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

[Bob Crockett]

Very impressive investigation work

 

Bob... does that provide enough reassurance?

Just because it is cited does not make it authentic. Otherwise the Salamander letter would be authentic.  

 

The fact that it was cited and published during the lifetime of Pres. McKay makes it more probable that it is authentic, but it could be that President McKay did not respond to every accusation made.  I remember him -- the sermons in general conference in his last years were delivered by his son.

 

I've never really focused on this particular challenge to the Lowrey Nelson exchange but this thread caused me to look at the letters again.  It is manifestly apparent to me that the copies are not true copies; otherwise they'd have Pres. McKay's signature on them and they wouldn't appear in the same type font as the other letters.   There'd be letterhead.  These are letters typed up after the fact, like in the old days when a scribes would make a copy of a letter by hand.  Typed up by whom?

[Scott Lloyd]

The problem is that there is a hyperfocus on worthiness. Leaders and members alike often feel responsible for casting out those people with grievous sins so they don't polute the church or corrupt the members. But we're all sinners. We're all unworthy in different ways.

 

Sinners need love, not tough love. Allowing a gay couple to participate in church is not going to turn the youth gay by association. I feel that as a church we have a long ways to go in following Christ's example of charity and compassion instead of following the example of the pharisees. It seems we have it backwards all to often.

 

PS- I write this as a recovering Pharisee

Perhaps a "recovering Pharisee" engaging in projection.

[Scott Lloyd]

Just because it is cited does not make it authentic. Otherwise the Salamander letter would be authentic.  

 

The fact that it was cited and published during the lifetime of Pres. McKay makes it more probable that it is authentic, but it could be that President McKay did not respond to every accusation made.  I remember him -- the sermons in general conference in his last years were delivered by his son.

 

I've never really focused on this particular challenge to the Lowrey Nelson exchange but this thread caused me to look at the letters again.  It is manifestly apparent to me that the copies are not true copies; otherwise they'd have Pres. McKay's signature on them and they wouldn't appear in the same type font as the other letters.   There'd be letterhead.  These are letters typed up after the fact, like in the old days when a scribes would make a copy of a letter by hand.  Typed up by whom?

At any rate, isolated private correspondence is tenuous evidence on which to assume a formal position.

 

This thing is reminiscent of the F. Michael Watson/Carla Ogden episode.

[teddyaware]

As I have pointed out to Bill Reel, I don't find these bromides all that significant in describing or dealing with the gay community.

 

Today I support gay marriage.

 

In 2008 I didn't.  I contributed $5100 to the Prop 8 campaign.  A group of liberal Mormons started a website targeting big donors. One of the September 6, who has now returned to the church,  headed up the campaign.  As a result of my name being publicized by her and her organization, I received many hate-filled obscenity laced emails.  My firm was told that it would be boycotted by law schools if I remained a partner in my firm.   So, I'm not sure that gays are any more loving, committed and compassionate than straight persons, and I think they're just part of the mainstream in terms of emotion and consideration.

 

I'm pretty sure that when Paul penned I Cor 13 that he didn't have in mind people who had sex outside of heterosexual marriage. 

 

If you're willing, some questions for you:

 

I'm wondering why an active, well known-member of the Church would think it a good idea to come out publicly in favor of gay marriage?  

 

Why were you formerly against gay marriage?

 

What bad did you formerly believe would come about if gay marriage was made legal?

 

Why do you now support gay marriage?

 

From a Gospel point of view, what good do you believe will come as a result of gay marriage?

 

Do you also support gay temple marriages? If not, why not?

 

Do you believe at some future time it's likely the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve will eventually come out in favor of gay marriage?

[Buckeye]

At any rate, isolated private correspondence is tenuous evidence on which to assume a formal position.

 

This thing is reminiscent of the F. Michael Watson/Carla Ogden episode.

And yet, this private correspondence was a significant part of the apologists defense of the priesthood ban pre-1978. I think the Nelson letter's most important aspect was that it prompted the first presidency to make an official doctrinal statement in 1949 to clear up what they believed to be doctrine but which some members were challenging as merely policy.

[Bob Crockett]

If you're willing, some questions for you:

I'm wondering why an active, well known-member of the Church would think it a good idea to come out publicly in favor of gay marriage?

Why were you formerly against gay marriage?

What bad did you formerly believe would come about if gay marriage was made legal?

Why do you now support gay marriage?

