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

[Rain]

calling a gay to repentance with discipline more often than not leads to their leaving the faith where as this more inclusive approach sets the issue aside for now and focuses on bring them to Closer to Christ in other aspects of their life. [\quote]

I do think we need to inclusive and Christlike. I think we should think more outside of the box. I know a man who was a nonmember smoker who was called as assistant stake executive secretary. It was a good thing and he later joined the church.

My question though is where is the line? What callings should only members in good standing have? What about other sins? If my husband brings his girlfriend to church and puts his arm around her with no intention of stopping his relationship with her and I am perfectly ok with it are we ok with him bearing testimony?

There are lines somewhere in all of that. So while I say we should embrace everyone we have to recognize there are lines just as Christ recognized them in his time.

[DBMormon]

calling a gay to repentance with discipline more often than not leads to their leaving the faith where as this more inclusive approach sets the issue aside for now and focuses on bring them to Closer to Christ in other aspects of their life. [\quote]

I do think we need to inclusive and Christlike. I think we should think more outside of the box. I know a man who was a nonmember smoker who was called as assistant stake executive secretary. It was a good thing and he later joined the church.

My question though is where is the line? What callings should only members in good standing have? What about other sins? If my husband brings his girlfriend to church and puts his arm around her with no intention of stopping his relationship with her and I am perfectly ok with it are we ok with him bearing testimony?

There are lines somewhere in all of that. So while I say we should embrace everyone we have to recognize there are lines just as Christ recognized them in his time.

I don't know... that is up to the Bishop and higher up than him.  I have seen known serious sinners serve as Ward missionaries, Gospel Essentials teachers, in presidencies as counselors, etc....

[Rain]

We also have a ward missionary who is not living the Word of Wisdom, but brings more investigators to church than the rest of us combined.

I do know it is up to the bishop, but I also think of my roll as a parent. I have one child who will justify just about anything right now. I have no doubts that he would be sitting there thinking, "well so and so does ____ sin and has this calling so I can do it too."

Or with another of my children it is a daily conversation of it doesn't matter what his sibling does - it has no bearing of whether we should allow him to do it.

The stock answer is that is between the sinner and the Lord/bishop, but that does little to help a not fully developed mind to understand sin is always wrong if it looks to him we are embracing both the sin and the sinner.

I don't know if we can give a good answer to your question. It is always going to have an individual answer based on both the sinner and others in the ward. So while I can say, "think outside the box" I think we also need to be careful for this new thinking to become the one and only box as well.

[Rob Osborn]

I teach both of my children that homosexuality is a sin and a plague on our society by Satan. Perhaps I am a bit hardened or old school in my approach but I do value family and anything that threatens to destroy it. My brother preaches that homosexuality is a curse and uses the bible to back up his claims. We have become too accepting of alternative sexual lifestyles and have left our guard down. There are definitely more openly gay people now than ever before and a lot of it I believe comes down to the basic break down of the family. I get the feeling more and more often that we are slowly losing the battle for morality in the world I feel we are beginning a worse plague by accepting immoral lifestyles and even now are beginning to condemn those still hold to strong Christian values.

[mfbukowski]

 

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?

 

Sounds good to me.

 

Some may be surprised at that.

[mfbukowski]

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.

Yep.

I second that.  That is the point, imo. 

 

And if the brethren wanted to do something about it, the word is out, and they would have done something about it.  Sounds to me like this is a signal to others how to respond

[mfbukowski]

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

Does he attend with his husband and behave that way?

 

That is an entirely different question.

[mfbukowski]

move to my ward and you can sit by me. 

Likewise.

 

CB will be surprised at that, I am sure.

[canard78]

Where do you stand? Do you believe homosexuality is an abomination? Yes or no please.

No. Next question?

[canard78]

How can we be inclusive to a lifestyle that is in direct contradiction to our doctrine and deep beliefs on the family? Its kind of like allowing wolves to come in and eat supper with the sheep.

-snip-

That's a really bad analogy. If you let a wolf in among sheep the wolf eats the sheep.

If you welcome a gay member into your congregation they will not turn straight people gay. They might help people see that they are real people with real feelings.

[williamsmith]

 

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?

 

 

Uh, this has always been the Church.  It's not anything "new" at all, so why are you acting like it is?

Oh I know, anti's see demons in the Church now, so they believe the Church is actually intolerant and unloving, etc.

 

There's been a gay guy in one of my choirs.  I've even had a best friend for about a year who wasn't a member of the Church, we worked together, he was also "married", and we hung out together, did martial arts together, ate at their home, at at his spouse's restaurant, and all the while I was a faithful mormon.

 

This has always been mormonism.  Mormonism has never been the bigotry anti-mormons say it is.  The rare bad event/person, or mispresentation of said events/persons does not make mormonism.

Sorry.  Talking to the choir.  lol

Edited January 4, 2015 by williamsmith

[canard78]

You should really not compare inter-racial marriage to homosexuality.

I just did.

