Lds Stake In Seattle: Gays And Lesbians Welcome Here

[Daniel2]

It's a breath of fresh air to see a positive report on the relationship between the LDS and LGBT communities...

Seattle Mormon Leadership to LGBT Members: You Are Welcome Here

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/6049698

Mitch Mayne 10/26/14 10:17 PM ET

Mormon culture is changing.

On Sunday, October 19, the leadership of the Seattle North Stake (similar to a diocese) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints held a special service delivering a message of love, inclusiveness, and welcome to any Mormon who has felt harmed by or pushed out of the faith -- especially LGBT Mormons and their families.

Local leadership in Seattle put in place this year a theme based onEzekiel 34:16, and set out to "seek that which was lost, and bring again that which was driven away, and bind up that which was broken" within its boundaries. The outreach began with a direct mail letter, signed by the leadership of the Washington Park Ward, and mailed directly to over 900 inactive Mormons -- and included Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood, home to many of the city's LGBT locals. The letter's message: Please come back.

The letter itself and portions of it made the rounds in the press and on social media -- creating quite a buzz both in the Mormon and the LGBT communities.

Contrary to some reports, the initiative driven by Seattle leadership does not sidestep official Church doctrine, which has not changed. Local leaders are given a great deal of flexibility to decide how best to serve their members. Church discipline for anyone (gay, straight or anywhere in between) who does not align with theChurch's Law of Chastity is a decision left to local authority. And in Seattle, the focus is not on discipline -- but Christlike love and inclusion, and emphasizes God's second greatest commandment: Love thy neighbor as thyself.

In fact, the steps Seattle Mormon leaders are taking are in direct alignment with instruction given to Mormons when it comes to LGBT individuals. On the Church's official website on the topic, Elder R. Holland reminds us that, "As a Church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate. Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion, and outreach."

This isn't the first time we've seen this happen inside local Mormon communities. Seattle is now the fourth city to publicly announce the move to throw the doors open to everyone who wishes to attend, following Beaverton, Oregon; Oakland, and San Francisco, California, where I served in a ward calling as my authentic self -- and was asked to help implement a similar plan.

For LGBT Mormons, that means we no longer have to wear the cloak of fear that often enshrouds us in our religious life, and we are free to be our authentic selves. And, as one of the talks delivered on Sunday so aptly puts it, "No community thrives if its members offer less than their authentic selves, or withhold their essential generosity and love."

This public move by the Seattle leadership is certainly meaningful to LGBT Mormons. But it's also meaningful to literally tens-of-thousands of traditional Mormons who've begun to think differently about their LGBT brothers and sisters, and who enthusiastically support this kind of cultural change.

I carefully watched the comments on social media this week from those who attended -- or were moved by -- Sunday's meeting. And while I could expound upon why this is of great importance to both LGBT and traditional Mormons (and the larger LGBT community as a whole), hearing the words of those affected does far more justice to this work than my thoughts as an observer could bestow.

• "It is these types of things that give me hope; real hope that change is happening, that hearts and minds are opening, and that there are people who are really making a difference and setting such a wonderful, compassionate example." - Traditional Mormon Mom

• "I felt like the talks were for me, a married lesbian, but also for every straight person in the congregation, too. I felt loved, just as I am. I would feel comfortable putting my 3 and 9-year-old children in primary and not worry that they would be made to feel ashamed of their family." - Lesbian Mormon Mom

• "It was wonderful to have a Mormon leader speak to me, my husband, and my children as if we were [equal to someone who is] straight -- and to have them recognize that in God's eyes, we are." - Gay Mormon Dad

• "I think today is the first time I've ever felt like the fact that I am a child of God was more important than who I date." - Gay Mormon

• "The overall message was simple and beautiful: whoever you are, you belong here, and this just as much your church as anyone else's. I met some amazing people who refuse to choose between living the gospel and living authentically. Best Sunday I've had in years." -Traditional Mormon Mom

• "I have been going through a significant faith journey for about two years now. Prop 8 was my first indicator that what I felt in my heart about reaching out in love and compassion like the Savior taught, differed from what the brethren of the church were preaching. I needed to know why there wasn't a place for my LGBTQ brothers and sisters in the Church. Today gave me hope." - Traditional Mormon Mom

• "This is the kind of Church culture Christ himself would establish. If only more congregations would follow suit; can you imagine the example it would set, and the change it could create in the hearts of members everywhere?" - Traditional Mormon Dad

