PDA

View Full Version : Letter to the Faithful - First Presidency Letter on SSM



DrumNFeather
07-01-2015, 06:41 AM
I've decided to start a new thread for this discussion, since it deals specifically with what the church intends to do moving forward on Sundays as it pertains to the supreme court ruling.

Here's the article from PFS: http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2682018-155/top-mormon-leaders-sending-letter-to

And here's the specifics from the Mormon newsroom: http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/top-church-leaders-counsel-members-after-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision

Obviously the opinions on this will be far reaching, and, as is typical, this will be a "where you sit is where you stand" kind of issue. That said, I'm interested to see how this approach works at a local level.

The letter is intended to be used as a discussion point in Sunday School or 3rd hour for all adults and youth. I've read some cynical responses as to why the youth are being included in the discussion, but hey, the youth haven't been included before, and most of the Progmos have called for better exposure to big issues for the youth, so there you have it.

It should make for an interesting Sunday over the next few weeks, that's for sure. No doubt there will be some hand wringing as well.

I'm in primary, so I doubt I'll get a chance to be a part of it, so I'll be curious to hear what your experiences are.

DrumNFeather
07-01-2015, 06:42 AM
Here's someone who has openly decided to post why he won't be attending during these discussions: https://medium.com/@ungewissen/missing-church-in-july-928e90931ee1

And another perspective: http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2015/06/dear-bishop/

LA Ute
07-01-2015, 07:20 AM
I'll be in Newport Beach this Sunday. It'll be interesting to see how this is discussed there.

DrumNFeather
07-01-2015, 07:49 AM
I'll be in Newport Beach this Sunday. It'll be interesting to see how this is discussed there.

Let me ask you this, if you were leading the discussion in your ward, how would you do it? What would your approach be?

UtahsMrSports
07-01-2015, 08:34 AM
Here's someone who has openly decided to post why he won't be attending during these discussions: https://medium.com/@ungewissen/missing-church-in-july-928e90931ee1

And another perspective: http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org/2015/06/dear-bishop/

I hadnt put two and two together that it was fast sunday..........oh boy. Fast sunday in july can sometimes bring out the political rant testimonies. This should only add to it. I just hope that church leaders are prayerful and thoughtful with this. A discussion like this can do a lot of good.

As a side note, this made me think of testimony meeting as a missionary. I remember working my tail off to get people to church and then I would be sweating profusely the whole time worrying that somebody or somebodies would turn testimony meeting into a train wreck. Now, I more or less just pop some popcorn and enjoy!

LA Ute
07-01-2015, 08:53 AM
Let me ask you this, if you were leading the discussion in your ward, how would you do it? What would your approach be?

Well, I'm out of the bishopric now so I won't get that assignment! If I were, I'd advise the bishop to read the letter, as instructed, then lead a discussion. He knows the stories of people in the ward and can tailor his approach to be sensitive to their concerns and feelings. Our ward is very diverse, ethnically and culturally, so I wish I could be there Sunday. Our current bishop is a fascinating guy - Puerto Rican, grew up in Mew York City; probably a Democrat; his daughter was our beloved seminary teacher for several years and is an outspoken Democrat who celebrated the SCOTUS decision last Friday. I think he'll stick to the FP/Q12 doctrinal guidance and will emphasize love and kindness and patience. If I were his counselor and he asked me for advice, that's what I'd say he should do.

EDIT: I agree with sancho. I'd do the youth separately.

wally
07-01-2015, 09:38 AM
Frankly, I am tired of this discussion. I have read the official statement and it does not clarify anything, it does not inspire me, it does not enlighten me. It just seems like, a statement because, well, they couldn't just say nothing at church the next week, could they?

My biggest hope for what can come out of this whole thing, is for the church leadership and bureaucracy to have developed a general distaste for political endeavors beyond the Utah bubble, and by hell I do love my Utah bubble! Sometimes I wonder if prop 8 was Elder Oaks' Martin Harris moment? Oh well, glad my only job in this is to make sure I show up to clean the ward building and make sure that the teenage boys don't get into trouble on Wednesdays between 7-9 pm.

Dwight Schr-Ute
07-01-2015, 09:42 AM
Statistically speaking, in every congregation where these discussions will be taking place, there will be at least one person among them that at least struggles with their sexual identity. I would hope that knowing such things would help retain the conversation in civility and understanding.

Dwight Schr-Ute
07-01-2015, 09:48 AM
Frankly, I am tired of this discussion. I have read the official statement and it does not clarify anything, it does not inspire me, it does not enlighten me. It just seems like, a statement because, well, they couldn't just say nothing at church the next week, could they?

My biggest hope for what can come out of this whole thing, is for the church leadership and bureaucracy to have developed a general distaste for political endeavors beyond the Utah bubble, and by hell I do love my Utah bubble! Sometimes I wonder if prop 8 was Elder Oaks' Martin Harris moment? Oh well, glad my only job in this is to make sure I show up to clean the ward building and make sure that the teenage boys don't get into trouble on Wednesdays between 7-9 pm.

Maybe because I'm cynical, but it seems like this official statement isn't so much a response to the SCOTUS ruling as much as a response to the debate regarding Elder Christofferson's comments about supporting such rulings on social media. The official statement seemed to have a much stronger tone than with less wiggle room.

LA Ute
07-01-2015, 10:03 AM
Statistically speaking, in every congregation where these discussions will be taking place, there will be at least one person among them that at least struggles with their sexual identity. I would hope that knowing such things would help retain the conversation in civility and understanding.

Reading posts like this (and yours is not the only one) I wonder what other wards are like. Judging from the level of dread I see many people expressing about what to expect, it sounds like there are some really foolish statements being made by people who should know better. I'm sorry people have to deal with that. I'm not bragging about my ward and stake, just feeling fortunate to be in it. The ward we attend when we are in Salt Lake (on the eastern end of the Avenues) is a lot like my home ward, but probably very different from wards in the suburbs of the Wasatch Front, Phoenix and Las Vegas. Our clannishness as a people doesn't serve us well in areas where our members are highly concentrated.

#1 Utefan
07-01-2015, 10:08 AM
I'm tired of this entire issue and discussion. With all the problems in this country and the world, it seems it is time to move on. I don't expect the LDS church to ever marry gay people in temples or chapels so I'm not sure why it was necessary to issue a statement. Since they did, I am even more surprised why any member of the church or non-LDS person would be surprised or offended by it. The LDS and other churches aren't going to change their stances on this issue because of a 5-4 Supreme Court vote along party lines.

I have no doubt the next step is for those deeply invested in this debate is to attempt to take away tax exempt status from churches refusing to conduct gay weddings in their places of worship. I think that writing is on the wall. The only question is how many of these churches will cave and which ones will stick to their guns? Time will tell but I don't think the LDS church stance on this issue will change in my lifetime if ever. If this bothers or comes as a surprise to any church members, it shouldn't.

Personally, as I stated before, this discussion and national debate has become exhausting. I'd just assume move on and discuss real issues. Utah sports anyone?

wally
07-01-2015, 10:19 AM
Maybe because I'm cynical, but it seems like this official statement isn't so much a response to the SCOTUS ruling as much as a response to the debate regarding Elder Christofferson's comments about supporting such rulings on social media. The official statement seemed to have a much stronger tone than with less wiggle room.

I do not read any lds blogs or discussion sites, and a brief google search left me without any clearer understanding of the "debate regarding Elder Christofferson's comments about supporting such rulings on social media", so I am going to assume that it is in response to the SCOTUS ruling that has dominated all major news outlets. I am still interested in what Christofferson said though, just can't find it.

LA Ute
07-01-2015, 10:40 AM
I do not read any lds blogs or discussion sites, and a brief google search left me without any clearer understanding of the "debate regarding Elder Christofferson's comments about supporting such rulings on social media", so I am going to assume that it is in response to the SCOTUS ruling that has dominated all major news outlets. I am still interested in what Christofferson said though, just can't find it.

Here is the interview in question:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XybDk3CEoHg

EDIT:

Some key portions, for purposes of the present discussion:

Daniel Woodruff:
“Members of the LDS Church have been watching this too, around the the country, and it brings up the question as they’re dealing with these issues, maybe within their families, they’re trying to understand how maybe religious freedom applies to them within the church. Obviously the church has its doctrine, but can members of the church, say, support gay marriage, or other things that are related to this bill, that the Church teaches against? Can they support that?”


Elder Christofferson:
“Well there is a diversity of opinion among church members in that regard. And you know that’s always been true, I guess, on many subjects over the years, over the decades, and we don’t have qualms about that. I mean people, we urge people to take part, for example, in the political process and we don’t tell them how to vote or who to vote for, but that they exercise their own good judgment and and make their decisions. Obviously that’s different than when somebody attacks the church you know, per se, or tries to hinder its work. But anybody pursuing their view of what ought to happen in the community– that’s what we hope to see frankly. And in a way you saw it here in the legislature. The vast majority of legislators in Utah are members the LDS Church, and you see a wide variety of opinions in them and among them as you do in our, at the federal level in the US and in other countries. So we, if we’re trying to get everybody to sing the same song and say exactly the same thing we’re failing miserably.”


[…]

Daniel Woodruff:
“I know that in one of the temple recommend interview questions it asks, “do you agree with elements that are against the church?” and I guess, I mean, could it be interpreted that if people supported gay marriage that would be agreeing with something that was against the church?”


