Leadership Meeting Leak

[Give It Time]

(emphasis added)Q. How can a bishop help counsel a couple whose husband is entering a realm of agnosticism?

A. Elder Perry: That is a real challenge and thank goodness you are a judge in Israel. This is the most
insidious thing that could ever happen.

What about child abuse?

Divorce never solves anything.

Wanna bet??

Do anything you can to save a marriage. Hopefully someone in the quorum can step in and help rescue. This is one great reason we need
to build the quorums. An Elders Quorum president and a whole quorum could step in and help in these
situations.

Step in and rescue or get involved and muddy the waters until they become overly toxic?

Also teach in your quorums the importance of honoring women.

Keeping them trapped in an abusive relationship is really going to solve things (Or Visa Versa, men are abused in relationships too)

Get the quorum to make contact with him. He needs to know the full consequences of divorce, supporting his family, his responsibility as a
father, and the best interest of the children.

What if the best interest of the children would be leaving a toxic environment created by parents who are constantly arguing and fighting?

Explain the evils of divorce and how they can never be corrected in this life, and perhaps in the life to come.

Fear and guilt is THE LAST thing a struggling couple need to hear. My god man, is Perry even sane??

Thank you.

[NOMelgänger]

So infuriating.

After my parents' divorce, my mom took me and my siblings to live with her parents. My grandparents hated each other. When one of them would enter a room, the other would leave. My grandfather was an angry, physically & emotionally abusive man at home, but a paragon of sainthood when we were out of the house. He worked for the church, and all of the people in my ward told me how blessed I was to still be raised by such a great priesthood holder. I lived in that house for almost 15 years, and the mission was my only way out.

Fast forward almost 20 years later, and my then-wife and I decided that we could remain together as roommates, but was that really best for the children? We decided they would be better raised by two co-operative co-parents who made them a priority, than to subject them to how I watched my grandparents live. Looking back, I'm still glad we made the decision to divorce.

Perry had no idea what he is talking about. The fact that he presented himself as an authority on the welfare of families is disgusting to me.

[Hagoth]

I'm still trying to understand the agnosticism=divorce leap of logic. Can someone help me out?

[NOMelgänger]

I'm still trying to understand the agnosticism=divorce leap of logic. Can someone help me out?

It's a mental leap. If you go from TBM to agnostic, it must be because of a grievous sin. There is no life outside of the church, so divorce is inevitable.

[wtfluff]

I'm still trying to understand the agnosticism=divorce leap of logic. Can someone help me out?

Answer the question they "should have" asked.

[Hagoth]

I'm still trying to understand the agnosticism=divorce leap of logic. Can someone help me out?

It's a mental leap. If you go from TBM to agnostic, it must be because of a grievous sin. There is no life outside of the church, so divorce is inevitable.

Yeah, that's the only flowchart I could come up with too, but it is asinine almost beyond credulity.

[moksha]

Ask them the questions and if necessary they will incriminate themselves. Put the burden on them.

Questions framed the right way could ferret out both Democrats and those not purchasing their expected quota of Amway products.

[Emower]

Ask them the questions and if necessary they will incriminate themselves. Put the burden on them.

Questions framed the right way could ferret out both Democrats and those not purchasing their expected quota of Amway products.

Let me first rephrase your statement:
There are no democrat members of the church.

[oliver_denom]

Ask them the questions and if necessary they will incriminate themselves. Put the burden on them.

Questions framed the right way could ferret out both Democrats and those not purchasing their expected quota of Amway products.

Let me first rephrase your statement:
There are no democrat members of the church.

There are no democrat members in good standing with the church.

[Rob4Hope]

Explain the evils of divorce and how they can never be corrected in this life, and perhaps in the life to come.

Fear and guilt is THE LAST thing a struggling couple need to hear. My god man, is Perry even sane??

He is out of his mind and out of touch with reality.

Remember....the temple marriage ceremony doesn't include the word "love". You are not committed to loving your spouse--that is not part of the "covenant".

Because that is the case, you can sacrifice your marriage on the alter of the church....stay in it even if it is emotionally dead. Why?...because DIVORCE IS EVIL MAN....ITS EVIL!

But wait? When was the last time someone was called into a church court of "love" (what a joke) for committing this horrible evil?

If its so evil, why does the disciplinary court not follow?