• "I felt like I was on holy ground today as I sat among those who bravely stepped back into an LDS chapel after feeling so rejected in the past. The words spoken were just what I needed to hear. I'm a straight ally who felt squeezed out of the main body of the church, no longer accepted for my own struggles with certain doctrines, cultural traditions and my advocacy for those who are marginalized. I felt the pure love of Christ for me personally, for the first time in my life, through the words that were spoken. It was unconditional. It was the Savior's message. It was holy. I felt like I was coming home to my people, the way it should be. It was a glimmer of what Zion might be like." - Traditional Mormon Mom

• "All I have ever wanted is to come home. Now, I can." - Lesbian Mormon

An email from one woman described both the Mormon initiative and the simultaneous unfolding of news our Catholic fellows are considering responding differently to LGBT individuals as a "big win for Christianity." And perhaps she's right -- but I suspect all of this is really a big win for our Savior. After all, He's the one that reminded us to, "Love every one."

And in Seattle, Mormons are doing just that.

More of this, please... :-)

Its worth acknowleging that the article notes doctrine hasn't changed.

Edited October 28, 2014 by Daniel2

[stemelbow]

It's a breath of fresh air to see a positive report on the relationship between the LDS and LGBT communities...

More of this, please... :-)

[its worth acknowleging that the article notes doctrine hasn't changed].

I had a friend who attended and told me how wonderful it was for her as well. I agree, please more of this.

[bluebell]

I love this!

 

But i don't really understand what being our 'authentic' selves means in the article?

 

If they are saying that someone can't be their authentic selves without openly displaying their sexuality and sexual preference, that doesn't really make any sense to me.  It would mean that Catholic priests or nuns, for example, are not being their authentic selves because they are refusing to openly embrace and display their sexuality.  

[DBMormon]

My guess is the leadership in most wards and Stakes would see this example as uncomfortbale and unencouraged at best and "apostate" at worst and not in line with the underlying policy and doctrine.  I for one applaud this tolerant and inclusive approach and feel the Savior would do the same.

[bluebell]

My guess is the leadership in most wards and Stakes would see this example as uncomfortbale and unencouraged at best and "apostate" at worst and not in line with the underlying policy and doctrine.  I for one applaud this tolerant and inclusive approach and feel the Savior would do the same.

 

I'm not sure what part of 'all are welcome' could be interpreted as apostate.

[stemelbow]

I love this!

 

But i don't really understand what being our 'authentic' selves means in the article?

 

If they are saying that someone can't be their authentic selves without openly displaying their sexuality and sexual preference, that doesn't really make any sense to me.  It would mean that Catholic priests or nuns, for example, are not being their authentic selves because they are refusing to openly embrace and display their sexuality.

I get the impression that many people who are attracted to those of the same sex often feel it best to keep quiet about it in church, silently suffering alone through thoughtless judgmental comments. Because, as I've heard from many, to speak openly about it, often brings undue rudeness and judgment.

[stemelbow]

My guess is the leadership in most wards and Stakes would see this example as uncomfortbale and unencouraged at best and "apostate" at worst and not in line with the underlying policy and doctrine.  I for one applaud this tolerant and inclusive approach and feel the Savior would do the same.

I agree. I think that's a pretty traditional view fo things. Using the idea that tolerance is not always good will be invoked.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm not sure what part of 'all are welcome' could be interpreted as apostate.

Well are we talking about open displays of sexuality at church? IF so then all of you who are in support of this are off your rocker.

 

If it just that all are welcome, that has always been the approach for our church.

 

I mean, I am not sure how the Savior would respond to to guy making out in the foyer but I doubt he would welcome that.

[Boanerges]

My guess is the leadership in most wards and Stakes would see this example as uncomfortbale and unencouraged at best and "apostate" at worst and not in line with the underlying policy and doctrine.  I for one applaud this tolerant and inclusive approach and feel the Savior would do the same.

Hear, hear!!!!! I agree wholeheartedly. I really don't see how anyone who claims to sustain that stake leadership can see this as apostate. Elder Chirstofferson's gay brother livesin a same sex relationship and is an active member of his New York ward. Yes, he sins - let he whio is without sin cast the first stone. (I certainly won't be casting any.)

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Well are we talking about open displays of sexuality at church? IF so then all of you who are in support of this are off your rocker.

 

If it just that all are welcome, that has always been the approach for our church.

 

I mean, I am not sure how the Savior would respond to to guy making out in the foyer but I doubt he would welcome that.

