Lds Man Denied Missionary Service, Temple Recommend B/C Of His Views On Ssm

[smac97]

Here: http://www.sltrib.co...brooks.html.csp

A 20-year-old Mormon man says he was turned down as a missionary candidate for opposing the LDS Church’s stance on gays during his pre-mission interviews.

He says he also was denied a temple recommend for his beliefs, according to the online magazine Religion Dispatches.

The Religion Dispatches article was by Joanna Brooks. The Trib article is wholly derivative of that article. Peggy Stack seems to be getting a bit lazy, as she adds absolutely nothing new to the Brooks article.

Emmett told Joanna Brooks at Religion Dispatches that he mentioned his views on gays to his bishop "because I was afraid of being sent out on a mission and the issue of gay marriage coming up and not being able to preach that it was wrong."

He didn’t want "to be sent home," he told Brooks. "I wanted to get it sorted out before I left."

Emmett’s bishop was sympathetic, he said, but the stake president was not.

"His conclusion was that I would not be able to serve," Emmett told Brooks in the interview. "I would have to fast and pray until I realized that I was wrong and had to change my beliefs in order to support the church leadership in their decisions."

First, I suspect we're not getting the whole story.

Second, the editorializing about the stake president is poor journalism. We have Peggy Fletcher-Stack reporting what Joanna Brooks said "Emmet" said his stake president said. How, exactly, does Peggy Fletcher-Stack discern through these multiple layers of hearsay whether the stake president was not "sympathetic?" Brooks doesn't make such a claim, nor does she represent that Emmett made such a claim about the stake president.

I am not particularly impressed with this type of advocacy journalism. Not only are we supposed to take one side of the story (Emmett's, as told through Joanna Brooks), but we have the journalist adding editorial enhancements such as impugning the stake president.

Peggy Fletcher-Stack is acting as little more than a gossipmonger here. The Trib should be embarrassed about this.

Joanna Brooks is not much better. Look at how she prompted Emmett C during their Q&A session (underlined emphases added):

You were born and raised in the LDS Church. Did you grow up singing the Mormon children’s song “I Hope They Call Me on a Mission?”

Yes, the whole bit. I raised my hand when they asked our class of six-year-olds who was going on a mission. I was always active in Church. And scouting—I received my Eagle Scout. I received the priesthood [all worthy Mormon men are ordained to the lay priesthood at age 12] and served in the leadership of my priesthood quorums. And I was preparing to serve a mission. This was what I was supposed to do: the next step on the ladder.

The ladder? Do you mean, the ladder of lifetime Church service expected of Mormon men?

Yes. Exactly.

Growing up a faithful and observant Mormon child, you were also raised in a family that tended to be more open and accepting on LGBT issues.

I come from a family with eleven children. I have one gay brother and one gay sister. My sister came out when I was three or four. Then, my brother—the second oldest in the family—came out a year after he got back from his mission, during his second year at BYU. I was three or four years old. Both said they had always known that they were gay, but it took a long time to come out. At first, it was really hard for the family, but my parents really decided to stand with their children even as they continued as active and faithful Mormons. That’s how I was raised.

But I knew there was tension. When the Church’s Proclamation on the Family came out, I felt it was aimed at gay issues. And it scared me. When I turned twelve and was ordained, I became more serious about my faith, started reading my scriptures, and really became more responsible for my duties in the Church. That’s when I started facing the tension between what the Church was teaching and the reality of the lives of my brother and sister.

The tension must have been scary. You were twelve. You loved your Church, and you loved your brother and sister. How did you sort it out for yourself?

The Church was my whole life. The only way I could figure out how to make it all fit was to believe that I had a purpose in helping the Church figure this out, to become a more aware and understanding place—from the inside. That was my hope. I wanted to stay in and help.

So you prepared for a lifetime of Church service, starting as most young men do with two years of missionary service. You had a plan to work and pay for your mission. You started your paperwork. You met with your bishop. And when you did, you brought up gay marriage. Why?

I brought it up because I was afraid of being sent out on a mission and the issue of gay marriage coming up and not being able to preach that it was wrong. I didn’t want to be sent home. I wanted to get it sorted out before I left.

But Emmett, every Mormon who supports LGBT equality knows you’re supposed to keep such views to yourself!

