Many have been wondering, after watching Elder D. Todd Christofferson’s video statement explaining the handbook policy change, how his brother Tom (who is gay) feels about this. Brian Dillman and Jerilyn Pool posted a podcast today at Rational Faiths that included an interview with Tom. The whole podcast is great, please click over to hear the words themselves. For those who want to read it rather than listen, here’s what he had to say. We hope this perspective will bring some needed peace and understanding.
RF: Tom (Christofferson), you and I were talking about this online yesterday, and you described the news as dreary. What are your feelings now that you’ve had 24 hours to think about it?
Tom: It always helps to have a night’s sleep. This too shall pass; we’ll get through this like we’ve gotten through everything else. I think my biggest reaction to it is that my experience both with my family and my ward family as I was coming back to church . . . seemingly would be more difficult to pull off under the setting that’s coming out here, I fear. My concern would be that this puts more pressure on families, too, and the ability to deal with dissonance and ambiguity may be even more of a challenge than it has been before.
So just to back up and give background, when I came out to my parents 30 years ago I decided that I had done everything I could to be Mormon, and it wasn’t working, and I was still gay. So I had to try to figure out what it meant to be gay, and I asked to be excommunicated so I could feel like I was somewhat acting in integrity to go out and live my life and figure out what that meant. It was not an easy conversation with my parents so it took all of us a while to find our footing and be in a good place. But over time they really… it became apparent that they were going to hold on to both their faith and their family; so their approach to all of this, when my partner and I met and got together many years ago, their approach was that they included the two of us in everything. The family always included us and we enjoyed time in their home and them in our home.
Because of their approach to us, eight or nine years ago when I started feeling a prompting to return to church; that something was missing in an otherwise happy life . . . I didn’t have to overcome any feelings of anger or feel that my parents had treated me badly in some sense because of the church. So it was easy for me to come back and find the spiritual things I felt I was missing and they were as welcome of that as they were of having Clark and me at an activity with them. When I went back to church and met with the bishop, my partner and I were still living together; at that point I wasn’t expecting that we wouldn’t be living together. I said, “Look, I’d really like to be able to come back to church and learn and feel the spirit and discover the path of a disciple.” His welcome was immediate without saying “If you’re living in this kind of relationship that creates problems.” I was already excommunicated, mind you, so I was a nonmember at the time, but the welcome and acceptance I felt in my family and my ward were both important in my own process of being able to move toward something I really needed in my life. And to feel the Spirit and to want to keep drawing toward that.
That’s all a very long way to say I worry for people who come after me. Will they have the same opportunity? Will they be able to go to church even though they are in a committed monogamous same-sex relationship and feel welcome? To make both of them feel welcome and to make a place in the congregation for both of them? Or are we sort of now saying that the Scarlet Letter has been attached, and we can’t do that, let alone how it affects the children?
RF: Yeah, that’s what I was thinking, some of the defenses being given is they are protecting the children. To some degree I think it has some coherence that they don’t want to create division and strife between the parents and children, and if they go to church they would hear things about their parents that are very negative, and and when they are at home they might hear things about the church that would create dissonance. So there’s a little bit of coherence. But like you said at the beginning that’s not training people to live with or tolerate ambiguity. It seems to me that it’s making this division between the LDS church and the LGBT community. And that there shouldn’t be overlap between the two; that’s what seems to be implied or an undesired effect.
Tom: It also seems to me that it continues to treat people as groups instead of as individuals. I feel like my relationship with the Savior is an individual one. If there is a concern about a family, then let’s deal with that family. Is there a way we can make the kids in Primary feel more welcome? Can we make sure the bishop knows the moms or the dads well and that the home teachers are helping if there are difficulties? It seems to me that if the concern is that if we feel that there is sexual sin there in an ongoing basis, then I think the policy should be that in ANY family where sexual sin in there in an ongoing basis there may be an extra interview or process required for ordination of children. That’s great, and by the way if that were the case the bishop would be dealing with a lot more straight families than gay ones.
