Do Our Ward And Stake Leaders Recognize The Room They Have To Include?

[DBMormon]

Dear Discussion Boarders, Hope your having a good new year.
Below is an interesting tidbit on how we can be more inclusive. I would love your thoughts on the possibilities of how to be more inclusive in ways that fall outside our normal church experience? The Tom Christofferson spoken of here is apostle Elder D. Todd Christofferson's brother. He is married to a man and yet his ward (obviously with the general Church's knowledge) allows him to participate and hold a calling.

 

In my travels I have visited a congregation in New Canaan, Connecticut, that serves as a model example. Tom Christofferson is an openly gay Mormon who attends services there. Tom’s backstory is a lot like Clark Johnsen’s – strong Mormon upbringing, served a mission, left the church due to his sexual identity being in conflict with his faith. But a few years ago he decided to return to the church. He is still with his gay partner of 18 years. Yet his congregation has embraced them. He sings in the choir, attends all meetings, and has shared his testimony from the pulpit. It started with a compassionate bishop. "Tom's presence has made me a better person," New Canaan resident and JetBlue Airways founder David Neeleman told me. "I wish there were three or four Tom Christoffersons in every Mormon congregation. We'd learn to be more tolerant, more compassionate." I know and admire Tom. I also admire his brother D. Todd Christofferson, who is one of the Twelve Apostles in the Mormon Church. The Christofferson family’s approach to the situation is a pattern for other families with gay children. "Quite soon after I came out,” Tom said, “My parents took an opportunity to express to my brothers and their wives their determination that nothing would be allowed to break the circle of love that binds all of us together as a family. As they expressed it, while none of us is perfect as individuals, we can be perfect in our unconditional love for each other."

http://jeffbenedict.com/…/blog/35…/378-maybe-ill-meet-a-girl

 

Wouldn't it be awesome if all Church leadership was aware of such ways like this to include those who normally find themselves on the fringe of membership. Often the barrier, is that no one has told them such is even a possiblility or option on the table.

your thoughts?

Edited January 3, 2015 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

My point with this anecdotal story is that Tom Christofferson is not an exception to a rule... rather it is a viable way that we can treat our gay brothers and sisters.  The problem (and yes I am guessing) is very few bishops and Stake presidents have ever heard more less consider such possibilities as viable options on the table. How much different would our leaders react is such options were taught to them as a viable option?

[strappinglad]

Just out of curiosity, DBM, is there a line that you personally would draw to exclude someone from full fellowship?

I have known members of the church who gossip, fornicate, steal, beat their wives, lie, abuse their children, covet, break the Sabbath, love mammon, watch porn, and have killed. Besides that, there are some who eat too much meat and drink Coke. Many of these sinners go to church regularly and hold responsible positions. How much more inclusive do we need to be?

[DBMormon]

Just out of curiosity, DBM, is there a line that you personally would draw to exclude someone from full fellowship?

I have known members of the church who gossip, fornicate, steal, beat their wives, lie, abuse their children, covet, break the Sabbath, love mammon, watch porn, and have killed. Besides that, there are some who eat too much meat and drink Coke. Many of these sinners go to church regularly and hold responsible positions. How much more inclusive do we need to be?

 bait and switch.... my opinion on all you mentioned has nothing to do with the thread.  My post is about showing one public approved example of how to handle gay members who act on their inclinations.  My point was that very few Bishops and Stake presidents are likely aware that such an option is even on the table.  My question is what your thoughts were on leaders being aware of such examples and if helping them be aware of such is a good thing. And if it is, it then begs the question of why don't we share such examples with local leaders?

 

My feelings on the list you made? .... each case (not behavior) would need a individual answer and hence i am in no position to give a blanket statement, though I would add that on each of those there are likely options that leaders are not aware of or considered as well.

Edited January 3, 2015 by DBMormon

[Tacenda]

 bait and switch.... my opinion on all you mentioned has nothing to do with the thread.  My post is about showing one public approved example of how to handle gay members who act on their inclinations.  My point was that very few Bishops and Stake presidents are likely aware that such an option is even on the table.  My question is what your thoughts were on leaders being aware of such examples and if helping them be aware of such is a good thing. And if it is, it then begs the question of why don't we share such examples with local leaders?

 

My feelings on the list you made? .... each case (not behavior) would need a individual answer and hence i am in no position to give a blanket statement, though I would add that on each of those there are likely options that leaders are not aware of or considered as well.

I agree, I don't know if strappinglad really even read your OP.  But will answer his question with another question..do any of the other members that aren't gay have asterisks beside their name for bishops to see, for just being gay and nothing to do with any of the sins strappinglad spelled out?     