He is speaking out of his a$$. The inconsistencies are baffling...

[dogbite]

So reading between the lines of divorce is evil statements. They must have some data showing decreased activity of at least one spouse and probably kids. Which means reduced tithing. Probable tithing decrease even if no kids.

That's what this kind of rhetoric indicates imho.

[Thoughtful]

"Remember....the temple marriage ceremony doesn't include the word "love". You are not committed to loving your spouse--that is not part of the "covenant". "


Well clearly because polygamy was about a piece of ass not about love.

[Jeffret]

This answer caught my attention:

Q: How do you help a young man who is struggling to believe in God?
A: Elder Perry: The number of Atheists in the country has from 7% to 25% and is growing fast. We must teach the youth the doctrine. They cannot stand up to the truth of the doctrine if they have been taught it effectively. If they will study the doctrine and ask, they can know for themselves.
It is the doctrine that will save them. It is the doctrine that will bring them back. Use those who are around this young man to help reclaim him. You have to be familiar enough with the doctrine yourself to be able to explain it to him.

The first part is factually incorrect. Though, there are a number of atheists who make the same mistake. About 25% of Americans are unaffiliated with any particular religion, but the majority of them still consider themselves religious. Actually the better term used by many of them is "spiritual". These are the "nones" or "none of the above". Atheists only make up around 3-4% of Americans, though that does mean there are twice as many as there are Mormons. And they are definitely growing much faster. There are slightly more agnostics, around 4-5%.

It's interesting to see Perry speak with such conviction and certainty, giving instruction to other leaders, on something he understands so little about.


This next one really caught my attention:

Q. How do you help a young man or young woman who comes in and says "I think that I'm gay"?

A. Elder Perry: Give them association with manly things, strong men that represent the ideal of
relationships, a man who is vigorous and knows the power he holds.

This sounds like the script for a bad gay porn.

It's also totally clueless and totally wrong. It's been tried by various reparative therapy groups or practitioners. But, it totally doesn't work. The president of one of the biggest groups stated a few years back that he knew of no cases of someone successfully changing their sexual attraction and closed down his organization. The reality actually comes closer to that bad gay porn script -- by all accounts the best places to find gay hookups were at the fix-the-gay retreats and conferences. Some of them really do want a man "who is vigorous and knows the power he holds" -- and want to help him hold it.


It's been over a decade since I've been to Church. It's so weird to read these things and see the prattling on and presumption as if they know anything when clearly they don't. The constant recitation and cherry-picking of scripture is weird. The Q&A session really shows the deference given to these men who clearly don't have any answers and commonly can't answer the question.

[alas]

This answer caught my attention:

Q: How do you help a young man who is struggling to believe in God?
A: Elder Perry: The number of Atheists in the country has from 7% to 25% and is growing fast. We must teach the youth the doctrine. They cannot stand up to the truth of the doctrine if they have been taught it effectively. If they will study the doctrine and ask, they can know for themselves.
It is the doctrine that will save them. It is the doctrine that will bring them back. Use those who are around this young man to help reclaim him. You have to be familiar enough with the doctrine yourself to be able to explain it to him.

The first part is factually incorrect. Though, there are a number of atheists who make the same mistake. About 25% of Americans are unaffiliated with any particular religion, but the majority of them still consider themselves religious. Actually the better term used by many of them is "spiritual". These are the "nones" or "none of the above". Atheists only make up around 3-4% of Americans, though that does mean there are twice as many as there are Mormons. And they are definitely growing much faster. There are slightly more agnostics, around 4-5%.

It's interesting to see Perry speak with such conviction and certainty, giving instruction to other leaders, on something he understands so little about.


This next one really caught my attention:

Q. How do you help a young man or young woman who comes in and says "I think that I'm gay"?

A. Elder Perry: Give them association with manly things, strong men that represent the ideal of
relationships, a man who is vigorous and knows the power he holds.

This sounds like the script for a bad gay porn.

It's also totally clueless and totally wrong. It's been tried by various reparative therapy groups or practitioners. But, it totally doesn't work. The president of one of the biggest groups stated a few years back that he knew of no cases of someone successfully changing their sexual attraction and closed down his organization. The reality actually comes closer to that bad gay porn script -- by all accounts the best places to find gay hookups were at the fix-the-gay retreats and conferences. Some of them really do want a man "who is vigorous and knows the power he holds" -- and want to help him hold it.