Elder Christofferson:
“Well, it’s not do you agree with a person’s position or an organization’s position, it is are you supporting, are you supporting organizations that promote opposition, or positions in opposition to the church.”


Daniel Woodruff:
“So would supporting gay marriage threaten somebody’s membership in the church? If they went out, say, on Facebook or Twitter and actively advocated for it?”

Elder Christofferson:
“No. That’s not an organized, you know, effort to attack our effort or attack our functioning as a church, if you will.”

Daniel Woodruff:
“So members can hold those beliefs even though they’re different from what you teach at the pulpit?”

Elder Christofferson:
“Yes and we, you know, our approach in all of this, as Joseph Smith said, is persuasion. You can’t, He said you can’t use the priesthood and the authority of the church to dictate– you can’t compel, you can’t coerce– it has to be gentleness, persuasion, love unfeigned, as the words are in the scripture.”
[…]


Daniel Woodruff:
“We’ve reported on your situation, you have a brother who is gay, and you’ve talked about how that has impacted your family. Has that, personally for you, has that family dynamic impacted at all how you’ve approached this issue– how you’ve approached publicly advocating, as an apostle, for SB296?”

Elder Christofferson:
“No. The the real genesis of, of the movement, if you will, behind these issues has been a matter of counseling together as we do in the church. We operate by councils: there’s the Quorum of the Twelve, which is a council, the First Presidency, is a council, and at the ward, the local levels, and the stake levels, we rely heavily on counseling together to determine which way to go and to, as a way of facilitating revelation and inspiration and receiving guidance that way. So it’s not one person says, you know, because of this experience that I’ve had in my life this is how we need to do it. But it’s this sharing of past experience, sharing of knowledge and background, but it’s after everything else a search for revelation– a search to know what the Lord’s will is and that’s what we try to follow.”

[…]

Daniel Woodruff:
“What would you say to those members who wonder, is it possible: would the church ever, one day, accept monogamous same-sex marriage or move further beyond the position that you’re currently at?”

Elder Christofferson:
“I don’t think so, because that’s such a fundamental aspect of what we see as the purpose of life. You know, we talk about the plan of salvation as we call it, and take into account the pre-mortal existence, this current existence, and what comes hereafter– marriage between a man and a woman, the family that grows out of that– all of that is so fundamental to what has happened, what needs to happen here, what comes hereafter, that without it falls apart. So I don’t think we can take away the cornerstone without everything else coming down.”

Daniel Woodruff:
“Now, you say you don’t think ..is there.. are leaving any room at all for…”

Elder Christofferson:
“No.”
[…]

[Just as the interview seems over and Elder Christofferson begins to stand up, a different voice from somewhere behind the camera and without a mic, interrupts to ask his own additional question.]

Unidentified Man:
“This has been a divisive issue, in all of society, but I think also within the church– that people are still trying to sort out exactly how they think and feel and how to act and they don’t like feeling like they’re in opposition to the church but they may in their heart feel like marriage equality is something that they have a personal conviction of. What would be your message to those individuals within the church, that are trying desperately to stay within the church, but feel like that because they’re so at odds with what is publicly stated that they no longer feel like they might fit– your message to them? You know the church has done a lot with the I’m a Mormon campaign to emphasize the diversity of the backgrounds and perspectives within the church, but on this issue specifically I think people sometimes feel like it’s in or out.”

Elder Christofferson:
“Well it’s, it’s not an easy thing, and I believe we recognize that. Our hope is that over time, as we stay together and worship together and search for inspiration together, that ways open up for people of all persuasions to come to feel but they’re comfortable here. While they don’t know the eventual outcome and what’s going to happen in the near term– I should say what’s going to happen in the near term, they know the end result can be happiness– a state of happiness, a state of fulfillment, something that God desires for all– and we firmly believe no one is predestined to a second class status and… have a… no one who is is faithful to the commandments and the principles that we teach even though that may involve some very significant sacrifice in the short term (even all of mortal life, if you can call that short term) it’s all worth it in the end because nothing is denied anyone who is faithful. We don’t see all how that comes together, but we have the faith that it does because we have a God who created us all, loves us all, and is gonna give everyone who tries and who is loyal to him everything that he has to give.”

NorthwestUteFan
07-01-2015, 10:51 AM
I also would want to know at which point in the sand the line is drawn regarding discussing/supporting the issue. D. Todd Christopherson said that it is OK for a church member to support marriage equality, but the Instruction to Bishops section of the seems kind of vague as to what constitutes 'influencing others to (engage in homosexual behavior)', but states that the will be subject to church discipline.

Can a local leader define this to mean that marching in a pride parade equals influencing others to engage in homosexual behavior? How about supporting PFLAG? Advocating for lgbt rights on Facebook? Discussing this issue in church or with other members?

The Background Info for Bishops and Branch Presidents also effectively states that members who disagree with the church's position need to pray and read Scriptures until they fall into line. Failing that, they need to talk to the Bishop, who should subsequently send them to the SP.

Here is that Background Info part:




Background Material for Bishops and Branch Presidents
on the U.S. Supreme Court Decision on Same‐sex Marriage

The Church has provided a statement dated June 29, 2015, prepared by the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles regarding the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision legalizing same‐sex marriage in the United States. The response reaffirms the divinely‐revealed reasons and proper doctrinal context for the Church’s unequivocal position regarding matters of morality, chastity, marriage, and the family. As the response notes, the Church’s teachings on these subjects are grounded in the scriptural declarations of God’s eternal plan for the salvation and exaltation of His children and are framed in “The Family: A Proclamation to the World.” While the statement stands on its own, below is additional information that may be helpful to you in responding to questions that may arise.

For much of human history, civil laws have generally been compatible with God’s laws. Unfortunately, there have been notable exceptions to that pattern. For example, it is legal in the United States to perform an abortion on an unborn fetus. However, this practice is not morally acceptable before God. (See Handbook 1: Stake Presidents and Bishops [2010], 17.3). The consumption of alcohol, while contrary to God’s law, is legal in most nations of the world, but the physical and social toll for doing so is a painful matter of record.

So, too, with issues of unchaste sexual behavior, whether it be heterosexual or homosexual in its orientation. As the First Presidency has previously said and as this current response affirms, “Changes in the civil law do not, indeed cannot, change the moral law that God has established. God expects us to uphold and keep His commandments regardless of divergent opinions or trends in society” (First Presidency letter on “Same‐Sex Marriage,” January 9, 2014).

What is the Church’s policy on homosexual relations?
“Homosexual behavior violates the commandments of God, is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality, and deprives people of the blessings that can be found in family life and in the saving ordinances of the gospel. Those who persist in such behavior or who influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline. Homosexual behavior can be forgiven through sincere repentance.

“If members engage in homosexual behavior, Church leaders should help them have a clear understanding of faith in Jesus Christ, the process of repentance, and the purpose of life on “While opposing homosexual behavior, the Church reaches out with understanding and respect to individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. “If members feel same‐gender attraction but do not engage in any homosexual behavior, leaders
should support and encourage them in their resolve to live the law of chastity and to control unrighteous thoughts. These members may receive Church callings. If they are worthy and qualified in every other way, they may also hold temple recommends and receive temple ordinances” (Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 21.4.6).

Does the authorization of same‐sex marriage affect my right to religious freedom?
Our individual right to religious freedom is protected by the First Amendment to the United States’ Constitution and by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As we exercise that right, we must also exercise tolerance and respect toward others’ rights but do so without condoning behavior that goes contrary to the laws of God. “While we strive for the virtue of tolerance, other commendable qualities need not be lost. Tolerance does not require the
surrender of noble purpose or of individual identity. The Lord gave instruction to leaders of His restored Church to establish and maintain institutional integrity—‘that the Church may stand independent’ (D&C 78:14)” (Elder Russell M. Nelson, “Teach Us Tolerance and Love,” April 1994 general conference).

How do I respond respectfully to those who consider the Church’s position on this
matter unchristian?
Our objection to same‐sex marriage is not based on animosity toward anyone, but on our understanding of God’s purposes for His children. For us, the issues are not simply “tolerance” and “equality.” The issues are the nature of marriage and the consequences of redefining a divinely established institution. In addition, redefining marriage in the law can have profound consequences for society, particularly for children. Mothers and fathers matter, and they are not interchangeable. “On the subject of public discourse, we should all follow the gospel teachings to love our neighbor and avoid contention. Followers of Christ should be examples of civility. We should . . . be good listeners and show concern for the sincere belief [of others.] Though we may disagree, we should not be disagreeable. We should be wise in explaining our position and, in doing so, ask that others not be offended by our sincere religious beliefs and the free exercise of our religion” (Elder Dallin H. Oaks, “Loving Others and Living with Differences,” October 2014 general conference).

What if I have reservations of my own regarding the Church’s position on this subject?
“Members who . . . have doctrinal questions should make a diligent effort, including earnest prayer and scripture study, to find solutions and answers themselves. Church members are encouraged to seek guidance from the Holy Ghost to help them in their personal lives and in family and Church responsibilities.

“If members still need help, they should counsel first with their bishop. If necessary, he may refer them to the stake president.