From a Gospel point of view, what good do you believe will come as a result of gay marriage?

Do you also support gay temple marriages? If not, why not?

Do you believe at some future time it's likely the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve will eventually come out in favor of gay marriage?

I'm a libertarian. As long as government is in the marriage business there is no good reason to withhold it from gays. Should we bar them from licenses for fishing, driving, CPA, teaching in schools, hairdressing, private detectiving, and the like? If it is a government license, then if homosexuality is not a crime, there should be no discrimination.

I also believe that government should get out of the marriage business. Marriage originally created a presumption of paternity which is no longer necessary. If you want to get married go to your priest or rabbi. Marriage should be a religious sacrament.

As long as it is both a government contract and a religious sacrament, libertarian philosophy teaches that religions should be free to define marriage in their own way and not knuckle under to government coercion.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

And yet, this private correspondence was a significant part of the apologists defense of the priesthood ban pre-1978. I think the Nelson letter's most important aspect was that it prompted the first presidency to make an official doctrinal statement in 1949 to clear up what they believed to be doctrine but which some members were challenging as merely policy.

It looks fraudulent today. Why are all the letters apparently typed on the same typewriter? Where are the signatures, the letterhead. Must I accept somebody else's credulity?

It is like the Carla Ogden fax. Where is the fax transmission strip? Why is it nothing more than a quote from the Encyclopedia?

Edited January 6, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[carbon dioxide]

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.

I will be 145 years old in 100 years.  I don't think I will care. 

[carbon dioxide]

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

I would say to my kid that it is his choice but I would not give him his blessing.    If my son wants to become a porn star that is his choice.  I however will not be with him at the opening premier.

[carbon dioxide]

Do you have evidence that Elder Christofferson teaches his brother to repent for being actively gay?

Has he ever preached a sermon on this to the church generally?

If he does not teach he brother to repent if he is "actively" being gay (which I interpret to mean engage in homosexual acts) he has no right to tell any member of the Church to repent for their favorite "sins". 

[carbon dioxide]

I'm a libertarian. As long as government is in the marriage business there is no good reason to withhold it from gays. Should we bar them from licenses for fishing, driving, CPA, teaching in schools, hairdressing, private detectiving, and the like? If it is a government license, then if homosexuality is not a crime, there should be no discrimination.

I also believe that government should get out of the marriage business. Marriage originally created a presumption of paternity which is no longer necessary. If you want to get married go to your priest or rabbi. Marriage should be a religious sacrament.

As long as it is both a government contract and a religious sacrament, libertarian philosophy teaches that religions should be free to define marriage in their own way and not knuckle under to government coercion.

I am sort of with you there as well.  Even though I personally am against gay marriage and do not equate marriages to gays to be the same as marriages to heterosexuals, people have a right to do whatever they want as long as they do not tread on the rights of other people.  I am for the legalization of prostitution and all drugs because I believe people have the right to chose for themselves good or evil, life or death both temporally and spiritually.  It is what we all fought for in the premortal world.  To come to earth and make choices both good and bad.  So if gays want a government sanctioned marriage. I can live with it.  I will just stay away from all of it and do my own thing.

Edited January 6, 2015 by carbon dioxide

[mfbukowski]

Here is a specific quote from Elder Christofferson on that website:

 

(Emphasis mine.)

 

This is not the first time I have encountered this tiresome insinuation that Elder Christofferson, because of personal family circumstances, is at odds with the repeated, united, unequivocal and consistent position of his Brethren in the high leadership of the Church about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior and about the proper definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. The notion is utterly devoid of merit.

 

It was raised in a thread on here last August -- one in which DBMormon took an active part -- and the above quotation was given on that thread. Yet we are again burdened with the insinuation here.

[Buckeye]

I'm a libertarian. As long as government is in the marriage business there is no good reason to withhold it from gays. Should we bar them from licenses for fishing, driving, CPA, teaching in schools, hairdressing, private detectiving, and the like? If it is a government license, then if homosexuality is not a crime, there should be no discrimination.

I also believe that government should get out of the marriage business. Marriage originally created a presumption of paternity which is no longer necessary. If you want to get married go to your priest or rabbi. Marriage should be a religious sacrament.

As long as it is both a government contract and a religious sacrament, libertarian philosophy teaches that religions should be free to define marriage in their own way and not knuckle under to government coercion.

