Monday Doug Fabrizio interviewed Gregory Prince about the new book he is working on where he examines the history of the LDS Church and Homosexuality. The working title of the book is "Mormons and Gays".
He started out planning to write the book about Proposition 8, but it has expanded to have a much wider scope. He discusses the changes that have occurred in the church since the 1960's where just being gay would get you excommunicated to today where openly gay members can serve missions.
Although the church officially declined to participate in the project, he seems to have talked off the record to some 70's. He goes over how the church fought same sex marriage in Hawaii, Alaska and California. He talks about how the church has shifted the conversation to freedom of religion.
A couple of interesting points:
- He said that over 60,000 members resigned in the 12 months following the November 2015 Policy Change.
- There was a Salt Lake stake where 10% of the members resigned.
I highly recommend the podcast.
http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/history- ... osexuality
Podcast: A History of Mormons and Homosexuality
Podcast: A History of Mormons and Homosexuality
Last edited by oliblish on Tue Sep 26, 2017 2:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Stands next to Kolob, called by the Egyptians Oliblish, which is the next grand governing creation near to the celestial or the place where God resides; holding the key of power also, pertaining to other planets; as revealed from God to Abraham
Re: Podcast: A History of Mormons and Homosexuality
WOW! And those are the people who actually resigned. I know lots of people who just stopped going. I'll have to check out the podcast.oliblish wrote: ↑Tue Sep 26, 2017 9:12 am
A couple of interesting points:
- He said that over 60,000 members resigned removed in the 12 months following the November 2015 Policy Change.
- There was a Salt Lake stake where 10% of the members resigned.
I highly recommend the podcast.
http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/history- ... osexuality
...walked eye-deep in hell
believing in old men’s lies...--Ezra Pound
believing in old men’s lies...--Ezra Pound
Re: Podcast: A History of Mormons and Homosexuality
That is more than 1% of the active members of the church. Granted, some of those resignations may have been from the quietly inactive members, but this is a level of institutional trauma that leadership simply does not want to talk about.
Re: Podcast: A History of Mormons and Homosexuality
It's not a good sign to lose that many people of good conscience.
Rarely does a mass absence help. The only example I can think of a beneficial absence was after the rapture, where all the worthy fundamentalists and evangelicals were whisked to Heaven, thereby raising the collective IQ of those remaining on Earth by ten points.
Good faith does not require evidence, but it also does not turn a blind eye to that evidence. Otherwise, it becomes misplaced faith.
-- Moksha
-- Moksha
Re: Podcast: A History of Mormons and Homosexuality
It listened to it. Some observations:
It's really quite good. Prince has definitely done his research and talked with some of the significant and major players. However, it feels like Prince is a little late to the discussion, a little bit missing some understanding, a little like he's done the research but doesn't fully understand what is going on yet. Some of that is just the difficulty of a faithful member of the Church trying to understand these people outside, who have different approaches. Like someone who doesn't fully understand the gay community and experience, though he's certainly talked with people and done a lot to feel compassion. Oddly some of the dissonance kind of fades towards the latter part of the session. Perhaps some of it is introduced by the nature of the interview and the direction the interviewer starts taking but once they settle into it, they get more comfortable. It's hard to really describe but I found it quite noticeable.
Near the beginning, Prince talks about his sister, who is married. When he talks about who his sister is married to, he says "her spouse". He kind of hesitates a little bit at that point. It feels like he can't quite bring himself to call her, "her wife". A little later, Prince refers to meeting with Rick Jacobs, founder of The Courage Campaign, and "his partner". I don't have any information on Jacobs's personal life, but given how hard he fought for marriage equality, I kind of suspect that it was "his husband". Towards the end Prince talks about how LGBT people should be welcomed into the Church and he mentions that his sister "and her wife" grew up as Mormons but left the Church and he wishes there were room to return. At this point, the term "her wife" rolls off his tongue easily.
At the beginning, both Doug Fabrizio and Greg Prince were referring to "homosexuality" and "homosexuals". Those terms are considered kind of poor form in the LGBT community. While technically correct, the terms emphasize "sex", which is not really the only or perhaps even dominant aspect of the relationships. Later on, both Prince and Fabrizio switch to mostly using "gays", "lesbians", and "LGBT" easily and correctly.
Like Prince, I'm a little surprised that he hasn't received any blowback or attacks for pursuing this work and his comments about it. That shows how much the Church has changed and how cautious it has become on the subject. He would definitely have faced a different reaction in 2008 and prior. The Church changed its response quite a bit after the blowback from their involvement in Prop 8.
Prince relates that he was very surprised about the Discrimination Policy. This is part of what I mean by being a little late to the party, a little naive, or a little ignorant on the topic. I've been watching for a long time. I paid a lot of attention during Prop 8 and the aftermath. The Discrimination Policy was no surprise.
Prince observes that going into the Prop 8 campaign the Church believed they could have it both ways, they could play a major role in defeating Prop 8 and they could escape notice for their efforts. Prince's observation is absolutely correct. In their previous campaign in California, in 1999-2000, they did a lot to pass the Knight Initiative. A few of us knew what was going on, but it was hard to get the word out. Some of us tracked the Church's actions but nobody paid attention. That had changed dramatically by 2008. Those tracking the Church were well aware of the changes. The Church was oblivious. The difference was the internet was now a major player and people could much more readily share information.