RF: The bishop would be pretty busy.
Tom: So let’s define what we really trying to go after with concern with and then minister to individuals and not lump everyone together as a group.
RF: And then the issue of the children where it just seems to fly in the face of basic Mormon thought. AoF 2: Men punished for own sins not Adam’s transgression. We should be accountable for what we do and not for what we inherit. That was the whole problem with race in the church. African Americans were viewed as tainted in some way from the land of Cain or Ham or because of that they weren’t given the same status in the church until 1978. That’s really problematic.
Tom: If you think about what a kid knows at age 8, we certainly don’t expect them to understand every sin. What would make us think that we need these kids to know any more than any other kid does?
RF: It seems to me there are a lot of stories about divorced parents with a lot of them that went into the relationship with mixed orientations, had children, marriage failed, and they have joint custody. Then that child, who is spending time with that gay parent, suffers these consequences and is effectively ostracized from their peers in this community because they have “different” parents. So it’s not making sense to me. Like I get the protectionist argument a little bit, but it just seems incoherent.
Tom: To me it’s the problem of treating people as groups instead of individuals. In those cases where you have parents who are doing their best to keep it amicable and keep a healthy situation for the children when parents divorce I don’t think we want to have the Church be something that makes that harder. We want the church to be something that makes that easier. So if the children are spending some portion of their time with the dad who has a new partner and they have a mom, let’s say she’s now got a new husband, it’s not obvious the way it’s written whether they fall under this policy or not? Is it meant to only apply to children who live full time with two moms or two dads? It just doesn’t seem to be very clear. The way you would deal with this is to treat every situation individually. That’s why local leaders have the power of inspiration.
RF: Right what I’m hoping for is an amendment to the amendment. Either remove the whole thing as a mistake or it gets altered in some way to be more detailed or more vague. At this point it seems overly harsh. I’m hoping in the next few days or weeks it’s clarified or some things change. Because online the reaction has been . . .
Tom: scathing.
RF: Some people have said this is the last straw, and they’ve written their resignation letters and others are preparing to do the same thing. They just feel like this is a dividing line and the church doesn’t want people like me and I don’t want to be part of church that is like this.
Tom: I’ve also been thinking: where is the way forward for me? I was in CA on business and flying back to SLC last night and my phone blew up, and I was trying to sort it through. On the plane when I had a few moments to myself I turned to the scriptures and I turned to John 6. I love that chapter: the Savior feeds 5000, the storm on the Sea of Gallilee and Jesus walking on water, people who knew him in his hometown couldn’t get him being the Savior because he’s the brother of their friends, and at the synagogue in Capernaum people said, “These are hard things and who can hear them?” And He turns to His apostle and says, “Will ye also go away?”
The next line is so Peter, he responds, a ringing declaration and testimony, “Lord to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life,” and when I was reading it last night on the plane it came to me so differently. Peter could also be saying, “Yes, Lord, these are hard things, and I don’t understand them; but I know what I feel and thou hast the words of eternal life.” And that’s where I am. I know what I have felt about the Book of Mormons and Joseph Smith, and I particularly know how I feel about the Savior and the prayers and inspiration I’ve had. So for me these are hard things that I don’t understand, but I know where the words of eternal life are. So all I can do is try to walk in the path of faith and hope that someday I will better understand or that all of us will have a different understanding and move forward to a different place.
RF: Yeah, I think that’s a good perspective. It’s a hopeful perspective. That things will be made more clear and improve in the future.
Tom: I worry about the families who are involved in this in the meantime. At the same time of walking this path in faith and hope it is also incumbent on me and all of us who have had our hearts broken over this to reach out much more in love and acceptance to those who are affected by this and whatever they think the best path is for themselves at this moment. That they know we love them, we know they are hurting, and that we know the Savior loves them as well.
RF: Absolutely. Great advice for all of us. Thanks for talking to us Tom. Hopefully this will help other people too.