In a Mormon context they are fully comparable.

In 1947 the First Presidency said:

“Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous...

We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.”

https://archive.org/stream/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange#page/n6/mode/1up

[williamsmith]

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?

 

Wrong!

 

It was never a "doctrine" for the "advice" at the time to not interracially marry.

There were good reasons for this advice at the time, little different then the still current advice to not marry into other cultures if possible due to the potential problems it can cause, resulting in divorce.

Of course, this advice is starting to go away also due to people maturing more and not having those problems those in or outside the marriage.

[california boy]

move to my ward and you can sit by me. 

 

Likewise.

 

CB will be surprised at that, I am sure.

 

I really appreciate your willingness to have me attend church with you.  I wonder what that would be like?  Would my boyfriend be welcome as well?  Could we sit together?  Could I participate in any class discussions?  Would I fit in at all?  I know you all want me to leave my boyfriend, but that is not going to happen.  So where does that leave us?  What could I really expect even from those that would want me there, let alone the Rob Osborns of the world.  

 

Sorry I am so gun shy about this kind of invitation.  My experience with church members and church leaders has not been a very positive experience since I came out. 

[california boy]

Wrong!

 

It was never a "doctrine" for the "advice" at the time to not interracially marry.

There were good reasons for this advice at the time, little different then the still current advice to not marry into other cultures if possible due to the potential problems it can cause, resulting in divorce.

Of course, this advice is starting to go away also due to people maturing more and not having those problems those in or outside the marriage.

 

Did you not even to bother to read the post right above you?  In the official pronouncement on this issue, the first presidency said both that interracial marriage was both repugnant and teaching against it was doctrine.  They stated it was God's rule for Israel, implying that it was God's will for blacks to not marry whites.  These kind of statements are sounding all too familiar to me.

 

Here you go for a second look.

“Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous...

We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.”

 

 

The statement had nothing to do with the times.  They refer directly back to the Bible to support their stance.  Sound familiar????

 

And even if society did not look favorable on interracial marriage, should not the church have stood up for what was right and tell society that they were wrong in their hostile views on interracial marriage?  Imagine the different image the church would enjoy today if it would not have treated blacks the way they did.  Imagine how different the image of the church would be today if they had not attacked gay marriage the way they did.  

 

In this instance, I am afraid it is you that is wrong.  The churches stance on interracial marriage and the churches stance on gay marriage was very similar.  "The church could just as easily state that the time has come for all of Gods children to be allowed marriage in the temple regardless of sexual orientation"  And reaffirm that all sex outside of a legal and lawful marriage is against the law of chastity.

[readstoomuch]

California Boy,this is the part we haven't figured out. I think many LDS want to show love towards gays, but not condone the spouse/significant other with the member at Church. I am sure there are gay couples where both are members, but either way PDA is not going to be accepted well. Start by going by yourself. I bet a number of us on the board would sit by you, but my wife and kids will be there, maybe a grandkid. Conservative dress would help you to stand out less. If we don't start trying we will never have the opportunity to fellowship with this segment of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

[blooit]

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

 

Brigham Young was alive in 1977?  Man I need to freshen up on my church history.

[canard78]

Wrong!

 

It was never a "doctrine" for the "advice" at the time to not interracially marry.

There were good reasons for this advice at the time, little different then the still current advice to not marry into other cultures if possible due to the potential problems it can cause, resulting in divorce.

Of course, this advice is starting to go away also due to people maturing more and not having those problems those in or outside the marriage.

 

Have a look at the post just one above what you've just said. 

 

The first presidency stated, very clearly, that it was a doctrine. For absolute clarity I'll repeat it:

 

In 1947 the First Presidency said:

 

“Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient patriarchs till now. God’s rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous...

We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this area, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.”

 

https://archive.org/stream/LowryNelson1stPresidencyExchange/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange#page/n6/mode/1up

(Emphasis added)

[Bob Crockett]

I'm curious.  How did unsigned letter-book copies of these letters get into the public realm?   Why didn't Lowry submit signed letters?   Several indicators are present in these letters which suggest they aren't authentic.   

 

I had always thought the Salamander letter was a forgery based upon they way it came forward and its similarity to events twenty years later.   So, I'd be interested in some more provenance here before commenting further.

[california boy]

California Boy,this is the part we haven't figured out. I think many LDS want to show love towards gays, but not condone the spouse/significant other with the member at Church. I am sure there are gay couples where both are members, but either way PDA is not going to be accepted well. Start by going by yourself. I bet a number of us on the board would sit by you, but my wife and kids will be there, maybe a grandkid. Conservative dress would help you to stand out less. If we don't start trying we will never have the opportunity to fellowship with this segment of our brothers and sisters in Christ.

 

I had to laugh a little at your post.  I guess if you haven't been around many gay men, you probably assume we all dress like we are on a float in a pride parade.  I went to church for 50 years and never once wore anything sparkle.  I did rebel occasionally and wore a colored shirt.  And I really have never sat on the back row and made out with anyone.  So I think we are safe there.  I think there is something in me embraces diversity.  And  Ok enough of that.