“. . . Stake presidents who need clarification about doctrinal or other Church matters may write in behalf of their members to the First Presidency” (Handbook 2, 21.1.24).

NorthwestUteFan
07-01-2015, 11:01 AM
Also i have to call BS on the line, "For much of human history, civil laws have been in accordance with God's laws".

This writer would fail a 7th Grade History test if that is his belief.

Rocker Ute
07-01-2015, 11:55 AM
For anyone dreading this discussion, you need to be there and you need to clear up any of the crazies. As far as I am concerned the pattern is very clearly established as to what you and I need to do as a member. Regardless of your feelings about the issue, whether it is right or wrong or in between look at the story of Christ and the woman caught in adultery. "Neither do I condemn thee..." And of course the explicit commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself and to love one another.

That's it... We can only love. We have a future ahead of us to sort out the conflicts caused by all of this, it isn't going to be easy but we can control one thing and that is how we conduct ourselves and treat others. I tell my kids when they take the sacrament that they covenant to take Jesus' name upon them, which means when people meet them they'll know they are disciples of Christ.

If I'm being honest in many ways collectively we have failed as church members in this regard, particularly with some people on this issue. Today we can begin to fix that.

Bottom line is, no matter what stupid thing gets said about Sodom and Gomorrah, the end of days or anything else, we've got a singular thing to do and that is to love. It is doctrinal, it doesn't compromise your principals and it is the only thing that will fix anything.

SeattleUte
07-01-2015, 12:03 PM
"His law of chastity is clear: sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)

DrumNFeather
07-01-2015, 12:05 PM
For anyone dreading this discussion, you need to be there and you need to clear up any of the crazies. As far as I am concerned the pattern is very clearly established as to what you and I need to do as a member. Regardless of your feelings about the issue, whether it is right or wrong or in between look at the story of Christ and the woman caught in adultery. "Neither do I condemn thee..." And of course the explicit commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself and to love one another.

That's it... We can only love. We have a future ahead of us to sort out the conflicts caused by all of this, it isn't going to be easy but we can control one thing and that is how we conduct ourselves and treat others. I tell my kids when they take the sacrament that they covenant to take Jesus' name upon them, which means when people meet them they'll know they are disciples of Christ.

If I'm being honest in many ways collectively we have failed as church members in this regard, particularly with some people on this issue. Today we can begin to fix that.

Bottom line is, no matter what stupid thing gets said about Sodom and Gomorrah, the end of days or anything else, we've got a singular thing to do and that is to love. It is doctrinal, it doesn't compromise your principals and it is the only thing that will fix anything.

Totally agree.

We had a 5th Sunday lesson a few weeks ago about people "struggling" and how to help them. After a bunch of back patting and huzzah's about how they've been deceived, my buddy, who is basically a New Order Mormon chimes in that he doesn't believe any of the truth claims of the church, and that people who struggle don't need help etc. In any event, one of the most staunch people that was being really harsh speaking in broad terms, apologized to him for not really considering that there are actually people attending that feel that way. I don't think the one on one interaction is ever as bad as some of the sweeping generalizations that are made. This is what we need to focus on.

mUUser
07-01-2015, 03:27 PM
For anyone dreading this discussion, you need to be there and you need to clear up any of the crazies.....


I don't care what is said in the adult meetings. We'll see the whole gamut, with an emphasis of course, on parroting the press release and POTF.

My concern is the approach with the youth. I guess I don't trust people enough to believe it will be handled well. I'm expecting a cluster, and will likely keep my daughter away. The boy will probably find it all a little too weird.

Dwight Schr-Ute
07-01-2015, 04:42 PM
For anyone dreading this discussion, you need to be there and you need to clear up any of the crazies. As far as I am concerned the pattern is very clearly established as to what you and I need to do as a member. Regardless of your feelings about the issue, whether it is right or wrong or in between look at the story of Christ and the woman caught in adultery. "Neither do I condemn thee..." And of course the explicit commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself and to love one another.

That's it... We can only love. We have a future ahead of us to sort out the conflicts caused by all of this, it isn't going to be easy but we can control one thing and that is how we conduct ourselves and treat others. I tell my kids when they take the sacrament that they covenant to take Jesus' name upon them, which means when people meet them they'll know they are disciples of Christ.

If I'm being honest in many ways collectively we have failed as church members in this regard, particularly with some people on this issue. Today we can begin to fix that.

Bottom line is, no matter what stupid thing gets said about Sodom and Gomorrah, the end of days or anything else, we've got a singular thing to do and that is to love. It is doctrinal, it doesn't compromise your principals and it is the only thing that will fix anything.


Totally agree.

We had a 5th Sunday lesson a few weeks ago about people "struggling" and how to help them. After a bunch of back patting and huzzah's about how they've been deceived, my buddy, who is basically a New Order Mormon chimes in that he doesn't believe any of the truth claims of the church, and that people who struggle don't need help etc. In any event, one of the most staunch people that was being really harsh speaking in broad terms, apologized to him for not really considering that there are actually people attending that feel that way. I don't think the one on one interaction is ever as bad as some of the sweeping generalizations that are made. This is what we need to focus on.

I applaud both comments. With most of the leadership out of town for the holiday, I've been tasked to teach a combined YM/YW. In a way, I've been anxious about hearing from the bishop and asked to cover this, but maybe that wouldn't be such a bad thing to tackle after all.

Rocker Ute
07-01-2015, 04:56 PM
Maybe a signal of what should be taught regarding all of this:

(http://http://www.good4utah.com/story/d/story/lds-church-makes-contribution-to-utah-pride-center/40523/tkDwMHpQ4kiXqpFn8jaJLQ)LDS Church makes contribution to Utah Pride Center program (http://http://www.good4utah.com/story/d/story/lds-church-makes-contribution-to-utah-pride-center/40523/tkDwMHpQ4kiXqpFn8jaJLQ)

LA Ute
07-02-2015, 07:33 AM
LDS Church makes donation to Utah Pride Center
Read more at http://m.ksl.com/index/story/sid/35323432#sS5PRL8xcR0OQWOE.99




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NorthwestUteFan
07-02-2015, 10:59 AM
LDS Church makes donation to Utah Pride Center
Read more at http://m.ksl.com/index/story/sid/35323432#sS5PRL8xcR0OQWOE.99




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The $2500 credit to the Bishop's Storehouse is a good start.

Two Utes
07-02-2015, 11:02 AM
The $2500 credit to the Bishop's Storehouse is a good start.

Except that LA Ute would give more if he was inclined. I'm a little surprised it is getting co much publicity given the amount, but it's better than nothing.

LA Ute
07-02-2015, 11:06 AM
The $2500 credit to the Bishop's Storehouse is a good start.

Baby steps.

tooblue
07-02-2015, 11:26 AM
Except that LA Ute would give more if he was inclined. I'm a little surprised it is getting co much publicity given the amount, but it's better than nothing.

It's important to understand how the "credit" works, in relation to a Bishop's storehouse. It's not a one time donation. It's the opening of an ongoing relationship, granting access to a vast, world-wide welfare system. Meaning, the Utah Pride Centre could use that credit weekly, or monthly for as long as the two parties agree it's necessary, and as long as the LDS church is able to provide life sustaining material goods to the centre's recipients. It's $2,500 worth of food, or toiletries, or basic living materials to the centre's recipients.

A storehouse is set up like a grocery store: a person who is granted assistance is able to order and have delivered such things as: frozen meat (whole chickens and hams etc.), frozen vegetables, canned foods, toilet paper, toothpaste, toothbrushes, deodorant, feminine hygiene products, shampoo, dog food, diapers, baby wipes, paper towels, finger nail clippers, hair brushes etc. Or they can visit the storehouse and take things they need directly off the shelf.

Most criticism of the LDS churches charitable contributions in communities all over the globe is absurd. Precisely because the critic is typically woefully ignorant as to how the LDS welfare system works. When the church establishes a Bishops storehouse anywhere in the world, it is a yearly million, if not billion dollar investment in a geographic region for as many years as the church is legally permitted to operate there.

tooblue
07-02-2015, 12:10 PM
It's important to understand how the "credit" works, in relation to a Bishop's storehouse. It's not a one time donation. It's the opening of an ongoing relationship, granting access to a vast, world-wide welfare system. Meaning, the Utah Pride Centre could use that credit weekly, or monthly for as long as the two parties agree it's necessary, and as long as the LDS church is able to provide life sustaining material goods to the centre's recipients. It's $2,500 worth of food, or toiletries, or basic living materials to the centre's recipients.

A storehouse is set up like a grocery store: a person who is granted assistance is able to order and have delivered such things as: frozen meat (whole chickens and hams etc.), frozen vegetables, canned foods, toilet paper, toothpaste, toothbrushes, deodorant, feminine hygiene products, shampoo, dog food, diapers, baby wipes, paper towels, finger nail clippers, hair brushes etc. Or they can visit the storehouse and take things they need directly off the shelf.

Most criticism of the LDS churches charitable contributions in communities all over the globe is absurd. Precisely because the critic is typically woefully ignorant as to how the LDS welfare system works. When the church establishes a Bishops storehouse anywhere in the world, it is a yearly million, if not billion dollar investment in a geographic region for as many years as the church is legally permitted to operate there.