Thanks for sharing this, I really appreciate it. I am grateful for Bro. Christofferson’s perspective.
Thanks for transcribing this. Tom’s spot on here:
“It also seems to me that it continues to treat people as groups instead of as individuals.”
After all my sinning, shouting and strongly-held opinions on marriage equality, I could go back to the LDS church tomorrow, and it’d treat me better than Tom.
Because I can check off the two boxes marked “straight” and “straight parents”.
What a church.
I honestly don’t understand how people of conscience allow themselves to remain complicit in this hateful garbage.
Those who hate will hate. But sometimes the Spirit has a higher calling for us.
A beautiful, tender and merciful conversation, and I’m glad I’ve had access to it.
In my heart, I refuse to accept that these individuals can control my connection to God or family, and that they cannot keep us from the love of God, or indeed one another.
Thanks making us aware of this interview. Always good to hear different perspectives. Again, so glad the church has gone in this direction. Making the divide wider and the wall higher serves everyone well. The church is no place for gays and this makes the decision easier for many. Those who believe god is at the helm can rest just that much easier.
The brethern balked at loving inclusion and they did without Packer and in opposition to scripture and without scriptural support. We’ve seen women placated, gays rejected and now the children of gays punished for their parents sins!!! Gay is the new black! “Prophets, seers and revelators fail to prophesize, see or reveal. Who can continue to follow these bumbling blind guides? The church has clearly lost it way.
Brian, strange, I thought the church was for everybody.
It speaks volumes about who guides your life, it sure isn’t Christ.
The interviewer was Brian Dillman, not Baker.
A note of clarification. Tom’s interview was done early in the evening before Elder Chritofferson’s clarification video was released. He was responding only to the policy not his brother’s explanation.
“It speaks volumes about who guides your life, it sure isn’t Christ.”
Some warm, fuzzy Christian sharing just needs to be repeated.
For families like mine, my kids are caught in the middle of a very hurtful policy. They came from a MOM and are faithful believers who also happen to have a gay father. They now feel hunted and marked and the safety they felt in the church is now gone. What a terrible position the church has put my children in. In a nutshell they have been abandoned by “the one true church” and to feel its embrace again they are being asked to shun and disavow their father. Shame on the church. They are collateral damage in this culture war that any decent human being sees (with hope and faith) will in the future resolve to acceptance just as the polygamy and blacks and the priesthood issues did.
http://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2015/11/06/gay-mormon-church-members-say-new-rules-are-devastating
I know Tom. My life path mirrors his: BYU graduates (I have written a Book of Mormon-themed Christmas Musical that is currently in development in the school’s drama department), decades excommunicated, recently had our blessings restored and are temple worthy. We have teaching callings in our wards. Tom’s faith, like mine, distances itself from the organized church and finds its foundation in Christ. Like Tom, my testimony is ‘rooted and grounded’ in the message of the Restoration, the Book of Mormon, and the words of our Lord, for indeed, to whom shall we turn…He has the words of eternal life. I share Tom’s dreariness. It lingers yet today. The church has stepped in way over it’s understanding on this profoundly complex human issue.
It sounds like Tom was in a loving, committed relationship with another man, and they were living together. Then Tom went back to the LDS church. As Tom became more involved in Mormonism, he gave up a living with the love of his life in order to conform to church doctrine.
Have I got this wrong? If that’s what happened, I find it very sad.
Why not find spirituality and acceptance in a church that supports committed relationships, regardless of sexual orientation?
I fail to see how the scripture that gave home comfort applies to the issue. Christ is not the Church, the Church is not Christ. Nothing the LDS Church did should have the power to drive people from Christ.
Using such a scripture to decide to stay with the Church scribes power to the organization that it does not deserve.
The sheep are those that love and serve, the goats did not, and which religion you are in plays no part.
Elle, his partner sent him back. A great act of love.
Sorry everyone for the technical difficulties. Hopefully there won’t be any more problems with the site going down now!