It's been over a decade since I've been to Church. It's so weird to read these things and see the prattling on and presumption as if they know anything when clearly they don't. The constant recitation and cherry-picking of scripture is weird. The Q&A session really shows the deference given to these men who clearly don't have any answers and commonly can't answer the question.

And I love [end sarcasm] how the question asks about a young man OR young woman, and he answers the question strictly for the gay YM and totally ignores that a woman might be lesbian. But, then I shuddered as I thought maybe he did answer it, because many men think that all a lesbian needs it to be introduced to a "manly man." I am not sure about most lesbians, but my daughter was repulsed by manly men. She found them intimidating and disgusting, but could be friends with them if they kept it strictly platonic. The guys she dated were small, effeminate, which was my first clue she was attracted to women, very feminine women. (My daughter and her wife are both fems) So, the cure for a gay man is being introduced to the very thing he wants to jump in bed with, but either lesbians aren't worth the time to consider, or the cure for them is identical to the cure for the gay guys and they just need to see what a REAL man is. (I need that puking emoticon)

[Jeffret]

And I love [end sarcasm] how the question asks about a young man OR young woman, and he answers the question strictly for the gay YM and totally ignores that a woman might be lesbian. But, then I shuddered as I thought maybe he did answer it, because many men think that all a lesbian needs it to be introduced to a "manly man." I am not sure about most lesbians, but my daughter was repulsed by manly men. She found them intimidating and disgusting, but could be friends with them if they kept it strictly platonic. The guys she dated were small, effeminate, which was my first clue she was attracted to women, very feminine women. (My daughter and her wife are both fems) So, the cure for a gay man is being introduced to the very thing he wants to jump in bed with, but either lesbians aren't worth the time to consider, or the cure for them is identical to the cure for the gay guys and they just need to see what a REAL man is. (I need that puking emoticon)

Totally unsurprising. Happens all the time. You got it right that lesbians aren't worth the time to consider.

Lesbians are pretty much invisible to the patriarchy. And patriarchal men and leaders. It's really an interesting phenomenon if you watch for it. There are a number of things at play. One is that women are pretty invisible to the patriarchy. Certainly their needs and concerns are. They have no representation in leadership. In a straight couple, patriarchal folks tend to ignore and discount the woman and just pay attention to the man. Like in the other thread about "Gender Equality", where the man is the head and the women are the feet. Lesbians just don't disturb the patriarchal mindset the way gay men do. It shows up in briefs to the court, arguments against gay marriage or gay rights, and all sorts of places. When acknowledged at all, it is usually for erotic or mocking, disdainful purposes.

But, gay men really disturb patriarchal folks -- men. When you see people discuss about how icky or dangerous or unnatural gay sex is, it's always about gay male sex and not lesbian sex. I think a lot of it is because of the way it upends the social order. Men are supposed to be sexually aggressive towards women. Men are supposed to keep women in their place. The existence of gay men disrupts this order in a ways that lesbian women don't, making patriarchal men uncomfortable. If gay men exist, that means that a man might be the subject of unwanted and unexpected sexual advances (though it rarely happens). This places them in a woman's role, of being on the receiving end for sexual interest and advances. This terrifies a number of men. It leaves them with a broken social model, no longer merely binary. Now it's not just that women are less than men. Cleary, to them, gay men are less than them, but are they less than women or because they are still men, they are between men and women? Since the patriarchal mindset relies on establishing who is above you and who is below you, just where do gay men fit in? Especially if they positions of power?

And ultimately, many of these men are insecure in their own sexuality. Their sexuality isn't based upon equality. And some of them feel attracted to men, or aren't sure if they do or not. Because of their pre-existing prejudices, this worries them.

[alas]

And I love [end sarcasm] how the question asks about a young man OR young woman, and he answers the question strictly for the gay YM and totally ignores that a woman might be lesbian. But, then I shuddered as I thought maybe he did answer it, because many men think that all a lesbian needs it to be introduced to a "manly man." I am not sure about most lesbians, but my daughter was repulsed by manly men. She found them intimidating and disgusting, but could be friends with them if they kept it strictly platonic. The guys she dated were small, effeminate, which was my first clue she was attracted to women, very feminine women. (My daughter and her wife are both fems) So, the cure for a gay man is being introduced to the very thing he wants to jump in bed with, but either lesbians aren't worth the time to consider, or the cure for them is identical to the cure for the gay guys and they just need to see what a REAL man is. (I need that puking emoticon)

Totally unsurprising. Happens all the time. You got it right that lesbians aren't worth the time to consider.