Prince talked about how he heard some outside the Church asking whether the Church's push for religious freedom is really a push for the right to discriminate. The answer is yes, though Prince kind of side-stepped it. He did note that the same arguments for discriminating against used to be used for discriminating on the basis of race.
He noted that a common justification for the Discrimination Policy is that it protects the Church from some potential legal problems. This is presented by lay Mormons because the only justification from church authorities is that it is a revelation. Prince has talked with a number of highly regarded legal scholars who say there are no such potential legal problems. (This is a subject I argued on at length when the Policy came out back on the old board. I'm glad to see the experts confirm I got it right.)
Prince related that there were two groups he really wanted to talk with for increased understanding, A) lay members who supported Prop 8, and B) church authorities, who wouldn't talk with him at all. This doesn't surprise me at all. Leading up to the Prop 8 vote, there were lots of comments from Church members about their involvement in the campaign and how no one else was out there campaigning with them. As soon as the vote was over and the Church started receiving instant criticism, these people all clammed up. Dead quiet. Lots of them put lots of time into the campaign. Some donated significant amounts of money. At the direction of their Church leaders, their prophet. It all came for naught. I'm not surprised he couldn't get anyone to talk about that. I would be quite surprised if church authorities wanted to comment at all on the subject. They're upset enough as it is at how much information about their activities has leaked.
It's really quite good. Prince has definitely done his research and talked with some of the significant and major players. However, it feels like Prince is a little late to the discussion, a little bit missing some understanding, a little like he's done the research but doesn't fully understand what is going on yet. Some of that is just the difficulty of a faithful member of the Church trying to understand these people outside, who have different approaches. Like someone who doesn't fully understand the gay community and experience, though he's certainly talked with people and done a lot to feel compassion. Oddly some of the dissonance kind of fades towards the latter part of the session. Perhaps some of it is introduced by the nature of the interview and the direction the interviewer starts taking but once they settle into it, they get more comfortable. It's hard to really describe but I found it quite noticeable.
Near the beginning, Prince talks about his sister, who is married. When he talks about who his sister is married to, he says "her spouse". He kind of hesitates a little bit at that point. It feels like he can't quite bring himself to call her, "her wife". A little later, Prince refers to meeting with Rick Jacobs, founder of The Courage Campaign, and "his partner". I don't have any information on Jacobs's personal life, but given how hard he fought for marriage equality, I kind of suspect that it was "his husband". Towards the end Prince talks about how LGBT people should be welcomed into the Church and he mentions that his sister "and her wife" grew up as Mormons but left the Church and he wishes there were room to return. At this point, the term "her wife" rolls off his tongue easily.
At the beginning, both Doug Fabrizio and Greg Prince were referring to "homosexuality" and "homosexuals". Those terms are considered kind of poor form in the LGBT community. While technically correct, the terms emphasize "sex", which is not really the only or perhaps even dominant aspect of the relationships. Later on, both Prince and Fabrizio switch to mostly using "gays", "lesbians", and "LGBT" easily and correctly.
Like Prince, I'm a little surprised that he hasn't received any blowback or attacks for pursuing this work and his comments about it. That shows how much the Church has changed and how cautious it has become on the subject. He would definitely have faced a different reaction in 2008 and prior. The Church changed its response quite a bit after the blowback from their involvement in Prop 8.
Prince relates that he was very surprised about the Discrimination Policy. This is part of what I mean by being a little late to the party, a little naive, or a little ignorant on the topic. I've been watching for a long time. I paid a lot of attention during Prop 8 and the aftermath. The Discrimination Policy was no surprise.
Prince observes that going into the Prop 8 campaign the Church believed they could have it both ways, they could play a major role in defeating Prop 8 and they could escape notice for their efforts. Prince's observation is absolutely correct. In their previous campaign in California, in 1999-2000, they did a lot to pass the Knight Initiative. A few of us knew what was going on, but it was hard to get the word out. Some of us tracked the Church's actions but nobody paid attention. That had changed dramatically by 2008. Those tracking the Church were well aware of the changes. The Church was oblivious. The difference was the internet was now a major player and people could much more readily share information.
Prince talked about how he heard some outside the Church asking whether the Church's push for religious freedom is really a push for the right to discriminate. The answer is yes, though Prince kind of side-stepped it. He did note that the same arguments for discriminating against used to be used for discriminating on the basis of race.
He noted that a common justification for the Discrimination Policy is that it protects the Church from some potential legal problems. This is presented by lay Mormons because the only justification from church authorities is that it is a revelation. Prince has talked with a number of highly regarded legal scholars who say there are no such potential legal problems. (This is a subject I argued on at length when the Policy came out back on the old board. I'm glad to see the experts confirm I got it right.)
Prince related that there were two groups he really wanted to talk with for increased understanding, A) lay members who supported Prop 8, and B) church authorities, who wouldn't talk with him at all. This doesn't surprise me at all. Leading up to the Prop 8 vote, there were lots of comments from Church members about their involvement in the campaign and how no one else was out there campaigning with them. As soon as the vote was over and the Church started receiving instant criticism, these people all clammed up. Dead quiet. Lots of them put lots of time into the campaign. Some donated significant amounts of money. At the direction of their Church leaders, their prophet. It all came for naught. I'm not surprised he couldn't get anyone to talk about that. I would be quite surprised if church authorities wanted to comment at all on the subject. They're upset enough as it is at how much information about their activities has leaked.
"Close your eyes, for your eyes will only tell the truth,
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")
And the truth isn't what you want to see" (Charles Hart, "The Music of the Night")