I know! And I was going to do that. And I saw it necessary sacrifice in order to fulfill my purpose to serve the Church. I was fully ready to be quiet so that I could serve. But my senior year I realized how important it was to my mental health—was a mission going to be a good environment if I was in fear of expressing myself? What if it came up in a missionary lesson and if I couldn’t speak out for what I consider a human rights issue?

You asked your bishop for advice on your inner conflict.

I’m close to my bishop. He’s a friend and a wonderful man. I asked to speak to him privately and shared my worries. He sincerely didn’t know what to do and asked for time to talk with the Stake President [his ecclesiastical supervisor]. I spoke to the Stake President a week later. I shared my concerns and told him about my family background—how it had changed my views, my perspective on gay marriage. At this point, he wanted me to be more specific about my beliefs. It became clear that mine was more than a political belief in marriage equality—we are allowed to have our own political views in the Church. It was actually doctrinal, because I believe that gays should be allowed to get married in the Mormon temple. That was the wrong thing to say. My entire life I had always relied on being sort of vague when interviewed. Interview questions are usually pretty direct, and I can truthfully answer them all. But I don’t go into detail. It’s like “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” But he wanted me to get more specific. I had to open up, and it became clear that I disagreed with the Church on a doctrinal issue. He gave me a lecture. I didn’t argue with him.

So even though in all other respects, you are pretty much in agreement with Church doctrine, at the conclusion of your interview, the Stake President informed you that you would not be able to serve a mission.

Yes, his conclusion was that I would not be able to serve. I would have to fast and pray until I realized that I was wrong and had to change my beliefs in order to support the Church leadership in their decisions. He also said that he wouldn’t allow me to have a temple recommend if I kept these beliefs, which struck me even harder than being denied a mission. That meant my priesthood—which I honor—my hope of marrying in the temple. This really brought home the reality of my situation as someone who believes that gays are equal but can’t be open about it.

You’re facing what gay Mormons face every day.

That’s what my gay brother said. I don’t see myself as being able to comfort him at all. What gays have had to go through in the Church—it’s far greater than what I’ve faced. But my brother says I am looking into a window onto what he has experienced.

And not being able to serve a mission feels like a real loss to you.

It meant everything to me. I totally broke down and I had to start over. I died inside. I pulled down the blinds. I wouldn’t even get out of bed for a month. For a long time, during my depression, I was filled with angry feelings, but I’ve been able to restart and be more appreciative. This experience is just a small part of my testimony, my faith life. But I can only imagine for gay people—it’s everything.

I think of when the Church finally started to ordain black people. Church leaders said, “It’s all behind us now; we’re moving on.” But how many people suffered in the process? How many had to give up their lives for the change to happen? Serving a mission was everything to me, and it still is.

Holy cow. How 'bout you ease up on the prompting the guy, Joanna?

-Smac

P.S. I tracked down an online image of Emmett:

"Hello, I'm a Mormon named Emmett, and today I'd like to badmouth my local priesthood leaders and have those comments published online, knowing full well that those leaders cannot and will not respond to my version of events. Oh, and I need Joanna Brooks to prompt me to speak in as an emotionalistic and one-sided way as possible. If I am going to undermine my local leaders by speaking out against my stake president while knowing he cannot respond, I may as well milk the opportunity for all it's worth."

Edited March 27, 2013 by smac97

[Scott Lloyd]

If one intends to represent the Church (and that's what full-time missionaries do), it is reasonable to expect a certain degree of alignment.

[Buzzard]

So, if Everett had family members who were polygamous and he wanted to support them by preaching that polygamy was OK, would that story have gotten any traction? Methinks not. But hey, it's cool right now to be in solidarity with our gay brethren and sisters.

[rockpond]

Here: http://www.sltrib.co...brooks.html.csp

The Religion Dispatches article was by Joanna Brooks. The Trib article is wholly derivative of that article. Peggy Stack seems to be getting a bit lazy, as she adds absolutely nothing new to the Brooks article.

First, I suspect we're not getting the whole story.

Second, the editorializing about the stake president is poor journalism. We have Peggy Fletcher-Stack reporting what Joanna Brooks said "Emmet" said his stake president said. How, exactly, does Peggy Fletcher-Stack discern through these multiple layers of hearsay whether the stake president was not "sympathetic?" Brooks doesn't make such a claim, nor does she represent that Emmett made such a claim about the stake president.