How about a gay couple sitting close to each other or holding hands? I don't think that anyone has ever suggested it was appropriate for anyone to make out with any other individual in a church.

[Boanerges]

Well are we talking about open displays of sexuality at church? IF so then all of you who are in support of this are off your rocker.

 

If it just that all are welcome, that has always been the approach for our church.

 

I mean, I am not sure how the Savior would respond to to guy making out in the foyer but I doubt he would welcome that.

So are you saying it's OK for a husband/wife (opposite sexes) or boyfriend/girlfriend to hold hands, but not OK for two men or two women to the the same? If so, why not? Is kissing or holding hands a sin? Are you without sin?

 

FWIW, I don't think most of us would apporve of anyone making out in the foyer but I don't really know what the Savior thinks and won't presume to speak for him. Since I am unaware of any direct quotes from the Savior on the matter, I would also have to refrain from quoting him.

 

Kissing and holding hands are not the same as making out - not that making out and full on sex have never happened in a church building.

[USU78]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRchNRJ4Qhs

 

SWK suggested in 1979 we fortify our homes against many evil influences.

 

I don't think there's been any change either.

[Kenngo1969]

I love this!

 

But i don't really understand what being our 'authentic' selves means in the article?

 

If they are saying that someone can't be their authentic selves without openly displaying their sexuality and sexual preference, that doesn't really make any sense to me.  It would mean that Catholic priests or nuns, for example, are not being their authentic selves because they are refusing to openly embrace and display their sexuality.  

Not to mention Mormon missionaries!

[california boy]

When I was struggling with this issue I talked at great length with both my bishop and stake president.  I asked if they could make an announcement of the Evergreen meetings that were taking place in our stake.  (Evergreen was the churches attempt to bring gay members together to deal with the issues of being gay with the goal of turning them away from homosexuality)  The stake president thought that it would be inappropriate.  I asked if I could put a notice up on the bulletin board.  He turned that down as well.  So basically if you were a gay Mormon and wanted to try and deal with this issue, there was no way of actually finding out about the church sponsored program.  The irony of this was that the substance abuse program in our stake was announced every month.  So the message I clearly got, was that it was ok to be a drug addict in the church and try to seek help.  But if you were gay, it would be just too difficult of subject to bring up.  And this was in the Bay Area.    It sounds like the church is at least attempting to be more welcoming.  

 

Too bad there are those that want to blast such little steps as being somehow leading to making out in the lobby.  After all, they are gay.  As if making out in the lobby is what any gay couple that is attending church would want to do.  There is still so much judgement a gay member has to deal with.  It is probably more of a challenge to stay active in the church than it is to be celibate.

[stemelbow]

When I was struggling with this issue I talked at great length with both my bishop and stake president.  I asked if they could make an announcement of the Evergreen meetings that were taking place in our stake.  (Evergreen was the churches attempt to bring gay members together to deal with the issues of being gay with the goal of turning them away from homosexuality)  The stake president thought that it would be inappropriate.  I asked if I could put a notice up on the bulletin board.  He turned that down as well.  So basically if you were a gay Mormon and wanted to try and deal with this issue, there was no way of actually finding out about the church sponsored program.  The irony of this was that the substance abuse program in our stake was announced every month.  So the message I clearly got, was that it was ok to be a drug addict in the church and try to seek help.  But if you were gay, it would be just too difficult of subject to bring up.  And this was in the Bay Area.    It sounds like the church is at least attempting to be more welcoming.  

 

Too bad there are those that want to blast such little steps as being somehow leading to making out in the lobby.  After all, they are gay.  As if making out in the lobby is what any gay couple that is attending church would want to do.  There is still so much judgement a gay member has to deal with.  It is probably more of a challenge to stay active in the church than it is to be celibate.

I'm uncomfortable at Church, often, because of the views of my fellow ward members. Can only imagine it'd be 100 times worse if I was attracted to those of the same sex.

[cinepro]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRchNRJ4Qhs

 

SWK suggested in 1979 we fortify our homes against many evil influences.

 

I don't think there's been any change either.

 

 

As we have said on previous occasions, certainly our Heavenly Father is distressed with the increasing inroads among his children of such insidious sins as adultery and fornication and homosexuality, lesbianism, abortion, alcoholism, dishonesty, and crime generally, which threaten the total breakdown of the family and the home.

[cinepro]

(Evergreen was the churches attempt to bring gay members together to deal with the issues of being gay with the goal of turning them away from homosexuality)

 

Just to be clear, Evergreen (now "North Star") wasn't an official Church program.