To give you an idea of how a Bishop's Storehouse works in Utah with images:

https://providentliving.lds.org/welfare-operations-training/bishops-storehouse?lang=eng

Outside of Utah, in my experience, they are structured more like an Aldi style store layout:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ab/Aldigang.jpg

NorthwestUteFan
07-02-2015, 01:05 PM
According to the communications director for the center they applied for aid from Welfare Square in the amount of $2500, and that request was granted.

This is a step in the right direction. This center serves young homeless lgbt people, most of whom are on the street because their families threw them out.

tooblue
07-02-2015, 01:23 PM
According to the communications director for the center they applied for aid from Welfare Square in the amount of $2500, and that request was granted.

This is a step in the right direction. This center serves young homeless lgbt people, most of whom are on the street because their families threw them out.

http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2687980-155/mormon-church-makes-first-time-donation-to


The contribution — of an undisclosed amount — grew out of a first-time request for assistance with donations of perishable items for the food pantry program from the Utah-based faith's Welfare Square operations, Kent Frogley, the Pride Center's board chairman said.

NorthwestUteFan
07-02-2015, 01:42 PM
Fox13 reported the amount as $2500.

http://fox13now.com/2015/07/01/for-the-first-time-ever-the-lds-church-has-given-a-donation-to-the-utah-pride-center/

chrisrenrut
07-02-2015, 01:50 PM
According to the communications director for the center they applied for aid from Welfare Square in the amount of $2500, and that request was granted.

This is a step in the right direction. This center serves young homeless lgbt people, most of whom are on the street because their families threw them out.

I keep hearing the bolded part above, but have a hard time believing is the majority of homeless youth. I tend to think most youth are homeless because they choose to leave rather than getting kicked out. Or if they did get kicked out, it was due to more than just being lgbt. Are there any studies to back up that assertion?

NorthwestUteFan
07-02-2015, 01:53 PM
This center is explicitly for lgbt youths. They typically have vastly different backgrounds than the typical homeless person. And in Utah most of them grew up Mormon to varying degrees.

chrisrenrut
07-02-2015, 02:00 PM
This center is explicitly for lgbt youths. They typically have vastly different backgrounds than the typical homeless person. And in Utah most of them grew up Mormon to varying degrees.

Not sure how that equals "thrown out". I don't doubt there may be some very old fashioned parents out there that might shun a child that comes out, but I have to think that is not the norm. This based on my anecdotal experience in very Mormon Davis county.

tooblue
07-02-2015, 02:18 PM
Fox13 reported the amount as $2500.

http://fox13now.com/2015/07/01/for-the-first-time-ever-the-lds-church-has-given-a-donation-to-the-utah-pride-center/

Many of the stories have now been edited. It was first indicated to be a "credit." Now, it's an "undisclosed amount." Centre officials are quoted in in The Tribune story asking for: "donations of perishable items for the food pantry program." The KSL story also states: "The Utah Pride Center approached the church in the spring, asking if the Bishops' Storehouse could donate perishable food items for its homeless and low-income youth program, according to Kent Frogley, the Utah Pride Center board president."

So it wasn't money that the Centre was seeking. It is food and other items. Understanding how Bishop Storehouses work is paramount. There are protocols and procedures. The facts just don't support the narrative you wish to advance.

tooblue
07-02-2015, 02:21 PM
Many of the stories have now been edited. It was first indicated to be a "credit." Now, it's an "undisclosed amount." Centre officials are quoted in in The Tribune story asking for: "donations of perishable items for the food pantry program." The KSL story also states: "The Utah Pride Center approached the church in the spring, asking if the Bishops' Storehouse could donate perishable food items for its homeless and low-income youth program, according to Kent Frogley, the Utah Pride Center board president."

So it wasn't money that the Centre was seeking. It is food and other items. Understanding how Bishop Storehouses work is paramount. There are protocols and procedures. The facts just don't support the narrative you wish to advance.

And these are the most important words in your FOX13 linked article:


“The Utah Pride Center is grateful for the church’s help in our efforts to provide food for those in our community who are in need,” said the center’s board president, Kent Frogley, in a statement. “We are grateful for their generosity and the emerging relationship with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We know that this contribution marks a significant moment in the LDS/LGBTQ relationship.”

Sheila Raboy, the center’s interim operations director, said the donation wasn’t a surprise as they had applied for a storehouse grant and got what they applied for.

Bishop Storehouse's don't give money.

Dwight Schr-Ute
07-02-2015, 04:46 PM
I think a more productive letter to read over the pulpit would be one about not bringing your kids to church if they have Hand, Foot and Mouth disease! Here's my 17 month old's leg today. http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/07/02/28f895f79cfaa74ae1d21d94dc61b249.jpg

Scratch
07-02-2015, 04:56 PM
I think a more productive letter to read over the pulpit would be one about not bringing your kids to church if they have Hand, Foot and Mouth disease! Here's my 17 month old's leg today. http://images.tapatalk-cdn.com/15/07/02/28f895f79cfaa74ae1d21d94dc61b249.jpg

Was that contracted at church?

Dwight Schr-Ute
07-02-2015, 05:08 PM
Yep. My three year old showed up with it first after going to nursery for the first time in three weeks and then promptly gave it to his brothers.

DrumNFeather
07-02-2015, 06:18 PM
We haven't had that, but we've had pink eye go through our nursery before. Thankfully that family moved down to Atlanta. Sorry Georgia!

NorthwestUteFan
07-02-2015, 08:29 PM
That went through our nursery about a year ago. Each of my kids got it. Stupid disease. These are the joys of community, I guess.

Ditto here. My kids didn't get it because we were out of town for the first week of the exposure, and they ended up cancelling nursery for a month. A number of kids ended up with it.

The mother of Patient Zero had 4 children with HFM, and had to deal with it while her husband was deployed overseas. No fun!

NorthwestUteFan
07-02-2015, 09:42 PM
Not sure how that equals "thrown out". I don't doubt there may be some very old fashioned parents out there that might shun a child that comes out, but I have to think that is not the norm. This based on my anecdotal experience in very Mormon Davis county.

Read this article:

http://www.nomorestrangers.org/homeless-youth-in-utah/



The majority of the youth we work with identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender. Statewide, the numbers are about half who call themselves LGB or T, and that means the number is higher. Youth often don’t self-identify as LGBT for fear of bullying or worse. Of those roughly 50% LGBT homeless youth, 60% report that they are from Latter-day Saint homes. At OUTreach, the vast majority of the youth we serve are from Mormon homes, and far too often the reason they are living on the streets, in a camp, car or couch is because their parent said to them, “Pack your backpack and be out before dawn. Come back when you have “straightened up” or don’t come back at all.”

For these youth, some as young as 14, they are left to fend for themselves. What usually happens is that as soon as they hit the street with their backpack or suitcase, a “helpful” adult offers them a ride and a couch to sleep on. The youth’s trust is misplaced when she or he is assaulted at night, or perhaps injected with drugs while she sleeps, and then enters into a life of addiction and trauma that lasts until true help is found, or too often, in tragic death. There are no numbers for homeless youth suicides, but what we do know is that one of their camps in the canyon near Salt Lake City is called Suicide Rock. Every youth I meet knows one, two or several youth who have lost their life to suicide. The epidemic of LGBT youth homelessness and suicide in Utah is inextricably linked.

OUTreach recently started a host home project so that youth from Mormon homes wouldn’t ever face a dark cold night with a freshly packed suitcase and nowhere to turn. We see that the only way to help homeless youth is to prevent youth homelessness. The trauma of rejection, assault, and fear is incapacitating, with only a handful surviving to create the underground nation that we can’t accurately count. It is these youth I see, as they travel through our region and the country, searching for safe human contact, and yes food and shelter. Our volunteers give them what we can, and the humanity that they crave. But we can never give them their childhood back, or the love of their parents, siblings, grandparents, and church. They are faceless, nameless shadows, populating an underground nation, right next to us, to you, every day.



The article is from two years ago. The more recent estimates are that Utah has a population of roughly 4000 homeless lgbt teenagers. The donation to the Utah Pride Center is a very good start. Hopefully these kids can get off to a fresh start, and society will start valuing them rather than forcing them out on the street.

LA Ute
07-02-2015, 11:10 PM
Read this article:

http://www.nomorestrangers.org/homeless-youth-in-utah/

The article is from two years ago. The more recent estimates are that Utah has a population of roughly 4000 homeless lgbt teenagers. The donation to the Utah Pride Center is a very good start. Hopefully these kids can get off to a fresh start, and society will start valuing them rather than forcing them out on the street.

This is a bad problem. LDS parents who do that to their LGBT kids ought to be ashamed of themselves. But I don't get the numbers. This Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/04/17/the-surprisingly-simple-way-utah-solved-chronic-homelessness-and-saved-millions/) praising the Utah (Salt Lake County, mainly) approach to homelessness puts the number of homeless in the state pretty low:


In 2005, Utah had nearly 1,932 chronically homeless. By 2014, that number had dropped 72 percent to 539. Today, explained Gordon Walker, the director of the state Housing and Community Development Division, the state is “approaching a functional zero.” Next week, he said, they’re set to announce what he called “exciting news” that would guarantee an “even bigger headline,” but declined to elaborate further.