 

What exactly is the "marriage business" that our government engages in? Lately there's a lot of debate about the definition of marriage, but the actual business seems to be our collective attempt to build up the institution of marriage and use it as a means to deliver services to the public. Are you sure you want the government to cease those efforts? Here are a few specifics to consider (there are literally 1000s to choose from):

 

• A surviving spouse is eligible to receive benefits accrued by the labor and SS contributions made by the deceased.
• Tax laws routinely favor joint ownership and transfers of assets between spouses.
• Federal law guarantees work leave for an employee to care for a spouse (FLMA).
• Federal law requires employers to provide a spouse of a former employee with access to medical heath plans (COBRA).
• Immigration law often grants favored statuses to non-citizen spouses.
• Income tax laws give deductions, credits, and other preferential treatment to married couples.
• Federal law provides spouses with rights to made medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse .
• Statutory and case law exists to ensure that divorcees are treated fairly.
• Spouses of veterans and safety officers killed in action are given lump sum payments.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. When you say that "government should get out of the marriage business" do you really mean that government should do nothing to support marriages or provide benefits as a result of marital status? That seems to smack of the old saying - "cut off your nose to spite your face."

 

On a related note, do you think the government should get out the "religion business" and stop giving preferential tax treatment to religious organizations?

[Buckeye]

It looks fraudulent today. Why are all the letters apparently typed on the same typewriter? Where are the signatures, the letterhead. Must I accept somebody else's credulity?

It is like the Carla Ogden fax. Where is the fax transmission strip? Why is it nothing more than a quote from the Encyclopedia?

 

If you look at the USU copies (see link in post #98) you will see that the signatures are typed in. Why? I have no idea. But it doesn't bother me much. Most all of the signatures I use in my practice are typed. Federal and state courts accept typed signatures as authentic.

 

At the end of the day, all we can do is lay out the evidence and draw our own conclusions. You see typed signatures and assume forgery. I see a 50+ year history of the letters being cited in prominent sources - sources available and reviewed by senior church leaders who can easily check the FP correspondence files - and yet no one has called the letters fake. The Salamander forgery was discovered within a couple years even though its purported authors were long dead and could not be consulted. The Nelson letters were publicly relied on during the life times of the supposed authors and are routinely cited today. I have no idea with the Carla Ogden fax is, but fax transmission slips are completely irrelevant to this issue.

 

You're welcome to your view, but I see things differently. I can't imagine that the FP would let stand a forgery attributed to them for 50+ years. If I released an article in Dialogue magazine which purported to quote a letter I'd received from the FP in 2001 (Hinckley, Monson, Faust) as saying "women will some day be ordained to the priesthood," does anyone really think that the church staff would not check to see if the letter were real, and, when it was discovered that I'd made up the letter, that the church would not prominently announce that fact? Of course! The church's PR group regularly checks the media and issues reports and what is accurate and what is not (see, e.g., http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormonism-news-getting-it-right-10-september-2014) If the Nelson letters were frauds the church would say so.

 

EDIT to fix "Lowry letter" to "Nelson letter" (again). I'm an idiot.

Edited January 6, 2015 by Buckeye

[HappyJackWagon]

What exactly is the "marriage business" that our government engages in? Lately there's a lot of debate about the definition of marriage, but the actual business seems to be our collective attempt to build up the institution of marriage and use it as a means to deliver services to the public. Are you sure you want the government to cease those efforts? Here are a few specifics to consider (there are literally 1000s to choose from):

 

• A surviving spouse is eligible to receive benefits accrued by the labor and SS contributions made by the deceased.
• Tax laws routinely favor joint ownership and transfers of assets between spouses.
• Federal law guarantees work leave for an employee to care for a spouse (FLMA).
• Federal law requires employers to provide a spouse of a former employee with access to medical heath plans (COBRA).
• Immigration law often grants favored statuses to non-citizen spouses.
• Income tax laws give deductions, credits, and other preferential treatment to married couples.
• Federal law provides spouses with rights to made medical decisions for an incapacitated spouse .
• Statutory and case law exists to ensure that divorcees are treated fairly.
• Spouses of veterans and safety officers killed in action are given lump sum payments.

I could go on and on, but you get the point. When you say that "government should get out of the marriage business" do you really mean that government should do nothing to support marriages or provide benefits as a result of marital status? That seems to smack of the old saying - "cut off your nose to spite your face."

 

On a related note, do you think the government should get out the "religion business" and stop giving preferential tax treatment to religious organizations?