Lesbians are pretty much invisible to the patriarchy. And patriarchal men and leaders. It's really an interesting phenomenon if you watch for it. There are a number of things at play. One is that women are pretty invisible to the patriarchy. Certainly their needs and concerns are. They have no representation in leadership. In a straight couple, patriarchal folks tend to ignore and discount the woman and just pay attention to the man. Like in the other thread about "Gender Equality", where the man is the head and the women are the feet. Lesbians just don't disturb the patriarchal mindset the way gay men do. It shows up in briefs to the court, arguments against gay marriage or gay rights, and all sorts of places. When acknowledged at all, it is usually for erotic or mocking, disdainful purposes.

But, gay men really disturb patriarchal folks -- men. When you see people discuss about how icky or dangerous or unnatural gay sex is, it's always about gay male sex and not lesbian sex. I think a lot of it is because of the way it upends the social order. Men are supposed to be sexually aggressive towards women. Men are supposed to keep women in their place. The existence of gay men disrupts this order in a ways that lesbian women don't, making patriarchal men uncomfortable. If gay men exist, that means that a man might be the subject of unwanted and unexpected sexual advances (though it rarely happens). This places them in a woman's role, of being on the receiving end for sexual interest and advances. This terrifies a number of men. It leaves them with a broken social model, no longer merely binary. Now it's not just that women are less than men. Cleary, to them, gay men are less than them, but are they less than women or because they are still men, they are between men and women? Since the patriarchal mindset relies on establishing who is above you and who is below you, just where do gay men fit in? Especially if they positions of power?

And ultimately, many of these men are insecure in their own sexuality. Their sexuality isn't based upon equality. And some of them feel attracted to men, or aren't sure if they do or not. Because of their pre-existing prejudices, this worries them.

You know, I KNOW all of what you said. Even studied it in college as "psychology of men" for a full semester, and that was before I had a daughter come out.

It is just that it it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep in my head because from my perspective as a dragon mother of a lesbian, it is incomprehensible gobbledygook.

But come to think of it, that has to be why DD and wife didn't get excommunicated. I was sure that as soon as they made it obvious what their relationship was, by getting legally married, the bishop who knew about them would have to excommunicate them. But nothing happened, then Gay marriage because legal even in Utah, nothing happened, then the policy of exclusion (POX ) came out, and DD and wife decided to resign, and their bishop had to call them and ask if they were sure??????? Um, the church just announced that they HAD to be excommunicated and the bishop wants to know if they are sure. Somehow, he just was not connecting that they were GAY.

[Jeffret]

Yeah, I know you know all that. My comments weren't really directed at you. You noticed something that had escaped me -- that the answer was solely about boys. I just wanted to ramble on about it more.

I'm sure that's a significant part of why your family members weren't excommunicated. Lesbians are pretty much invisible to patriarchy.

There is a long-time history of lesbian relationships right under everyone's noses, which were totally ignored. Two women who live together, best of friends and companions, for years or decades on end. Part of that probably arises from the patriarchal assumption that women aren't sexual without men to cause it. I'm sure that some of those relationships weren't sexual, but that doesn't mean they weren't lesbian. A little while back, I saw that one of my junior high teachers passed away. She still lived deep in the heart of Mormonism, where I grew up. The obituary talked about how she had lived for decades with her long-time woman friend and how much they loved and supported each other. And how devoted she was to the Mormon Church. Reading it under the guise of my former Mormon worldview it all sounded unremarkable. Reading it from my current awareness, it screams "lesbian relationship". I don't know how the relationship really was, whether it was sexual or romantic, but it seems to have some aspects of a more significant relationship.

Also, keep in mind that excommunication is a tool, a weapon, for church leaders to use. Most church leaders, though, find it kind of cumbersome to use. It takes a lot of time and effort. There are some who relish its authority and the finality of its power. But, most church leaders are good people trying to do the best they can, focused on trying to help others, if gravely misguided and misinformed. Excommunication is only useful as a tool if the potential target indicates it is meaningful to them. Otherwise, most church leaders would prefer to keep members on the rolls, hope that they change their mind, and then return to full activity. (Where they can have power over them.) Even when church policy directly stipulates excommunication, most leaders would prefer not to bother with the hassle and retain the hope as long as excommunication has no power.