If there are 4000 homeless LGBT teenagers that's a huge scandal. That would be over twice as many of those kids as there were "chronically homeless" 10 years ago (and that term may not include the population you're talking about). The main thing is to get LDS parents to treat their LGBT kids decently.

Rocker Ute
07-03-2015, 08:03 AM
1932? 539? Quite the precision.

There is no way that any of the numbers in the past two posts could be accurate, but the point is that there's a problem.

835,634 people could see these are faulty numbers.

UBlender
07-03-2015, 08:06 AM
That went through our nursery about a year ago. Each of my kids got it. Stupid disease. These are the joys of community, I guess.

In my old ward, we had a family storm out of the church and never return because a member of the bishopric asked them to take their child that had shingles out of the nursery. :blink:

chrisrenrut
07-03-2015, 08:39 AM
In my old ward, we had a family storm out of the church and never return because a member of the bishopric asked them to take their child that had shingles out of the nursery. :blink:

The nerve(s) of some people!

LA Ute
07-03-2015, 11:13 AM
1932? 539? Quite the precision.

There is no way that any of the numbers in the past two posts could be accurate, but the point is that there's a problem.

My guess is that they are off by one or two people. Maybe as many as 2.5.

NorthwestUteFan
07-03-2015, 02:21 PM
The number constantly fluctuates, and few people will be permanently homeless. I don't know the actual number but whether it is several weeks to a few months it certainly is long enough for a young person to get harmed, abused, or starve to death.

The numbers i posted were reported by those organizations who work first hand with the homeless kids. OUTreach reported ~1375 known homeless lgbt kids in Utah in 2013. The 4000 number was from a recent story in the Ogden Standard-Examiner, and was from a different group besides OUTreach.

But yes there is a problem. And the single biggest bit of assistance the LDS church could do to help would be, as the major cultural influence in the state, to remind people to be loving and understanding and compassionate, and stop the harmful dialogue. Even the old couplet "Love the sinner, Hate the sin" can give people cover to do and say very harmful things.

LA Ute
07-05-2015, 09:53 AM
I hope this has time to become viral in the LDS community.

http://www.mormonmentalhealthassoc.org/positions-of-mmha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NorthwestUteFan
07-05-2015, 10:52 AM
I hope this has time to become viral in the LDS community.

http://www.mormonmentalhealthassoc.org/positions-of-mmha


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Might not happen to the extent necessary, because John Dehlin is involved and the associated stench of excommunication on him will keep some people away.

That is a shame, because the mental health professionals make an extremely valid and timely point about statements like this position letter and their contribution to elevated suicide risk in those who are told their most personal, natural feelings are 'sinful'.

DrumNFeather
07-06-2015, 07:39 AM
They gathered all the primary teachers together before class and read the letter. It was the first counselor in the bishopric and he basically said if you have any questions, please direct them to the bishop (way to pass the buck!).

My wife said that the Relief Society reading went well...didn't say if there was much discussion, and all my EQ buddies no longer really attend EQ, so I haven't heard how that went, though we did have a new EQP called yesterday who has literally been in the ward for about a month, so that's nice for him.

UBlender
07-06-2015, 08:24 AM
They gathered all the primary teachers together before class and read the letter. It was the first counselor in the bishopric and he basically said if you have any questions, please direct them to the bishop (way to pass the buck!).

My wife said that the Relief Society reading went well...didn't say if there was much discussion, and all my EQ buddies no longer really attend EQ, so I haven't heard how that went, though we did have a new EQP called yesterday who has literally been in the ward for about a month, so that's nice for him.

I went home after sacrament meeting yesterday with sick kids. I thought that it was probably nice to miss "the letter". Then I found out that they didn't do it in our ward. After hearing about how it went in my sister's ward (apparently, they had a full discussion, which included at one point comparing same sex marriage to murder....) I hope I have a sick kid again on Sunday.

LA Ute
07-06-2015, 08:44 AM
We were out of town on vacation and were able to attend only sacrament meeting in the ward we visited -- for my in-laws' baby blessing. I was really curious about the whole letter thing so am sorry I missed it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

UtahsMrSports
07-06-2015, 09:46 AM
We didn't have it yesterday. But they did announce that we would have a brief meeting next week right before church. I hope they just read it and then move along.

Rocker Ute
07-06-2015, 12:09 PM
We had it yesterday. My bishop did a nice job as always. He read it in priesthood opening exercises and asked if there were any questions or comments. 23 people ran from the room crying and 18 people lost their testimony while the church elders stroked their beards and clucked their tongues. Wait, I was channeling NWUF for a minute. ;)

Actually no comments there or in the discussion following it in our lesson and I was bracing for it because the typically ward crazies were all there.

As mentioned, I think everyone gets it, they want to move on and nobody thinks it is accelerating the end of times.

Now the story I heard about an unrelated lesson in Primary from my wife's friends sister's ward... That'll curl your hair.

NorthwestUteFan
07-06-2015, 02:47 PM
We had it yesterday. My bishop did a nice job as always. He read it in priesthood opening exercises and asked if there were any questions or comments. 23 people ran from the room crying and 18 people lost their testimony while the church elders stroked their beards and clucked their tongues. Wait, I was channeling NWUF for a minute. ;)

.

The Bishop read it, and most people just rolled their eyes (the younger people especially). Marriage equality has been the law of our state for several years already, and somehow the world hasn't burned down yet and teh gheys haven't forced their way into the Seattle Temple to get sealed.

One of the ward crazies (who brags about having 4+ years of food storage) got into it with my wife on Facebook, warning her that "Evil Forces" in the world are conspiring to take away her right to worship as she chooses, and that the Supreme Court decision is merely the first step, and next she will lose her tax deduction on tithing.

My wife reminder her that lgbt marriage was already legal in 36 states (including our own), and all the Supreme Court decision did was force the remaining 14 states to reciprocate to recognize marriages that are legal elsewhere. And also it is not legal to ban marriages.

I am fine with the church maintaining their doctrine and boundaries. I wish they would recognize legal marriages between consenting adults (so long as the relationships are to rooted in the principles of Christ-like love, mutual respect, responsibility, justice, covenant, and faithfulness). I doubt I will see any of this from SLC in my lifetime, but we can see it in our own wards from time to time (and depending on local leadership roulette).

For instance, my grandfather's ward in Seattle has a number of married gay couples and at least one lesbian couple, plus a lot of lgbt single people, who attend actively (nearly all are relatively recently re-activated). Many hold callings. They have not been shamed, or called into disciplinary councils, for their 'sins' (despite the CHoI stating that same sex marriage and sexual activity are excommunicable offenses). The bishopric of this ward reached out last year and held a special fireside to invite lgbt people (and couples) to come worship with them, and quite a few people came in from out of the cold to worship with the community of their youth.

Sadly this is far from a regular occurrence in the church. My hope is that a bit of passive resistance like this from those members and leaders who live in the hinterlands (whether physical or metaphorical), will eventually crack through the rigid dogmatism, hubris, and provincialism that seems to pervade the COB.

mUUser
07-06-2015, 05:06 PM
Right. I'm sure that's exactly how it went down. After murder, they probably compared it to cannibalism, fascism, and the Miami Beach Brawl......

I don't know, seems like people get all kinds of screwy things stuck in their head. For example, can't tell you how many members believe premarital sex is third in seriousness after murder and denying the Holy Ghost. Nutty.

NorthwestUteFan
07-06-2015, 05:22 PM
I don't know, seems like people get all kinds of screwy things stuck in their head. For example, can't tell you how many members believe premarital sex is third in seriousness after murder and denying the Holy Ghost. Nutty.

We were probably taught that stuff in Seminary and it got stuck in our minds. That little chestnut is still in the current BoM Study Guide:

https://www.lds.org/manual/book-of-mormon-student-study-guide/alma-39?lang=eng

[Quote]
Alma 39:5–6—How Serious Are Sexual Sins in the Eyes of the Lord? The First Presidency, in a message read during the October 1942 general conference, declared: “Sexual sin … stands, in its enormity, next to murder. … “… You cannot associate in non-marital, illicit sex relationships … and escape the punishments and the judgments which the Lord has declared against this sin." in Conference Report, Oct. 1942, 11).

Whetever its provenance, I think we should blame byu.

LA Ute
07-06-2015, 10:17 PM
This is a perspective I hadn't seen before.

http://ldslights.org/the-other-side-of-same-sex-marriage-and-lgbt-mormon-support/

The discussion going on from all sides is important and I am learning. A lot.

UBlender
07-07-2015, 08:57 AM
Right. I'm sure that's exactly how it went down. After murder, they probably compared it to cannibalism, fascism, and the Miami Beach Brawl.

I made a hasty post and wasn't clear. Nobody was actually comparing SSM to murder but apparently somebody tried to make an analogy that was really convoluted and clunky and made people uncomfortable.

SeattleUte
07-07-2015, 11:47 AM
This is a perspective I hadn't seen before.

http://ldslights.org/the-other-side-of-same-sex-marriage-and-lgbt-mormon-support/

The discussion going on from all sides is important and I am learning. A lot.

:rolleyes:

mUUser
07-07-2015, 01:16 PM
This is a perspective I hadn't seen before.

http://ldslights.org/the-other-side-of-same-sex-marriage-and-lgbt-mormon-support/

The discussion going on from all sides is important and I am learning. A lot.