I am not particularly impressed with this type of advocacy journalism. Not only are we supposed to take one side of the story (Emmett's, as told through Joanna Brooks), but we have the journalist adding editorial enhancements such as impugning the stake president.

Peggy Fletcher-Stack is acting as little more than a gossipmonger here. The Trib should be embarrassed about this.

Joanna Brooks is not much better. Look at how she prompted Emmett C during their Q&A session (underlined emphases added):

Holy cow. How 'bout you ease up on the prompting the guy, Joanna?

-Smac

Yes, I completely agree... I was not impressed with the journalism on this. And, since priesthood leaders must honor confidentiality there is no way to know why this young man was actually denied a recommend and the opportunity to serve a mission.

But, I think this illustrates what could become an increasingly large wedge issue within the church... especially if it is going to be used as a temple recommend worthiness issue. (Note: I'm not saying that is WAS used to deny a temple recommend, just that the article alleges such.)

[MormonMason]

This is one reason why I wish everybody in the Church capable of doing so would take the time to learn to read the Greek New Testament. Male and female, and no other kind or relationship are the kind of marriage that God intended from the beginning, according to Jesus. There is no way around the syntax of the Greek passages of the teachings of Jesus himself dealing with marriage. You either believe what Jesus teaches about marriage or you don't.

And, if we are a Christian church (we are, even though certain others would debate that) we should be inclined to believe the teachings of the Master, Jesus Christ, regarding marriage. It is not a gray area, here. Jesus specifically used words meaning male and female in his statement of what God intended from the beginning for man regarding marriage. That prospective missionary needs to get with the program and believe his Savior when he says something.

[Calm]

It was actually doctrinal, because I believe that gays should be allowed to get married in the Mormon temple.

This has some significant doctrinal implications.

[Wanderer7]

One of the qualifications of worthiness is sustaining church leaders. If the official church doctrine is that SSM is wrong but you refuse to align with that, how can you be sustaining church leaders? I don't expect to go to the temple if I'm viewing pornography or using drugs. Why should I expect to go if I refuse to believe what the church teaches?

[Shanky82]

I can't stand Joanna Brooks. The thing that bugs me about her is that she presumes to speak for the whole or that she presumes to "know" what Church leadership's intentions really are. It also bugs me that the main stream media constantly goes to her for information on Church positions because they can't take what official Church spokesmen say at face value.

[rockpond]

So, if Everett had family members who were polygamous and he wanted to support them by preaching that polygamy was OK, would that story have gotten any traction? Methinks not. But hey, it's cool right now to be in solidarity with our gay brethren and sisters.

Let's be careful to not add even more speculation than the article has already done... I don't think there is any indication that this young man suggested he would go out and preach his belief.

I can believe that polygamy is okay. But that is different than actually entering into a polygamous marriage or putting on a missionary tag and teaching it.

[rockpond]

This is one reason why I wish everybody in the Church capable of doing so would take the time to learn to read the Greek New Testament. Male and female, and no other kind or relationship are the kind of marriage that God intended from the beginning, according to Jesus. There is no way around the syntax of the Greek passages of the teachings of Jesus himself dealing with marriage. You either believe what Jesus teaches about marriage or you don't.

And, if we are a Christian church (we are, even though certain others would debate that) we should be inclined to believe the teachings of the Master, Jesus Christ, regarding marriage. It is not a gray area, here. Jesus specifically used words meaning male and female in his statement of what God intended from the beginning for man regarding marriage. That prospective missionary needs to get with the program and believe his Savior when he says something.

Are you able to provide a link where we could study that? Or would we have to learn Greek first?

[smac97]

But, I think this illustrates what could become an increasingly large wedge issue within the church... especially if it is going to be used as a temple recommend worthiness issue. (Note: I'm not saying that is WAS used to deny a temple recommend, just that the article alleges such.)

Yes, it is a "wedge issue." And it's a "wedge issue" that people like Joanna Brooks are deliberately using to inflame public opinion against the Church. Here's a sampling of the comments left in response to the Religion Dispatches article (400+ and counting):

"In other words, the LDS will brook no discussion on a subject beyond what their leadership deems the given answers to be. There will be no personal belief or reflection accepted. Very Pharisee-like."