[Jeffret]

Here's another comment, because it came to my mind and I thought I'd drop it in here. As well as anywhere else.

I mentioned in my last post about relationships, which appear "normal" enough, but may be more involved and committed than they appear. Lesbian relationships like this seem to be a lot more invisible or ignored than those of men. I'm no expert on these types of relationships, but I find the differences in human experience fascinating so I try to glean what I can and listen when people talk about them.

One piece that really caught my attention came out during the Prop 8 trial. A researcher, who is an actual expert in marriage and relationships, testified regarding straight vs. gay relationships. Most of her testimony involved how similar relationships are and that there are not much significant or substantive differences. Certainly not enough that would justify prohibiting one type by law -- not enough differentiating factors to hang a law on. But, she noted that there are some differences in how they structure their relationships and interact. As one example, she related that lesbian couples reported less emphasis on sex and orgasms. Many lesbian couples were quite content and satisfied to cuddle. She also noted that many gay male couples aren't interested in the type of sex that homophobes are constantly upset about them engaging in.

To me it's a reminder that other people's situations and relationships aren't necessarily the same as mine. Sure there are lots of similarities, but there are differences, even when it comes to other straight couples. Human life is variety and doesn't necessarily conform to my expectations.

[alas]

Here's another comment, because it came to my mind and I thought I'd drop it in here. As well as anywhere else.

I mentioned in my last post about relationships, which appear "normal" enough, but may be more involved and committed than they appear. Lesbian relationships like this seem to be a lot more invisible or ignored than those of men. I'm no expert on these types of relationships, but I find the differences in human experience fascinating so I try to glean what I can and listen when people talk about them.

One piece that really caught my attention came out during the Prop 8 trial. A researcher, who is an actual expert in marriage and relationships, testified regarding straight vs. gay relationships. Most of her testimony involved how similar relationships are and that there are not much significant or substantive differences. Certainly not enough that would justify prohibiting one type by law -- not enough differentiating factors to hang a law on. But, she noted that there are some differences in how they structure their relationships and interact. As one example, she related that lesbian couples reported less emphasis on sex and orgasms. Many lesbian couples were quite content and satisfied to cuddle. She also noted that many gay male couples aren't interested in the type of sex that homophobes are constantly upset about them engaging in.

To me it's a reminder that other people's situations and relationships aren't necessarily the same as mine. Sure there are lots of similarities, but there are differences, even when it comes to other straight couples. Human life is variety and doesn't necessarily conform to my expectations.

I like this. Peoples relationships are not always what people assume. Also, the differences between straight and gay relationships is often less than we would imagine.

Example of the second idea. The first time I had a lesbian couple come in with domestic violence, I kinda thought the dynamics might be slightly different than with straight couples because the dynamics are slightly different when the woman is the abuser in straight couples, so, lesbians should fall in a third Category? Nope, because of my experience with sexual abuse, they gave me the partner who had been abused as a kid so I could help with both issues, while another counselor took the other. So, when I met my client, she was Butch, she was the bread winner, while her fem partner was a stay at home mother. And she was the abuser. The dynamics between them were identical to hetro couples where the man is the abuser. Then a few years later, I had another client couple. They were both Fems, so the abuser was a very feminine and sweet woman, until she lost it and became abusive. And guess what the dynamics were? Yup, just like the hetro couples where the woman is the abuser. Gay couple with domestic violence, and the dominant partner was the abuser. He very much played the male role in the partnership, while his partner (his victim) was the effeminate kind of gay. The only difference between the dynamics there are hetro couples was that he felt much freer to pack up and leave than most women, sort of like women who work outside the home felt freer to leave than STHM.

Of course my sample size is three, so I am not going to publish this as research.

[Jeffret]

From what I've heard, abuse can be quite a problem in gay and lesbian relationships. It's been quite a dirty little secret for a while. It's not that those relationships are any more susceptible to abuse but because they've been outside the mainstream and more secretive, it's been harder to get help and recognition. Hopefully now that these relationships are recognized in society there will be more resources for them, more places to get help, and it will be more acceptable to talk about it and deal with it.