In the article RF says:
“So there’s a little bit of coherence. But like you said at the beginning that’s not training people to live with or tolerate ambiguity.”
I think Elder Christofferson, in his clarifying video, acknowledges this but does so in support of the new Church policy. The Church wants no ambiguity on this point: gay relations/marriage are sinful and it is not kind or beneficial for the Church to leave any ambiguity about this eternal truth. I recognize that this new policy is not “politically correct”, and causes some heartache. But, the truth can be hard and it is no act of kindness/love to allow someone to be misled by falsehood. Those who love us the most, are the ones with the courage to tell us the truth.
I believe in the LDS church!!
As an atheist who grew up LDS, I view both sides from a neutral standpoint. The church has expanded the policy which has been in place, in order to include the dissonance within the church regarding same-sex marriage from the previous stance having to do with polygamy. Children are influenced by those that they percieve as being in power, whether it be within a religious institution or otherwise. The preservation of the household has substantially increased by the implementation of this policy, allowing for the parents of the said households to no longer be required to compete for the children. This does not mean the children will be turned away, this does however mean they will need to be old enough to make their own decisions regarding the organized religion as an adult. (18). The church has implemented this policy in order to maintain continuity within the ranks and to prevent, as previously stated, dissonance. Clarity regarding parents that are divorced certainly needs to be clarified, we shouldn’t add any more to this policy than is actually written. For anyone staying Jesus was accepting of all, regardless of the situation…please go back and read your scriptures again, remove your own interpretation and read the actually words that are written. You’re wrong.
You live by the laws of man that’s fine. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints you live by a higher standard!! You already know homosexuality is not accepted in the church. Why then would you attempt to raise a family in this church knowing it will never be accepted. You who choose this lifestyle, and are the ones who put these children in this situation. You think because the laws of man are easily swayed that the the teachings of God will falter to accommodate, no. If you truly care for the children why then would you try to teach them contrary to what you believe, or claim to believe, very selfish. I stand by the church. To condone this is to condone the lifestyle. A child raised in this lifestyle will not be able to comprehend what is right and wrong as he or she will know no different, unless that’s what you’re after. They will be able to do so at an older age. Again, it is the decision of those who choose this lifestyle that create this situation, and our society that tells them that it is okay. Misery enjoys company. As for compassion I have three words for ya, Soddom and Gomorrah. Ask yourself, are you a member or a groupie. Quit trying to be a politician, we don’t need any votes. You wanna be in the church “Boom!” There it is. Reevaluate yourself.
it seems a marginal dedication to ministry to exclude individuals
@ Really
I don’t think it’s that simple. Gay people in the church still like the church, they are just waiting to be accepted. Just like blacks in the church prior to 1978. The same question was asked of them then. Why are you in a church you can’t be part of? They knew what was right in their heart and knew God would make it right. Same thing today for gay people. God will fix it in time. Same for women in New Testament times. Leaders said they couldn’t speak in church, which as we know was not Gods law but just a reflection of the culture at the time. These things take time.
@ Nathan Kitchen
“In a nutshell they have been abandoned by “the one true church” and to feel its embrace again they are being asked to shun and disavow their father.”
They’re not asked to shun or disavow anyone. That’s not what Christ would do. They’re encouraged to love you as their father. They’re asked to disavow a type of behaviour/lifestyle.
I belong to The Church Of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints…. my Jesus Christ is not hateful and what the Mormons do to Gays is the greatest sin ever. They are real quick to accept Drug & Alcohol Abusers. Some of the things they have done is worse then what think of Gays.
Really,
Your heart felt empathy is truly Christlike in it’s crucifixion.
@Really,
Wow. “You who choose this lifestyle, and are the ones who put these children in this situation.” Great lesson in blaming the victim, as well as a grotesque use of children as collateral damage.