"Except that your own church admits that this isn't always a reliable process, as evidenced that they excluded blacks from full membership. Apparently God was too busy to give a revelation to help you guys out with that. Your claims to revelation are a joke on their face, so forgive us if we (and other faithful members in your midst) don't buy the BS about God hating homosexuality."

"I can't get my head around how people can believe in revelation; I mean, you folks aren't stupid: you know that anyone can say God spoke to them and told them whatever random crap was running through their head, right?"

"But ... but ... we've already been told (by many members of the Local Dominant Sect) in this very comment thread that prayerful consideration of a matter (as was done by Emmett) isn't really the way to tell if God is speaking to you if your prayerful consideration keeps you from goose stepping agreeing with TheBrethren."

"I have never hidden my distaste for your church, nor will I. Why do you insist on supporting a church that supports gay bashing?"

"The emperor has no clothes, the emperor has no clothes. Rather than putting clothes on let's kill the messenger. A young man that calls it like it is and leadership condemns him instead of looking inward to something perhaps being wrong."

"This poor, sweet young man. My heart just broke reading his pain. He is far too good for that pack of phony, money-grubbing, power-hungry hyenas. I hope he finds the courage to leave. If they don't want him, humanity itself needs him desperately. I'm not sure anybody can turn that Titanic at this point, and if he continues to sit his butt in their churches on Sundays and give them money, he is tacitly approving of their inhumane treatment of those they marginalize."

"I really don't care what you, or any of the rest of your so-called church think of me. I do care that you and the rest of your so-called church want to insert your ecclesiastical *b******t* into law. I make no secret of my hatred for your so-called church."

"There is no place in an institutionally homophobic organisation like the Mormon Cult for anyone who believes Gay people should be treated equally before the law."

I suspect that these are precisely the sorts of adverse commentary against the Church that were intended by the Religion Dispatches article.

Thanks,

-Smac

[rockpond]

One of the qualifications of worthiness is sustaining church leaders. If the official church doctrine is that SSM is wrong but you refuse to align with that, how can you be sustaining church leaders? I don't expect to go to the temple if I'm viewing pornography or using drugs. Why should I expect to go if I refuse to believe what the church teaches?

“Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty to believe how I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled.” --Joseph Smith

[MormonMason]

Are you able to provide a link where we could study that? Or would we have to learn Greek first?

You'd best learn Greek first. But the source is the Greek New Testament.

[Maestrophil]

What is frustrating to me with this whole topic is that there does not seem to be a difference made between public and religious policy. If someone feels Gay people should have the right to have a union and receive the same government benefits as hetero marrieds, that is a completely different issue that if they feel gays should sealed in the temple and recognized as married by the LDS Church.

The first should not make one unworthy in my view, the second is a major problem as far as supporting the living prophet.

I assume this Emmett guy was arguing with his leaders about gospel-based equal rights - which will be accorded about when hetero-fornication is acceptable...

[Buzzard]

Let's be careful to not add even more speculation than the article has already done... I don't think there is any indication that this young man suggested he would go out and preach his belief.

I can believe that polygamy is okay. But that is different than actually entering into a polygamous marriage or putting on a missionary tag and teaching it.

From the article: "It became clear that mine was more than a political belief in marriage equality—we are allowed to have our own political views in the Church. It was actually doctrinal, because I believe that gays should be allowed to get married in the Mormon temple." Also: " But my senior year I realized how important it was to my mental health—was a mission going to be a good environment if I was in fear of expressing myself? What if it came up in a missionary lesson and if I couldn’t speak out for what I consider a human rights issue?" I don't think there is any doubt the young man fully intended to speak his mind on his mission.

[rockpond]

Yes, it is a "wedge issue." And it's a "wedge issue" that people like Joanna Brooks are deliberately using to inflame public opinion against the Church. Here's a sampling of the comments left in response to the Religion Dispatches article (400+ and counting):

I suspect that these are precisely the sorts of adverse commentary against the Church that were intended by the Religion Dispatches article.

Thanks,

-Smac

There are plenty of articles on both sides of the argument that generate angry commentary. I don't just an article by the comments that are posted in response.