[Hamba Tuhan]

I find it really interesting that you think the problem is that priesthood leaders lack awareness that imperfect members can still participate. I have served with three of the last four bishoprics in our ward, and I can't think of a single man I've served with who wouldn't have rejoiced over someone like Bro. Christofferson being willing to attend church, sing in the choir, and, best of all, bear testimony to the truthfulness of the Restoration. We would have been dancing happy jigs in bishopric meetings over any or all of the above. We don't have any members of our ward who identify as gay, but I know that we've gone out of our way to try to involve all members in the life of our ward, including figuring out callings they might be able to hold. We currently have a brother in our ward who lives in a de facto relationship with his female partner, but we came up with a calling for him, and I love hearing his testimony when he chooses to share it. Having been a part of numerous disciplinary councils, I know that our goal was always to find as many ways as we could so that the person involved could still participate to the fullest extent possible. On a stake level, we have a brother who struggles with a heroin addiction and has been in and out of rehab. He has sung with the stake choir for as long as I can remember.

[Duncan]

Just out of curiosity, DBM, is there a line that you personally would draw to exclude someone from full fellowship?

I have known members of the church who gossip, fornicate, steal, beat their wives, lie, abuse their children, covet, break the Sabbath, love mammon, watch porn, and have killed. Besides that, there are some who eat too much meat and drink Coke. Many of these sinners go to church regularly and hold responsible positions. How much more inclusive do we need to be?

 

 

and what may I ask is wrong with eating too much meat and drinking Coke?! My dentist friend doesn't mind

Edited January 3, 2015 by Duncan

[DBMormon]

I find it really interesting that you think the problem is that priesthood leaders lack awareness that imperfect members can still participate. I have served with three of the last four bishoprics in our ward, and I can't think of a single man I've served with who wouldn't have rejoiced over someone like Bro. Christofferson being willing to attend church, sing in the choir, and, best of all, bear testimony to the truthfulness of the Restoration. We would have been dancing happy jigs in bishopric meetings over any or all of the above. We don't have any members of our ward who identify as gay, but I know that we've gone out of our way to try to involve all members in the life of our ward, including figuring out callings they might be able to hold. We currently have a brother in our ward who lives in a de facto relationship with his female partner, but we came up with a calling for him, and I love hearing his testimony when he chooses to share it. Having been a part of numerous disciplinary councils, I know that our goal was always to find as many ways as we could so that the person involved could still participate to the fullest extent possible. On a stake level, we have a brother who struggles with a heroin addiction and has been in and out of rehab. He has sung with the stake choir for as long as I can remember.

my experience has been that many leaders feel homosexuality is a sin to be cast out from our midst in a way that marginalizes and ostracizes those who are gay.  Church courts, stipulations on membership, not allowing two gay men to attend holding hands and sitting next to each other with a arm around each other.... I sense that gay members are not as tolerated generally as  it is in this ward.  The article seems to agree that this is a model that can be learned from.  Glad you come from a empathetic Stake, not all are this way

[Rob Osborn]

In due respect, we should love and support all of God's children despite their flaws, weaknesses, sins etc. But, we should not come to show signs of embracing sin and upholding it as secularism demands. Sure, we need to include all of our gay brothers and sisters in our church worship. We may not know what they are going through but we can still love them. But, again, there does need to be a strict line showing that we do not embrace nor condone homosexuality and it should always be taught that it is an abomination before the Lord just as is viewing pornography, adultery, and other grevious sexual sins of immorality. My concern here is that when we begin to embrace gays within our church that we are less likely to openly discuss homosexuality as sinful during church hours. Over time we may even begin to embrace homosexuality and decide to not teach it as immoral and even take the opposite side and embrace it as normal behavior. Oh the careful and cunning snare of Satan!!!

[Rob Osborn]

What if we started to embrace youth who are sexually active and decided not to be married? What about if we started to embrace members who decided to have sex changes or decide they are happiest in jobs working in the porn industry? Should we embrace transvestites and hookers also?

I see a trend in society, even in our church and it is sad. That trend is showing tolerance to the point of embracing alternative sexual and immoral lifestyles as normal. It will get to a point where we will even be afraid to speak of homosexuality as sinful in church in fear we might hurt someone's feelings. Oh the careful and cunning snare of the devil!

[DBMormon]

In due respect, we should love and support all of God's children despite their flaws, weaknesses, sins etc. But, we should not come to show signs of embracing sin and upholding it as secularism demands. Sure, we need to include all of our gay brothers and sisters in our church worship. We may not know what they are going through but we can still love them. But, again, there does need to be a strict line showing that we do not embrace nor condone homosexuality and it should always be taught that it is an abomination before the Lord just as is viewing pornography, adultery, and other grevious sexual sins of immorality. My concern here is that when we begin to embrace gays within our church that we are less likely to openly discuss homosexuality as sinful during church hours. Over time we may even begin to embrace homosexuality and decide to not teach it as immoral and even take the opposite side and embrace it as normal behavior. Oh the careful and cunning snare of Satan!!!

 

Well Rob, I have a funny feeling that the Church 100 years from now will be an uncomfortable place for conservative members who see allowing gay participation as a snare of the devil.

[DBMormon]

What if we started to embrace youth who are sexually active and decided not to be married? What about if we started to embrace members who decided to have sex changes or decide they are happiest in jobs working in the porn industry? Should we embrace transvestites and hookers also?