Here’s what you fail to comprehend. Most of these children currently caught in the cross-hairs are only there because well meaning but misunderstanding bishops advised gay members to marry heterosexuals. Those marriages resulted in offspring and usually divorce and heartache. If those gay spouses later went on to a committed gay relationship (because they are gay people, not heterosexuals, and as Mormons they were taught that committed monogamy is always better than promiscuity), now their joint custody children are barred from being baptized, serving missions, or attending church schools.
The policy was rolled out with no thought to these consequences. Local leaders are hastily requesting further instruction because the policy isn’t clear whether they need to start exing children or what. Gay people are born into the church all the time. Straight parents have gay children. Many of these gay people have a testimony of the church but over time they find it impossible to live their lives in complete isolation.
That doesn’t make it fair to bar the children of these misguided unions entry to the church. Who really created this problem? The people who foolishly told gay people to enter heterosexual marriages as a cure for homosexuality.
Thank you for this interview! I am an active member of this church, and will remain so. My testimony is in the Book of Mormon and the restored gospel. There have been times where I’ve wanted to leave, but I feel fire in my bones where I think of my testimony of the gospel. We do not believe in infallible leaders, and I am happy to stay in the church to help bring about positive change for my homosexual brothers and sisters, and their beloved children. You are welcome in my home, with my children anytime!
Thank you for your comments. I am a member of the Church and am very concerned by the new policy. It is a very sad day for many members of the Church as we lament this policy and the direction the Church is taking. This policy impacts all members but its particularly onerous for children who currently are participating in the Church and who happen have a parent who has been part of a same sex relationship in the past. The policy does not protect them from being presented with conflicting teachings because it increases the potential conflict for such children. If they are prohibited from being baptized or ordained to the priesthood, they are further stigmatized in Church by being treated differently from other children. Further more being asked to disavow a parent’s same sex relationship as a condition of allowed membership they are being restricted from membership not due to their own actions but due to the actions of others. Furthermore, the children this impacts the most are those whose parents want them to be baptized and to participate in the Church but rather than following the wishes of their parents, the Church is taking that choice away from the child and their parents and prohibiting them as a group not based on their individual needs and desires. The Church has much responsibility in many cases as frequently a parent tried to follow Church teachings and attempted to function as a heterosexual and had children trying but ultimately was unable to live as the Church expected them to live and left the relationship and ultimately entered into a same sex relationship that is consistent with their sexuality. Failed conversion therapy and encouragement to be heterosexual to fulfill Church expectations often were the basis of these children coming into the world. Then when their parent left the Church encouraged heterosexual relationship to pursue a same sex relationship consistent with their sexual orientation, the parents often want their children to be involved in the Church and consent to their becoming members. But now despite parental encouragement and consent, these children can’t be baptized or ordained till they are 18 and then have to disavow their parent. If the Church would just leave alone and not stigmatize individuals with same sex orientations and not excommunicate them but rather, if it must, quietly not provide them with ecclesiastical callings, it could avoid creating so much strife and pain in the lives of members and truly support children.
I like, so many others have been heartsick, since I heard of this new change. I’m not gay, but have gay friends that I love very much. I have also been an active member my entire adult life. Believe me, it’s been a long time. I love the Church, but more than that, I love the Gospel of Jesus Christ, sorry to say, they are not the same. On one of the posts, he mentioned ‘if they choose, to live this lifestyle ” … There it is… It is NOT a choice! Who would choose the pain of telling ones parents you’re gay, the great pain on both sides, who would be willing to have people laugh at you, abuse you, kill you? No, that is not a choice. I weep for those whose one desire, which is the same as yours or mine. To love & be loved! It’s going to take some time to wrap my head around all of this. Honestly, I don’t know if I ever will. In my simple life, there has been one thing I’ve tried to do, Jesus said “Love all men” I look upon a persons heart. What kind of person they are. Because of that I have been blessed richly by my differing religious friends, & my gay friends. We are in this big world together. Maybe that is the test, to really do as He has said. Can you love everyone? I’m trying, & I don’t have a lot of time left to get what I need done! Won’t you join me?