Great points OHIO. This is a good summary for how preventing gays from marrying is discriminatory and has negative effect on them financially. So there are 2 options. Remove the discrimination and allow gays to marry OR remove all legal and financial benefits for marriage.

 

ETA- I know which option I'd prefer.

Edited January 6, 2015 by HappyJackWagon

[Buckeye]

Getting back to the original point for which the Nelson letters were cited, here are some additional sources regarding the church doctrine against interracial marriage, courtesy of Lester Bush:

 

 

 

While there was no published instruction from the First Presidency on this matter, their response to a personal inquiry is illuminating. A member had written from California to inquire whether “we as Latter-day Saints [are] required to associate with the Negroes or talk the Gospel to them….” Their answer, in part:

 

… No special effort has ever been made to proselyte among the Negro race, and social intercourse between the Whites and the Negroes should certainly not be encouraged because of leading to intermarriage, which the Lord has forbidden. This move which has now received some popular approval of trying to break down social barriers between the Whites and the Blacks is one that should not be encouraged because inevitably it means the mixing of the races if carried to its logical conclusion.194

 

An aversion to miscegenation has been the single most consistent facet of Mormon attitudes towards the Negro. Though the attitudes towards the priesthood, slavery, or equal rights have fluctuated significantly, denunciations of interracial marriage can [p.90] be identified in discourses in virtually every decade from the Restoration to the present day. Though these sentiments can never be said to have dominated Mormon thought, they did become a major theme in the years following the Second World War and are to be found in both published and private remarks, generally in connection with the civil rights discussion.195 The Church viewed miscegenation from the unique perspective of the priesthood policy but was, of course, by no means unique in its conclusions; in fact, the leadership generally invoked “biological and social” principles in support of their conclusions on the subject.196

 

...

 

194Letter from the First Presidency (Smith, Clark, McKay) of May 5, 1947, to Virgil H. Sponberg, in Bennion papers. Mormonism’s Negro Doctrine I 67
195See Note 192; also Harold B. Lee’s address over KSL, May 6, 1945, “Youth of a Noble Birthright” (copy in Church Historical Department); and First Presidency letter of July 17,1947, to Lowry Nelson, copy at the Brigham Young University Library.
196Of the three instances cited in Note 195, Clark stated, “Biologically, it is wrong”; Lee invoked the “laws of heredity and the centuries of training”; and the First Presidency characterized
intermarriage as “a. concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people.” These arguments were, of course, secondary to the doctrinal objections. In 1939 Utah extended its anti-miscegenation statute to prohibit a “white” from marrying a “Mongolian, a member of the malay race or a mulatto, quadroon, or octoroon . . .”

 

 

 

 

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/2012/mormonisms-negro-doctrine-an-historical-overview/

[Bob Crockett]

If you look at the USU copies (see link in post #98) you will see that the signatures are typed in. Why? I have no idea. 

EDIT to fix "Lowry letter" to "Nelson letter" (again). I'm an idiot.

 You're just ignoring my many points.  No signature, no letterhead, all letters, to and from Nelson, appear to be typed on the same typewriter.

 

I can guess as to what happen.  Nelson had no means of making a photocopy of his letters and just retyped them, a common practice of the day.  But, until I see the originals, I say -- not reliable.

 

We should not blithely accept every piece of paper offered against (or for) the church as authentic. It has to have some self-authenticating features.   These don't. 

Edited January 6, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

And yet, this private correspondence was a significant part of the apologists defense of the priesthood ban pre-1978. I think the Nelson letter's most important aspect was that it prompted the first presidency to make an official doctrinal statement in 1949 to clear up what they believed to be doctrine but which some members were challenging as merely policy.

If it was "a significant part of the apologists' defense," I wonder why I had never heard of it until very recently. I wasn't born until 1954, but by the mid- '60s, and increasingly through the end of the decade and into the 1970s, was aware of the issue. If it had been "a significant part of the apologists' defense," I think it certainly would stand out in my memory if, as you imply here, it played a significant role right up to June 1978, when I was a university student with a journalism major and a keen interest in the Church's image in the mass media.

[Rob Osborn]

Great points OHIO. This is a good summary for how preventing gays from marrying is discriminatory and has negative effect on them financially. So there are 2 options. Remove the discrimination and allow gays to marry OR remove all legal and financial benefits for marriage.

 

ETA- I know which option I'd prefer.