I see a trend in society, even in our church and it is sad. That trend is showing tolerance to the point of embracing alternative sexual and immoral lifestyles as normal. It will get to a point where we will even be afraid to speak of homosexuality as sinful in church in fear we might hurt someone's feelings. Oh the careful and cunning snare of the devil!

sexually active youth - we should ex them and cast them from our midst..... this is what you seem to be indicating.   I would rather wrap my arm around them and accept them and love them and help them to see the goal and to improve in whatever areas God can work with them on.

[Rob Osborn]

Well Rob, I have a funny feeling that the Church 100 years from now will be an uncomfortable place for conservative members who see allowing gay participation as a snare of the devil.

Its not about gay participation, its about embracing their lifestyle choices. Its about embracing sin.

[Rob Osborn]

sexually active youth - we should ex them and cast them from our midst..... this is what you seem to be indicating.   I would rather wrap my arm around them and accept them and love them and help them to see the goal and to improve in whatever areas God can work with them on.

Its not what I am indicating at all. I brought that up to try to show differences in how we perceive some lifestyles such as the gay lifestyle as being acceptable. Its not acceptable, neither is being a drug addict or a prostitute acceptable. Will we get to a point to where we will be afraid to preach against homosexuality in church when we know more homosexuals will be coming to church?

[DBMormon]

Its not about gay participation, its about embracing their lifestyle choices. Its about embracing sin.

What did you think about members accepting inter-racial marriage in 1977?  were they a tool of the adversary?

[Rob Osborn]

What did you think about members accepting inter-racial marriage in 1977?  were they a tool of the adversary?

So, are you equating inter-racial marriage the same as homosexuality?

[DBMormon]

So, are you equating inter-racial marriage the same as homosexuality?

One was thought to doctrinally be sin at one time.  The other is thought doctrinally to be sin currently.  On that level, yes I am comparing them.

Would you mind answering the question?

Edited January 3, 2015 by DBMormon

[Rob Osborn]

One was thought to doctrinally be sin at one time.  The other is thought doctrinally to be sin currently.  On that level, yes I am comparing them.

Would you mind answering the question?

Homosexuality is an abomination. Inter-racial marriage is not. You shouldnt compare the two.

[DBMormon]

Homosexuality is an abomination. Inter-racial marriage is not. You shouldnt compare the two.

but prior to 1977 the Church had both listed as doctrinally sin and in the quotes of some... very serious sin... ask BY

[Rob Osborn]

but prior to 1977 the Church had both listed as doctrinally sin and in the quotes of some... very serious sin... ask BY

Look, if you don't see homosexuality as an abomination, then that's your problem. I'm still going to preach the official doctrine in church that it is an abomination and NOT an acceptable lifestyle we should embrace.

[DBMormon]

Look, if you don't see homosexuality as an abomination, then that's your problem. I'm still going to preach the official doctrine in church that it is an abomination and NOT an acceptable lifestyle we should embrace.

I didn't say that.  Only that it is way more messy than we want to think when it comes to putting our foot down against sin only to discover what is sin today become a disavowed theory tomorrow.   I try not to say absolutes on this issue because I recognize that the Church is different today on Gay then it was 20 years ago and hence it will likely be much different 20 years from now than it is today.  I am aware of Elder Christofferson's love for his Brother and his desire to see us become more inclusive of gays.  I see his influence having an impact and our policies changing.  While Doctrine may or may not change (Doctrines have changed in the past - Adam God/polygamy/blacks cursed/interracial marriage/etc....) that policies often become more progressive (cremation/birth control/stay at home mom/women pray in conference/etc...) and this one has already become more progressive... I expect that to continue. hence I will not be caught eating my words on an issue that I have doubts about.

Edited January 3, 2015 by DBMormon

[canard78]

Homosexuality is an abomination. Inter-racial marriage is not. You shouldnt compare the two.

In 1947 the first presidency called inter-racial marriage "repugnant" and against God's doctrine.

Were they wrong to say that?

[DBMormon]

In 1947 the first presidency called inter-racial marriage "repugnant" and against God's doctrine.

Were they wrong to say that?

based on 2014's Race and Priesthood article they were.  Once you have an exception to the rule (Brethren were wrong on something they thought they knew from God) we open up a whole lot of possibilities.  Not that a few exceptions should have us doubt everything... but they should at least have us doubt any absolutes where God has not showed up in a room and stated said Doctrine personally.  I am cautious throwing out God's view when what we thought was God's view is skewed from absolute knowledge.

Edited January 3, 2015 by DBMormon

[california boy]

If my bishop or stake president or for that matter anyone had embraced me and told me there was s place in the church for me. I would probably still be attending. No one did. Only two members ever contacted me. It is just the way it is

[DBMormon]

If my bishop or stake president or for that matter anyone had embraced me and told me there was s place in the church for me. I would probably still be attending. No one did. Only two members ever contacted me. It is just the way it is

move to my ward and you can sit by me.