And I've read/listened to Joanna Brooks on a number of occasions. I don't think that she is trying to inflame public opinion against the Church. I believe she is just writing on something she feels passionate about. While there is no way I'm going to try to defend the lousy interview (I think) she did on this one; I don't fault her for writing about an issue that is important to her.

[Zeta-Flux]

“Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be kicked out of their church. I want the liberty to believe how I please. It feels so good not to be trammelled.” --Joseph Smith

Now be fair rockpond. Did Joseph Smith ever disfellowship or excommunicate members? For what causes?

[rockpond]

From the article: "It became clear that mine was more than a political belief in marriage equality—we are allowed to have our own political views in the Church. It was actually doctrinal, because I believe that gays should be allowed to get married in the Mormon temple." Also: " But my senior year I realized how important it was to my mental health—was a mission going to be a good environment if I was in fear of expressing myself? What if it came up in a missionary lesson and if I couldn’t speak out for what I consider a human rights issue?" I don't think there is any doubt the young man fully intended to speak his mind on his mission.

Good point. I forgot about that statement. I agree that you can't serve a mission if you are saying that you're going to insert your own contrary opinions into missionary lessons.

[rockpond]

Now be fair rockpond. Did Joseph Smith ever disfellowship or excommunicate members? For what causes?

I believe he did. And I haven't studied all the causes.

[Calm]

One of the qualifications of worthiness is sustaining church leaders. If the official church doctrine is that SSM is wrong but you refuse to align with that, how can you be sustaining church leaders?

And it should be pointed out he did not just disagree with the civil marriage, but rather with the temple marriage, which as I said above has doctrinal implications that extend beyond the simple fact of marriage.

[Bikeemikey]

I can't stand Joanna Brooks. The thing that bugs me about her is that she presumes to speak for the whole or that she presumes to "know" what Church leadership's intentions really are. It also bugs me that the main stream media constantly goes to her for information on Church positions because they can't take what official Church spokesmen say at face value.

I really like Joanna Brooks and think she does good work.

If you read much of her stuff it is obvious that she is very aware of the risks from generalizations.

She is an excellent spokesperson for a current countercultural movement in the church. That is why she is drawn on a lot.

This is an interview that may have leading questions but it didn't need them as the individual was obviously happy to go there and likely would have regardless.

Edited March 27, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Calm]

that is a completely different issue that if they feel gays should sealed in the temple and recognized as married by the LDS Church

Which is the position the young man of the article held....just to be clear in case someone missed that. He was not banned from a mission for a political position he held.

[Calm]

I believe he did. And I haven't studied all the causes.

Some were definitely for preaching false doctrine.

[Bikeemikey]

One of the qualifications of worthiness is sustaining church leaders. If the official church doctrine is that SSM is wrong but you refuse to align with that, how can you be sustaining church leaders? I don't expect to go to the temple if I'm viewing pornography or using drugs. Why should I expect to go if I refuse to believe what the church teaches?

I strongly believe the church has no right, or reasonable voice, in the question of SSM outside of the church; especially my political beliefs on the subject that do not impact the church. Marriage outside the church is the provence of political discourse, plain and simple.

If this individual had been refused a temple recommend and the opportunity to serve a mission because he disagreed with the Church stance of marriage at the State and Federal level I would be very very upset. As it is, the Church has an absolute right to define marriage within the institution however it wants. I support that right.

Missionaries are not really meant to go out and share their opinions on doctrinal issues, there is a diffiuclt conflict here. However, if the missionary was asked about their view of Gay marriage in the church and they responded that they had a hard time with it and hoped that one day it would change, especially with the close family connection to the issue, then I think perhaps there is room for compatibility.

Should we have restricted temple recommends from those who were ardently pushing for blacks receiving the priesthood, or refused to allow them to serve missions? I think in some respects tolerance of doctrinal dissent that is not related to the restoration and the atonement is easier to allow in temple recommend holders than in missionaries. This is due to the private public personas that each of these church endorsements provide.

[rockpond]

Which is the position the young man of the article held....just to be clear in case someone missed that. He was not banned from a mission for a political position he held.

Actually... to be clear... we don't know why he was rejected for missionary service as the priesthood leader who made the decision has not provided that clarification (and won't/shouldn't due to confidentiality). Though, I agree, it wasn't likely because of his political views.