To me, this reads 3 standard deviations from the mean, like something out of The Onion. The comments section is just as odd.

SeattleUte
07-07-2015, 03:08 PM
To me, this reads 3 standard deviations from the mean, like something out of The Onion. The comments section is just as odd.

The Onion is an interesting comparison. To me it brought to mind Shirley Jackson's The Lottery. Bizarre and funny or creepy -- depending on how you look at it.

NorthwestUteFan
07-07-2015, 03:21 PM
Really? Don't we all know a handful of people like this? I've never met any of the many active LDS, married, gay couples Northwest is talking about.

Until extremely recently, and un nearly every ward, any gay couple who shows up at church will be made to feel uncomfortable, asked to worship elsewhere, asked not to sit together, excommunicated, etc.

The situation I described in the ward in Seattle only exists because a member of the bishopric went far out of his way to convince the leadership to be welcoming of the very large lgbt population within their boundaries (including many inactive, former, or ex-members). They held a big fireside for lgbt members and invited all to come worship with them, without judgement and without retribution.

This obviously won't work without significant support from local leadership.

The link LA posted is an interesting point of view. I have known a few gay men who were Out, and also 100% celibate to remain active in the church. Unfortunately this meant they essentially put their entire sexuality on ice and won't even date, let alone hold hands or kiss somebody.

Even more damaging is when people attempt to 'cure the gay' and marry a person of the opposite sex just to 'maintain church covenants'. These marriages can be extremely difficult for all involved and research shows that well over 60% of them fall apart within a decade. This can be extra tough on the straight spouse because the marriage breakdown hurts, but also because they are in a marriage where the gay spouse is not physically attracted to her, no matter what she does. They can go on 'My Husband's Not Gay', but eventually it will be hard on the both of them as well as on any children they may have and they will need to face the hard truth.

NorthwestUteFan
07-07-2015, 03:52 PM
It is asking a lot, but it a sacrifice that thousands of straight Mormons are also making.

…at least up until the day they get married. But straight Mormons are not expected to be celibate and lonely for their entire lives in order to be 'worthy'. However we expect gay people to essentially become monks, and attempt to block them from marrying the person they would choose.



We can all agree that this is a bad idea. But the worst is when someone decides (or discovers?) later on after marriage that he is gay. Those wives should be guaranteed a spot in heaven.

How much better would it be for those people to be able to come to terms with their sexuality when they are young, rather than suppressing it for decades? Wouldn't it be much healthier for all involved to have the socially-accepted option of marrying a person of the same sex, if they so choose?

Of course this needs to happen on their own timeline, and the rest of us can only stand by to support them no matter what they choose.

Again, the 'Hate the sin, Love the sinner (although your actions make you the vile spawn of Satan)' narrative can be extremely damaging.

NorthwestUteFan
07-07-2015, 04:00 PM
Ans besides, the commandment to 'Only have sexual relations with the spouse to whom you are legally and lawfully married' falls flat on its face when you consider all the polygamy in our history. (My own ancestors included). Not a single prophet of from Joseph Smith to Heber J. Grant were 'legally' married to their multiple wives because polygamy was illegal. And yet they were not in violation of this covenant.

NorthwestUteFan
07-07-2015, 04:12 PM
The Onion is an interesting comparison. To me it brought to mind Shirley Jackson's The Lottery. Bizarre and funny or creepy -- depending on how you look at it.

Is Northern Lights related to NorthStar and Evergreen? Those are the LDS gay reparative therapy organizations.

tooblue
07-07-2015, 04:36 PM
Ans besides, the commandment to 'Only have sexual relations with the spouse to whom you are legally and lawfully married' falls flat on its face when you consider all the polygamy in our history. (My own ancestors included). Not a single prophet of from Joseph Smith to Heber J. Grant were 'legally' married to their multiple wives because polygamy was illegal. And yet they were not in violation of this covenant.

That's splitting some fine hairs. So, in the spirit of your hair splitting I could counter that it could be argued that it wasn't illegal, considering most of those practicing were doing so in a territory of the US, that wasn't quite yet a territory, and was under dispute ... ?

In a modern sense, as it relates to covenants or being "Christian" have you ever given money to a person begging for a hand-out on the street? In many places, especially cities in north America, it's illegal. Or have you ever ministered to, as a home teacher for example, a person whom is in your country illegally ... it's interesting considering "our" history and desire to be a covenant people in all aspects of our faith?

SeattleUte
07-07-2015, 04:54 PM
Is Northern Lights related to NorthStar and Evergreen? Those are the LDS gay reparative therapy organizations.

Yikes! Creepy. I had no idea about any such a thing (though I'm not surprised).

LA Ute
07-07-2015, 06:06 PM
Yikes! Creepy. I had no idea about any such a thing (though I'm not surprised).


The Onion is an interesting comparison. To me it brought to mind Shirley Jackson's The Lottery. Bizarre and funny or creepy -- depending on how you look at it.

I was wondering when you'd show up here. You wouldn't understand a person's sincere, self-sacrificing commitment, in the face of opposition, based on religious conviction if such a commitment bit you hard on the leg. So I love your efforts to mock such sincerity, while insisting that you never mock belief.

I say this with love, of course. :D

NorthwestUteFan
07-07-2015, 06:56 PM
That's splitting some fine hairs. So, in the spirit of your hair splitting I could counter that it could be argued that it wasn't illegal, considering most of those practicing were doing so in a territory of the US, that wasn't quite yet a territory, and was under dispute ... ?

In a modern sense, as it relates to covenants or being "Christian" have you ever given money to a person begging for a hand-out on the street? In many places, especially cities in north America, it's illegal. Or have you ever ministered to, as a home teacher for example, a person whom is in your country illegally ... it's interesting considering "our" history and desire to be a covenant people in all aspects of our faith?

There is a broad gulf between talking to somebody/giving them $5 for lunch, and grooming girls/women to believe that God wants them to marry (and thus have sex with) you.

NorthwestUteFan
07-07-2015, 07:04 PM
Tell that to my brother, my sister, and my sister-in-law. They are "old" and single and are essentially becoming monks for the same reason this author is. I respect their sacrifice.

That was their choice, and they actually HAD a choice to make. The church will also allow openly gay people to participate, so long as they are 100% celibate and don't ever get physical (unless it is with the opposite sex). Getting married to a person of the same sex will still get you excommunicated, unless you have local leaders who refuse to hold the disciplinary council (such as the ward in Seattle).





If only it were that easy. Like you said, it happens on their own timeline. As much as we like to pretend that sexuality is simple, it's not. It can be hard to understand. It can change. It's crazy that people make this decision for themselves or others before they even reach puberty - before they even know what sexuality is.

I think "hate the sin, love the sinner" is fine when the love is real. That is "love thy neighbor as thyself" because I love myself but really do hate my sins. Of course, the phrase is sometimes used as an excuse to NOT love, which is as bad as any excuse to not love.

I concur with both of these statements. (And by 'young' I meant 'by age 30-ish' ).

NorthwestUteFan
07-07-2015, 07:08 PM
Yikes! Creepy. I had no idea about any such a thing (though I'm not surprised).

If course it had its roots at BYU...

tooblue
07-07-2015, 09:39 PM
There is a broad gulf between talking to somebody/giving them $5 for lunch, and grooming girls/women to believe that God wants them to marry (and thus have sex with) you.

I think it would be wise not to conflate nineteenth century polygamy with certain twentieth century, fundamentalist polygamy. And the point is, where is the line to be drawn between acting according to the dictates of one's religious conscience and potentially breaking a law? That line moves, almost capriciously. What's more, it's a serious offence to "minister" to an individual who is in a country illegally. Perhaps more so than living in a polygamous relationship. And again, it doesn't address the fact that early Mormon polygamy wasn't illegal—not really, at least until Utah applied for statehood. Then it was a serious issue.

Rocker Ute
07-07-2015, 09:40 PM
That was their choice, and they actually HAD a choice to make. The church will also allow openly gay people to participate, so long as they are 100% celibate and don't ever get physical (unless it is with the opposite sex). Getting married to a person of the same sex will still get you excommunicated, unless you have local leaders who refuse to hold the disciplinary council (such as the ward in Seattle).


I don't know of Sancho's family members experience, but marriage typically involves two consenting individuals. I know a number of people who have never had the 'choice' to get married because no one wanted to marry them (to put it in simple terms). They would be devastated to have someone tell them their single life was 'their choice'.

Pretty ironic.

tooblue
07-07-2015, 09:41 PM
I don't know of Sancho's family members experience, but marriage typically involves two consenting individuals. I know a number of people who have never had the 'choice' to get married because no one wanted to marry them (to put it in simple terms). They would be devastated to have someone tell them their single life was 'their choice'.

Pretty ironic.

I think the greeks would call that a tragedy.

SeattleUte
07-07-2015, 11:33 PM
I don't get it. Is the author the guy who is sacrificed so that everyone else can be happy? Whenever I hear of The Lottery, I think of LeGuin's Omelas story.

No. Shirley Jackson's short story. It's a simple story. Isn't the genetic hand we get dealt kind of like a lottery? Some lotteries are not so easy if you win. Like the draft used to be.

SeattleUte
07-07-2015, 11:36 PM
I don't know of Sancho's family members experience, but marriage typically involves two consenting individuals. I know a number of people who have never had the 'choice' to get married because no one wanted to marry them (to put it in simple terms). They would be devastated to have someone tell them their single life was 'their choice'.