 

 

 

Disclaimer: North Star is not owned by or affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and site content should not be interpreted as official statements of Church doctrine, belief, or practice. While North Star wholly supports the doctrines and values of the Church of Jesus Christ, all views expressed or errors made are the sole responsibility of site contributors.

Edited October 28, 2014 by cinepro

[california boy]

 

Just to be clear, Evergreen (now "North Star") wasn't an official Church program.

 

 

 

Evergreen was run under priesthood leadership and we met in the interstake center.  It is very comparable to the substance abuse program also run under priesthood leadership.  A priesthood leader and his wife were called by their stake president to supervise the program and offer assistance.  They too were very frustrated to be called to this assignment, yet not allowed to tell anyone about it in church meetings.  In the end, the Evergreen program completely dissolved in the Bay Area because of lack of support. In the Oregon area, the priesthood leadership encouraged and announced the Evergreen program.  They had 3 times the gay members than we did in the Bay Area.  Yeah, I know a lot about this program.  I attended for a couple of years and are still in contact with several of the guys.  Most have left the church.  One is still married to his wife.  

 

I know nothing about Northstar or if there is a chapter in the Bay Area.  I could't find anything on their web site. Not even sure if they have local meetings.  It seems more like an online community.  But I could be wrong.

Edited October 28, 2014 by california boy

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Evergreen was run under priesthood leadership and we met in the interstake center.  It is very comparable to the substance abuse program also run under priesthood leadership.  A priesthood leader and his wife were called by their stake president to supervise the program and offer assistance.  They too were very frustrated to be called to this assignment, yet not allowed to tell anyone about it in church meetings.  In the end, the Evergreen program completely dissolved in the Bay Area because of lack of support. In the Oregon area, the priesthood leadership encouraged and announced the Evergreen program.  They had 3 times the gay members than we did in the Bay Area.  Yeah, I know a lot about this program.  I attended for a couple of years and are still in contact with several of the guys.  Most have left the church.  One is still married to his wife.  

 

I know nothing about Northstar or if there is a chapter in the Bay Area.  I could't find anything on their web site. Not even sure if they have local meetings.  It seems more like an online community.  But I could be wrong.

 

It would be very interesting to know what percentage of those who identify as gay eventually leave the church.

[Rob Osborn]

I would be very uncomfortable if a gay couple showed up at my ward on Sunday and they were holding hands/arms around each other in a loving couple relationship sort of way in Sacrament meeting. Call me homophobic if you will, whatever. But the truth is it is homosexual behavior and should not be allowed in church.

[Buzzard]

I would hope that we would be welcoming and happy to see anyone who comes to an LDS meeting. (Especially on the Sundays that determine our budget allocation   ) It's a pretty big leap from there to having non-celibate gays-or non celibate single people of any stripe-holding TR's and callings. And yes, I know that some of them now would be considered legally married, but you know how the church feels about that. 

[Rob Osborn]

In primary they teach the roles of the mother and Father. That wouldnt bode to well with the gay couple that brought their children. I dont see it working. Homosexuality lifestyles are in complete opposition to LDS doctrine.

[bluebell]

I get the impression that many people who are attracted to those of the same sex often feel it best to keep quiet about it in church, silently suffering alone through thoughtless judgmental comments. Because, as I've heard from many, to speak openly about it, often brings undue rudeness and judgment.

 

If they are using the word authentic to mean that a gay person can't be authentic unless they can be openly gay, then i understand what they are saying and don't have a problem with it.  If they are using it to mean that someone who is gay can't be authentic unless they are an openly practicing gay person, then i would disagree.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If they are using the word authentic to mean that a gay person can't be authentic unless they can be openly gay, then i understand what they are saying and don't have a problem with it.  If they are using it to mean that someone who is gay can't be authentic unless they are an openly practicing gay person, then i would disagree.

What I have seen is that gay people seem to were their sexuality on their sleeve. It seems to be the center of their whole being. As if there are no other identifying characteristics. I interpret being "authentic" as some one that is is openly gay and they flaunt it.

 

Otherwise if you are not practicing it you are not authentic. I have never even heard the term before.

 

Am I an authentic heterosexual? What is a non authentic heterosexual? It just doesn't work.

[Rock_N_Roll]

In primary they teach the roles of the mother and Father. That wouldnt bode to well with the gay couple that brought their children. I dont see it working. Homosexuality lifestyles are in complete opposition to LDS doctrine.

 

So, you are saying that the children of a gay couple should not be welcomed into Primary?