It goes back to show that our government was built upon Christian ideals that supported traditional families and recognized the strength of a country was in the "family" and as such protected that one most fundamental principle. Now the government is doing away with traditional values, the family, etc in favor of secular humanism and as such our freedom willl and is eroding because they have allowed their guard against the family to go down and families to be attacked. Laws have to be based off of religious morals and Christian values. This is why Christ has said that our freedom in the Americas hinges off if we serve him or not. As we continue to worship the world and fall away from traditional Christian values our freedom will erode and be taken captive.

[Buckeye]

It goes back to show that our government was built upon Christian ideals that supported traditional families and recognized the strength of a country was in the "family" and as such protected that one most fundamental principle. Now the government is doing away with traditional values, the family, etc in favor of secular humanism and as such our freedom willl and is eroding because they have allowed their guard against the family to go down and families to be attacked. Laws have to be based off of religious morals and Christian values. This is why Christ has said that our freedom in the Americas hinges off if we serve him or not. As we continue to worship the world and fall away from traditional Christian values our freedom will erode and be taken captive.

 

Democracies by their nature almost always reflect compromise. Seeing that the government will now require us to view gay families the same as straight ones, which outcome do you think is worse - (i) extending current government support for marriage and family to gay unions, or (ii) dropping all government support for marriage and family? It's possible to view a government extension of benefits to gay families as contrary to traditional values. It's also possible to view that as a greater embrace of traditional values.

[rockpond]

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?

 

Thanks for posting this Bill.  In defense of Bishops and SP's everywhere I think that many of them have probably never been presented with this kind of opportunity since so many LGBT individuals tend to leave the church and not have a desire to come back.  But, it seems that an increasing number of them would like to stay in the church and examples like Tom Christofferson are good for priesthood leaders everywhere to be aware of.

 

Additionally, there are outreach opportunities... What more can we do to get those LGBT individuals who have left to come back.  In a recent MS interview, Jake Abhau tells of how we approached his SP with the names of 20 or so LGBT members who wanted to be in church but didn't feel welcome.  He hoped to find a way to work with the SP to find ways to help them back into the fold.  Unfortunately the SP instead decided to revoke Jake's recommend for his LGBT activism.

 

In any case, I agree with the principle of your OP... there is more we can do.  Maybe leaders don't even realize it and sharing these experiences will help.  Ultimately, it will happen because my experience with the youth in the church tells me that they won't put up with our current position and policies.

[The Nehor]

It goes back to show that our government was built upon Christian ideals that supported traditional families and recognized the strength of a country was in the "family" and as such protected that one most fundamental principle. Now the government is doing away with traditional values, the family, etc in favor of secular humanism and as such our freedom willl and is eroding because they have allowed their guard against the family to go down and families to be attacked. Laws have to be based off of religious morals and Christian values. This is why Christ has said that our freedom in the Americas hinges off if we serve him or not. As we continue to worship the world and fall away from traditional Christian values our freedom will erode and be taken captive.

Indeed, we need to go back to our roots. Roll back women's rights. Bring back slavery or at least make racism culturally acceptable again. We have also gotten rid of the glorious rampant alcoholism of the early 1800s. Only then will God smile upon us and bring back Zion.

We can spend our days pining for a past that never was or build a future (Zion) that has been before and can and must be again.

[Rock_N_Roll]

 

In any case, I agree with the principle of your OP... there is more we can do.  Maybe leaders don't even realize it and sharing these experiences will help.  Ultimately, it will happen because my experience with the youth in the church tells me that they won't put up with our current position and policies.

 

I've worked with the youth as well, and I agree with this statement. 

[HappyJackWagon]

 

As we continue to worship the world and fall away from traditional Christian values our freedom will erode and be taken captive

Can you remind me how my freedoms are eroded by allowing gay couples the same legal rights and heterosexual couples.

 

 

In any case, I agree with the principle of your OP... there is more we can do.  Maybe leaders don't even realize it and sharing these experiences will help.  Ultimately, it will happen because my experience with the youth in the church tells me that they won't put up with our current position and policies.

 

I agree.

[Rock_N_Roll]

Indeed, we need to go back to our roots. Roll back women's rights. Bring back slavery or at least make racism culturally acceptable again. We have also gotten rid of the glorious rampant alcoholism of the early 1800s. Only then will God smile upon us and bring back Zion.

We can spend our days pining for a past that never was or build a future (Zion) that has been before and can and must be again.