Pretty ironic.

I don't follow your logic. Some people experience a Geek tragedy and can't get married, so homosexuals should stop whining about it? Is that your point?

tooblue
07-08-2015, 06:47 AM
I don't follow your logic. Some people experience a Geek tragedy and can't get married, so homosexuals should stop whining about it? Is that your point?

Life is inherently unfair, and not only for a select few. Suffering, frustration, the futility of mortal exhistence (the fact we are born into this world to die) is universal. Greater empathy for all of humanity, burdened by circumstances beyond it's control is the best course isn’t it? At least, that’s what the US Supreme Court ruling is trying to address on some level—by not establishing privileged classes?

Should only select groups be singled out for greater consideration when it comes to issues of circumstance? Are there only certain groups of souls on this planet who can rightfully say: "I have suffered."

jrj84105
07-08-2015, 07:31 AM
This is a perspective I hadn't seen before.

http://ldslights.org/the-other-side-of-same-sex-marriage-and-lgbt-mormon-support/

The discussion going on from all sides is important and I am learning. A lot.

I really feel for this poor guy. If a BYU student ward or Freemont UT ward cannot provide an adequate level of shaming to turn off the gay, he's going to have a hard time making a go at the straight life.

Rocker Ute
07-08-2015, 07:49 AM
I don't follow your logic. Some people experience a Geek tragedy and can't get married, so homosexuals should stop whining about it? Is that your point?


Just the opposite. We've all been going on and on about being sensitive to homosexual people and the insensitive remarks that lead to them being ostracized and committing suicide etc. Yet straight single people who sit in church each Sunday and hear about families and married life while living a celibate lifestyle themselves get to hear that their circumstances were a choice? This line of thinking is no different and just as lacking in compassion. But for some people this argument was never really about compassion and acceptance anyway.

NorthwestUteFan
07-08-2015, 08:05 AM
I don't know of Sancho's family members experience, but marriage typically involves two consenting individuals. I know a number of people who have never had the 'choice' to get married because no one wanted to marry them (to put it in simple terms). They would be devastated to have someone tell them their single life was 'their choice'.

Pretty ironic.

Circumstances certainly affect our relationships.

However they do not carry the added burden of having the church that is their spiritual guide and pathway to heaven attempting to legislate against their preferable type of relationship, calling them sinners and condemning them to hell while saying, "Sure love ya!".

NorthwestUteFan
07-08-2015, 08:28 AM
I think it would be wise not to conflate nineteenth century polygamy with certain twentieth century, fundamentalist polygamy. And the point is, where is the line to be drawn between acting according to the dictates of one's religious conscience and potentially breaking a law? That line moves, almost capriciously. What's more, it's a serious offence to "minister" to an individual who is in a country illegally. Perhaps more so than living in a polygamous relationship. And again, it doesn't address the fact that early Mormon polygamy wasn't illegal—not really, at least until Utah applied for statehood. Then it was a serious issue.

Check out the hoity toity Canadian spelling! It almost covers up your Utah accent. :D

19th Century Polygamy was form of a Divine Command Theory, and was more similar to a strong patriarchy like Warren Jeffs than a group of egalitarian relationships like Kody Brown.

It was illegal in Illinois so Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, Lorenzo and Erastus Snow, John Taylor, etc., were all in illegal relationships.

But my point is not from the legal side, but rather from the capriciousness of the church's policy position (up until the SCOTUS decision) of using legal definitions to state what constitutes a marriage.

My BIL and his husband have been in a monogamous relationship for over 15 years and have been legally and lawfully married for 18 mo now. And yet if they decided to take their kids to a Mormon church they could face church discipline for their relationship.

NorthwestUteFan
07-08-2015, 09:13 AM
Are we still talking about the author of the blog post? I think he would be okay with the comparison but would probably not accept this characterization of the Church.

I was not referring to the blog author.

NorthwestUteFan
07-08-2015, 09:19 AM
Changing gears.

This letter was written by the Stake Presidency of the Baltimore, Maryland stake. B-more certainly has its share of discord in recent months, and could use a good dose of healing. I believe this letter contains a great message and probably reflects the attitudes of most church members.

https://m.facebook.com/baltimorestakeservice/posts/866798713415108

Here is a snippet of the letter:



"In the midst of various tensions in our political and social climate, we wish to take a moment to focus on an absolutely essential aspect of our faith as Latter-day Saints: the need to love one another as Jesus has loved us.

This fundamental truth was taught by our Saviour during his mortal ministry, where he declared that this love is the ultimate expression of our discipleship to Him:

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. By this shall men know that ye are my disciples, if he have love one to another.
(John 13:34-35)

We declare our love for all of God's children. This love is extended to all, no matter what their race or national origin or sexual orientation or personal struggles. The command to love is clear and it is unconditional.

"We testify that Jesus Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, and testify further that this is His Church, established on earth in these latter-days to be a refuge from life's storms and a beacon of hope and pure love to a troubled world. We exhort all members of the Baltimore Stake to be relentless in their pursuit of Christ-like love for all whom the Lord places in their path."

tooblue
07-08-2015, 09:25 AM
Check out the hoity toity Canadian spelling! It almost covers up your Utah accent. :D

19th Century Polygamy was form of a Divine Command Theory, and was more similar to a strong patriarchy like Warren Jeffs than a group of egalitarian relationships like Kody Brown.

It was illegal in Illinois so Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, Lorenzo and Erastus Snow, John Taylor, etc., were all in illegal relationships.

But my point is not from the legal side, but rather from the capriciousness of the church's policy position (up until the SCOTUS decision) of using legal definitions to state what constitutes a marriage.

My BIL and his husband have been in a monogamous relationship for over 15 years and have been legally and lawfully married for 18 mo now. And yet if they decided to take their kids to a Mormon church they could face church discipline for their relationship.

The line of one man and one woman hasn’t moved in a very long time in the church, the net result being the evolution of the Warren Jeffs movements in the world. Whose practices, certainly, are not the same as what was practiced historically. And it’s still debatable whether or not early polygamists relationships were illegal. But the point is capriciousness: you have already mentioned Wards where individuals such as your BIL are not being disciplined?

Mostly, I object to the large brush often employed when painting what the “church” is, does or does not do. The church as a body is the “saints.” From where I sit, the saints I know are remarkable. Kind, compassionate and willing to be Christ like to the best of their ability in any and all circumstances. I see that as a reflection of what we are taught generally, by one another and especially our general authorities.

Resulting from that dynamic comes a certain zeal which when employed can push boundaries, both bad and good—causing psychological harm or subtly contravening laws to extend a helping hand. It’s the managing of that zeal that is the challenge. For many, it’s just too much. They seek and find rationalizations, which help them walk away from the messiness of the lives of other people. And it has never been easier to do so—we want for so little, it’s impossible not to be self-absorbed.

Speaking of things Canadian, as I’ve said in the past, I’m living in your future. The letter was read in our congregation and the collective response was indifference: because the ruling affects American society ...

And It’s “British” spelling by the way—a consequence of living among loyalists for more than twenty years.

Rocker Ute
07-08-2015, 09:28 AM
Circumstances certainly affect our relationships.

However they do not carry the added burden of having the church that is their spiritual guide and pathway to heaven attempting to legislate against their preferable type of relationship, calling them sinners and condemning them to hell while saying, "Sure love ya!".


The comments were regarding the choice of celibacy of the author and the fact that thousands of other people are also required to chose celibacy as they are unable to marry. My further comments were regarding your callous approach to their plight.

Scratch
07-08-2015, 11:23 AM
Just the opposite. We've all been going on and on about being sensitive to homosexual people and the insensitive remarks that lead to them being ostracized and committing suicide etc. Yet straight single people who sit in church each Sunday and hear about families and married life while living a celibate lifestyle themselves get to hear that their circumstances were a choice? This line of thinking is no different and just as lacking in compassion. But for some people this argument was never really about compassion and acceptance anyway.


Just imagine how difficult it would be to be a celibate single woman and have to see me in church every week.

mUUser
07-08-2015, 11:59 AM
The choice of the author to remain true to covenants he's made isn't the issue. Bravo for him!! Really. That's true for gay or straight alike.

The issue is he's calling out faithful LDS (who, perhaps from a position of equal principle -- i.e. that all law abiding american citizens of sound mind have an oppty to marry a person of their choice without government interference), as tools of Satan that whisper in their ears to forsake their covenants, undermine their eternal happiness, denigrate their choice to be faithful to the law of chastity, and pull them away from choices of integrity.

Most, if any, are not asking gay LDS to enter into a gay marriage. Not asking gay LDS to forsake covenants. Not even asking gay LDS to support legal SSM. In fact, is there any instance where a straight LDS that supports legalization of gay marriage is asking anything of a gay LDS, much less undermining his eternal happiness or denigrating his choice to remain unmarried and celibate?

I find it such an odd position to take.

Rocker Ute
07-08-2015, 12:25 PM
Just imagine how difficult it would be to be a celibate single woman and have to see me in church every week.

I'll hand it to you, I never knew dress chaps existed until you came along.