 

I think your response is very sincere.  And I think you are not sure exactly how to make the leap from showing love and kindness to gays and actually having them around you and your children.  I get that.  And I get that  If I am by myself, no one would know I was gay.  But I also hope that you would understand that I would be very uncomfortable telling my boyfriend that he had to stay home because the Mormons aren't really ready to see a gay person in their chapel. 

 

The truth is, I am probably not ready to go back to church for many of the reasons you bring up and the church is probably not quite ready for me to come back with a boyfriend.  So I guess we will both be in a holding pattern a little longer.

[california boy]

I'm curious.  How did unsigned letter-book copies of these letters get into the public realm?   Why didn't Lowry submit signed letters?   Several indicators are present in these letters which suggest they aren't authentic.   

 

I had always thought the Salamander letter was a forgery based upon they way it came forward and its similarity to events twenty years later.   So, I'd be interested in some more provenance here before commenting further.

 

If he could prove to you the letter was authentic, would it make one bit of difference to you?

Edited January 4, 2015 by california boy

[canard78]

I'm curious. How did unsigned letter-book copies of these letters get into the public realm? Why didn't Lowry submit signed letters? Several indicators are present in these letters which suggest they aren't authentic.

I had always thought the Salamander letter was a forgery based upon they way it came forward and its similarity to events twenty years later. So, I'd be interested in some more provenance here before commenting further.

It's a fair challenge.

Guide to the Lowry Nelson writings and papers,

1948-1974

Summary: This collection consists of the writings and personal papers of Lowry Nelson. Writings include articles, study reprints, seminar materials, notes for his class on Latin America, and books, including Rural sociology (1955) and American farm life (1954), and a draft carbon copy of his book, the Birth and growth of a science. Personal papers consist mostly of correspondence.

...

Incoming and Outgoing Correspondence with officials of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints on the Negro Issue

Container(s)

Description

Dates

Box

Folder

4 2

8 : Incoming letter from Heber Meeks (1 page) [click to view] June 20, 1947

9 : Outgoing letter to Heber Meeks (1 page) June 26, 1947

10 : Outgoing letter to Pres. George Albert Smith (1 page) June 26, 1947

11 : Copies of four letters on one page

a.) : Incoming letter form Joseph Anderson July 1, 1947

b.) : Incoming letter from Joseph Anderson July 17, 1947

c.) : Incoming letter from George Albert Smith, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., and David O. McKay July 17, 1947

d.) : Incoming letter from George Albert Smith November 12, 1947

12 : Copy of Outgoing letter to the First Presidency of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (2 page) October 8, 1947

13 : Incoming letter from Joseph Anderson

Source:

http://nwda.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv58740

[DBMormon]

I teach both of my children that homosexuality is a sin and a plague on our society by Satan. Perhaps I am a bit hardened or old school in my approach but I do value family and anything that threatens to destroy it. My brother preaches that homosexuality is a curse and uses the bible to back up his claims. We have become too accepting of alternative sexual lifestyles and have left our guard down. There are definitely more openly gay people now than ever before and a lot of it I believe comes down to the basic break down of the family. I get the feeling more and more often that we are slowly losing the battle for morality in the world I feel we are beginning a worse plague by accepting immoral lifestyles and even now are beginning to condemn those still hold to strong Christian values.

how would you treat your child if one was gay and decided to marry another person of the same gender?

[DBMormon]

Wrong!

 

It was never a "doctrine" for the "advice" at the time to not interracially marry.

There were good reasons for this advice at the time, little different then the still current advice to not marry into other cultures if possible due to the potential problems it can cause, resulting in divorce.

Of course, this advice is starting to go away also due to people maturing more and not having those problems those in or outside the marriage.

It was taught as doctrine and labeled as such see 

http://mormonstories.org/other/Lowry_Nelson_1st_Presidency_Exchange.pdf

page 7 on the pdf last paragraph 

We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.

 

Faithfully yours,

[signed]

George Albert Smith 

J. Reuben Clark, Jr. 

David O. McKay

The First Presidency

 

Edited January 4, 2015 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

I'm curious.  How did unsigned letter-book copies of these letters get into the public realm?   Why didn't Lowry submit signed letters?   Several indicators are present in these letters which suggest they aren't authentic.   

 

I had always thought the Salamander letter was a forgery based upon they way it came forward and its similarity to events twenty years later.   So, I'd be interested in some more provenance here before commenting further.

And if proven to be authentic how do you answer them?.... which they are the real deal.  And to shift away from any source because you don't like what they contain seems funny

 

We have weaker evidence that the 8 witnesses ever signed anything

 

this is a whole correspondence.... all faked.  There are multiple parties involved.... all faked... your response can not be serious.... that is the best you got.... deflect that they are likely fake?

Edited January 4, 2015 by DBMormon