd you're here to read between the lines for everyone else! You've saved them all.

Just move on. Either learn from it or pretend it never happened.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

Was he or was he not urging people to attend? Did you or did you not attend? Was it or was it not same old preaching and crying repentance?

> Just move on.

Good advice. Maybe try following it yourself.

Reminds me of the grieving mother who’s lost a child. You think she’ll move on? When a church pisses away your youth for filthy lucre, it’s not so easy to let it go. They might keep doing it, for example.

Did you have a Special Witness of Jesus Christ present at your SC and say something like this (at the 16-minute mark)?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWCDkd7sBTs

This is not some old speech. This was less than 24 hours ago.

Wow!

I’m a little disappointed that the corporation is protecting itself from the maniacs at the wheel.

The GA said (wrt homosexuality) "this an issue of doctrine, and it's not going to change."

Well, Mr. GA, there were "doctrines" of polygamy, and "doctrines" of anti-black racism. And those doctrines changed.

So how do you know that the "doctrine" against homosexuals won't change?

Smarter than God? HA!

"Policy" means something will change within the next two years. "Doctrine" means it won't change for a decade. The GA just told you that the church's position regarding homosexuality won't change for at least a decade.

But then, at that point, you'd better take your vitamins!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2019 01:09PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The GA just told you that the
> church's position regarding homosexuality won't
> change for at least a decade.

I think he might be a prophet after all.

One thing consistent in Mormonism seems to me to be the anthropomorphism of an alien creator near Kolob into a holy couple with a couple of kids - one embodied and the other one not.

The female of the couple isn't even seen let alone heard.

Mormonism is literally Celestial heterosexuality governed from a galaxy far, far, away.

recent shenanigans.

I don't know why they asked Scott Osmond to speak, but I wanted to hear how things turned out. AND I think he had a message to those gays and family members and friends of gays who were there.

I went and let them take my picture at the temple after my daughter's wedding at a great emotional cost. I didn't realize how huge the cost could be emotionally, but I did it and I did it for my daughter. It was the last place I wanted to be and I'll never set foot there again (as even if she has kids and they get married in the temple I'll probably be long gone by then).

But just because we do something like go support a gay friend as he speaks in SC doesn't mean we are enemies of the exmo movement or something. I liked what EOD had to say about "know your enemies."

Know your enemies, and know those of your friends and relatives who need your love.

There's nothing wrong with reaching out to those who, still stuck in a church that condemns them, need emotional support. First, save a life; second, worry about religion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2019 08:53PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> First, save a life;
> second, worry about religion.

NO.

First, save oneself.

Saving others? Please.

Same ol' Mormon arrogance. You still fancy yourself a savior?

Break free.

What the fuck?

I didn't go. I'm not gay. I have, however, seen gay kids depressed and knew one who killed himself. I also know a bishop who uncomfortably let a member rant about how God loves gay people and then found out that his deacon son was a budding homosexual who had benefited greatly from that speech. That bishop, and his son, feel that the speaker made a big difference for them and for others.

So no, I don't think of myself as a savior. But people who are gay or who can speak to homosexuality can, and in many cases do, save lives.

If you want to deny that fact, or belittle it, that's on you.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/09/2019 11:55PM by Lot's Wife.

Your judgmentalism may be hobbling your empathy.

Lot's wife has a wonderful point of view and a lot heart when it comes to the gay kids stuck in the hell of a religion.

Thank, PapaKen. Nothing new really. Nothing unexpected. But I do feel like I know why Scott needed to do this and I would bet it did him some good.

I am relieved he did not send the wrong message to the young gay kids although I think the meeting in it's entirety did.

It was interesting to see how the church ordered and orchestrated their folk on the fringe.

Older folks who were taught lies.

People who can't maintain the eternal marriage status.

Gay people.

Sprinkled between them were the eternal marriage examples young and old.

Urp! I think I threw up a little.

I've been the one who can't maintain marriage status, but I can't claim to be a gay. I was a single until 27. There is no room for any of these people in mormonism.

It is about time that all this anti-gay stuff ends in every aspect of life and not just mormonism. Just let them live as gays. What is so wrong with that? I'm so thrilled to see my nephew's son being able to BE GAY and having parents who support him and love him. My nephew and his wife are 2 of the nicest people you'll ever meet. They actually had this son when she was 15 and he was 19. They got married when their son was 2. And they've been married 16 years. Son got a scholarship and has done really well. He was quiet and shy for a long time and no longer is. I'm so thrilled to see a child who is loved by all who know him and accept him as he is. Even my mormon sister. She has watched out for him as she is a teacher and moved from one school to another to be able to make sure he wasn't bullied.

And I'm "saved"--I'M OUT. I will be there for my daughter even if she is TBM until I die. As somehow, some way, I made it out and NOBODY ever thought I would.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/10/2019 12:27PM by cl2.

Hugs & Kisses are nice.
Thanks for the report.
Never go back again!

If I were anywhere close, I'd have been happy to go to be supportive (unfortunately, I'm on the east coast).

I can understand that it could be meaningful for Scott Osmond to just be able to stand there and honestly say "this is who I am."

Sadly, as others have noted above, I think it was designed to fail, and from the TBM perspective it'll be easy for the unthinking morgbots to all say, "see, we lovingly invited him in, even let him speak, but HE rejected the gospel." It's a blame game.

Gordon B. Stinky Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I can understand that it could be meaningful for
> Scott Osmond to just be able to stand there and
> honestly say "this is who I am."

I can't understand this.

I think poster children at least support the cause they allow their image to be associated with?

Mormons will be deluded into thinking Mormonism supports gay people with this activity in my opinion.