Dwight Schr-Ute
07-08-2015, 01:21 PM
God is merciful. I bet this one would have been a doozy.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865632097/President-Packer-was-working-on-upcoming-conference-talk-when-he-died.html

LA Ute
07-12-2015, 07:23 AM
Peggy's report from her various friends and contacts around the church:
(http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2719514-155/tears-and-fears-lds-letter-on?fullpage=1)
Tears and fears: LDS letter on same-sex marriage has Mormons talking and listening (http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2719514-155/tears-and-fears-lds-letter-on?fullpage=1)

LA Ute
07-13-2015, 09:27 AM
Discussing the Church’s letter on same-sex marriage in a conservative ward
http://www.millennialstar.org/discussing-the-churchs-letter-on-same-sex-marriage-in-a-conservative-ward/

UtahsMrSports
07-13-2015, 10:35 AM
Discussing the Church’s letter on same-sex marriage in a conservative ward


http://www.millennialstar.org/discussing-the-churchs-letter-on-same-sex-marriage-in-a-conservative-ward/

This is how i imagine it went in most wards, at least I hope so. We had our meeting yesterday. The bishop just got up, read the letter, and then invited anyone with concerns or questions to schedule an appointment and hed be happy to talk about it. He then dismissed the meeting. I was kind of bummed, as I had the lesson in teacher's quorum, I wasn't prepared as well as I could have been (the lesson actually turned out great, but not due to me.) and a discussion would have killed some time. Plus, I was going to put some money on who in the ward might be the first to offer an inflammatory opinion both ways (my wife just rolled her eyes at me).

In all seriousness, I hope that a lot of good experiences were had through this.

concerned
07-13-2015, 12:06 PM
saw the posts about the size of the homeless population a few pages back, and thought I would chime in because my wife is working on the homeless issue now: SLC has a chronic homeless population of 1800, which is very large. Seattle's is 400. Unclear why it is so large.

Btw, I suspect that the Church's donation to homeless gay youth charity is due to Bill Evans, who recently has retired as the Church's PR spokesman. He has been passionate on this issue, and had been working to establish a shelter for homeless gay youth. He has made it a personal cause since his retirement.

SoCalPat
07-13-2015, 12:14 PM
Peggy's report from her various friends and contacts around the church:
(http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2719514-155/tears-and-fears-lds-letter-on?fullpage=1)
Tears and fears: LDS letter on same-sex marriage has Mormons talking and listening (http://www.sltrib.com/lifestyle/faith/2719514-155/tears-and-fears-lds-letter-on?fullpage=1)

I know one of the people quoted in this story. I was surprised to see that he came out, although I have not spoken with him in over 20 years. It would be interesting to understand his perspective over the years on how all of this has come about.

LA Ute
07-13-2015, 12:15 PM
saw the posts about the size of the homeless population a few pages back, and thought I would chime in because my wife is working on the homeless issue now: SLC has a chronic homeless population of 1800, which is very large. Seattle's is 400. Unclear why it is so large.

Interesting. Is the Salt Lake County number so low because it refers only to the unincorporated County? The ABC story (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utahs-strategy-homeless-give-them-homes-n352966) says, "In 2005, Utah was home to 1,932 chronically homeless. By April 2015, there were only 178 — a 91 percent drop statewide." Something's off here.

UtahsMrSports
07-13-2015, 02:45 PM
Interesting. Is the Salt Lake County number so low because it refers only to the unincorporated County? The ABC story (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utahs-strategy-homeless-give-them-homes-n352966) says, "In 2005, Utah was home to 1,932 chronically homeless. By April 2015, there were only 178 — a 91 percent drop statewide." Something's off here.

The number of people who are chronically homeless has got to be an extremely difficult stat to track accurately. Id be curious to know how its done..........people seeking assistance? pan handlers?

NorthwestUteFan
07-13-2015, 03:13 PM
Not sure where you get a number of 400 chronic homeless for Seattle. Plenty of shelters each serve more than that many people every day.
The Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness (along with United Way, Downtown Emergency Services Center, and others)
sends out volunteers to count the number of people on the streets without shelter for the annual One Night Count. The count for 2015 was 10,300 people, with 3772 out in the open, the remainder sleeping in shelters, cars, or tent cities for that night. That is not a comprehensive number, and it only counts those people in the more accessible areas of King County. The surrounding areas have even more.

According to the HUD, Washington has 17k+ homeless. Utah has ~3500. We are all pikers compared to California, who boasts 136k+.

SeattleUte
07-13-2015, 04:18 PM
Not sure where you get a number of 400 chronic homeless for Seattle. Plenty of shelters each serve more than that many people every day.
The Seattle/King County Coalition on Homelessness (along with United Way, Downtown Emergency Services Center, and others)
sends out volunteers to count the number of people on the streets without shelter for the annual One Night Count. The count for 2015 was 10,300 people, with 3772 out in the open, the remainder sleeping in shelters, cars, or tent cities for that night. That is not a comprehensive number, and it only counts those people in the more accessible areas of King County. The surrounding areas have even more.

According to the HUD, Washington has 17k+ homeless. Utah has ~3500. We are all pikers compared to California, who boasts 136k+.

Come on up! We have plenty of room left on our sidewalks and under overpasses and in front of our small businesses. But don't dawdle. It's a land rush and it's getting crowded outside.

tooblue
07-13-2015, 05:16 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/04/17/the-surprisingly-simple-way-utah-solved-chronic-homelessness-and-saved-millions/

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free


https://vimeo.com/121173941

concerned
07-13-2015, 06:59 PM
Ok. I misunderstood what my wife told me. Salt Lake provides emergency shelter for 1800 homeless through the Road Home etc. Seattle 400, Chicago 150. SLC tries to get them off the streets, other cities have concluded that they cant do that effectively, so they limit the number o persons in a shelter and basically let them fend for themselves in a park, under a bridge, etc. Dont attempt to provide the services that SLC attempts.

tooblue
07-13-2015, 07:01 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/inspired-life/wp/2015/04/17/the-surprisingly-simple-way-utah-solved-chronic-homelessness-and-saved-millions/

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/22/home-free


https://vimeo.com/121173941

One other article about the Housing First program:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/02/housing-first-solution-to-homelessness-utah


"We got together and decided we needed Lloyd Pendleton," Minkevitch said.

Pendleton was then an executive manager for the LDS Church Welfare Department, and he had a reputation for solving difficult managerial problems both in the United States and overseas. He'd also been involved in helping out with homeless projects in Salt Lake City, organizing volunteers, and donating food from the Bishop's Storehouse. Dedicated to providing emergency and disaster assistance around the world as well as supplying basic material necessities to church members in need of assistance, the Church Welfare Department is like a large corporation in itself. It has 52 farms, 13 food-processing plants, and 135 storehouses. It also makes furniture like mattresses, tables, and dressers. If you're a member of the church and you lose your job, your house, and all your money, you can go to your bishop and he'll give you a place to live, some food, some money, and set you up with a job…no questions asked. All you have to do in return is some community service and try to follow the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. A system very much like Housing First—give them what they need, then work on their problems.

Dwight Schr-Ute
07-13-2015, 08:06 PM
First traditional marriage. Now traditional scout mastering.

Rocker Ute
07-13-2015, 09:19 PM
First traditional marriage. Now traditional scout mastering.

One might argue this is returning to traditional scout mastering - but it isn't like I've read BP's biography or anything. (And for the record I am kidding - although he would leave his wife for long periods of time to spend in the woods with his assistant scout master...)

NorthwestUteFan
07-13-2015, 11:16 PM
One interesting note about the discussion in my ward. One lady who moved here from Mexico shared a story from her past, as well as a warning about the use of the word 'tolerance'.

When she first moved to the US with her family, many/most people smiled and were very kind to her face. But many of the rental properties said 'No Mexicans'.
The people seemed to treat her with respect and pretended to be nice. But the truth is, they merely 'tolerated' her.

She warned that we shouldn't merely 'tolerate' the lgbt people in our community, but must instead show a Christ-like love for them and avoid judging them based on something that can't be changed or 'cured'. Her point was the idea of 'tolerance' can still be a smiling form of bigotry.

(Hopefully the belief that people can 'catch the gay' or 'be cured from the gay' was buried last week with BKP. The already removed his talk and pamphlet, "To The One", from the LDS.org archives)

LA Ute
07-14-2015, 10:30 AM
One interesting note about the discussion in my ward. One lady who moved here from Mexico shared a story from her past, as well as a warning about the use of the word 'tolerance'.

When she first moved to the US with her family, many/most people smiled and were very kind to her face. But many of the rental properties said 'No Mexicans'.
The people seemed to treat her with respect and pretended to be nice. But the truth is, they merely 'tolerated' her.

She warned that we shouldn't merely 'tolerate' the lgbt people in our community, but must instead show a Christ-like love for them and avoid judging them based on something that can't be changed or 'cured'. Her point was the idea of 'tolerance' can still be a smiling form of bigotry.

(Hopefully the belief that people can 'catch the gay' or 'be cured from the gay' was buried last week with BKP. The already removed his talk and pamphlet, "To The One", from the LDS.org archives)

Kind of reminds me of the way we tolerate you here. I'll try to be better.

:rofl:

(I kid, of course.)

tooblue
08-05-2015, 09:44 AM
This is an old report, but worth revisiting in light of recent conversations in this thread:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ow6mnAowINw