Here are three possible headlines for today’s church members. Which headline describes your leanings?
I Love the Church. I Love the Gospel of Jesus Christ. But There Not the Same
Let’s Stone the Pretended Prophets!
Pray for Church Leaders. Heavenly Father will Lead Them by the Hand!
There are more headlines that could be written, but I think these provide a basic representation of the feelings expressed by “church members” as the apostles and prophets seek guidance to lead the church forward at a time when the gentiles are rejecting Christ.
‘They knew what was right in their heart and knew God would make it right. Same thing today for gay people. God will fix it in time. Same for women in New Testament times. Leaders said they couldn’t speak in church, which as we know was not Gods law but just a reflection of the culture at the time. These things take time.
The above sickens me.
Women may be able to wait until the geriatric patriarchy gets around to fairness and decency but gay children have died and more could very well feel harassed into despondency and suicide while they wait for the revelation that every other decent American has already arrived at.
A church that makes it its mandate to shame and judge is not a church of Jesus Christ.
And a church that is willing to marginalize one segment like women is, as we see, a church that is equally willing to marginalize children>. That much couldd not be more clear to me. What isn’t clear is why there are “saints” who are willing to excuse and defend it.
Interesting but moot, since the church isn’t divine.
Their policies will harm people, I’m sure, but I think far more will receive the benefit of separation. This is the last straw for many who will leave and instantly have 10% more money and far more time for their lives and families.
Mormonism is a demonstrable fraud in a hundred ways, the easiest of which to demonstrate is serial plagiarism in all of their unique scriptures as well as the temple ceremony. As such, I hope more people are saved by this detrimental policy than are harmed by it.
#exodus
Dear Rob:
No one came on here to bash the church or proclaim Anti-Mormon rhetoric . We’ve heard it already. What we want to talk about is our love for the church, about the holes in our hearts, about the love we have for family and friends, and about our feelings in dealing with this. No one seems to be jumping on your band wagon. The vast majority are working on “feelings”. We love the church, and need the help & understanding that He alone can give us! And… We want to commiserate with like thinking souls. It doesn’t help to point out flaws. We will work it out, won’t we? Love to all!
Which is why I led with “moot.”
Your agenda is moot because of the truth. I’m sorry that you feel bad, I really am. My point is that if more people end up leaving the church than get hurt by this policy, then a greater number of people are preventing themselves from many detriments, including feeling bad.
I left the LDS church several months ago, not because I was forced out or anyone hurt me but because I didn’t feel and couldn’t have a full testimony of what I was taught. I’m still working on my spiritual path and I’m glad I have friends of all faiths and lack thereof who accept me as I am. I identify as bisexual, and no that isn’t half gay. I can ‘choose’ a partner that is opposite of my gender in a sense, but I do not believe you choose who you fall in love with. My journey might look different than other LGBT Christians but it’s not any easier or harder just because I’m not gay or can have a straight partner. I hope that people who have a close relationship to the Savior are prompted to help those that are affected by this policy. In the end, we will not answer to the bible or to church leaders, but to God and the savior. That’s where your answers should come from. That’s what I believe. I felt gentle stirrings in my heart when I was apart of the church, but there were too many things that did not add up for me and that I didn’t agree with. I don’t hate those that are against LGBT as long as they aren’t actively harming them, but by agreeing with policies that affect us and our families and children, you ARE being harmful and that I do hate. We are commanded first to love the Lord our God with all of our hearts, minds, souls, and strength and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Not to hate, judge, criticize or police. We all have to live with our own decisions and if you happen to be straight, you’re just lucky that there aren’t policies and laws that prevent you from having freedom to live just as you are. Treat people as whole human beings, not picking which part of them you hate or don’t like. Jesus died on the cross to save those that are not saved, not to pat saints on the back and reward them for crucifying his other children.
For many decades prior to this policy change the church has had an identical policy pertaining to children of polygamous households. The church has wished to separate itself completely from the practice of polygamy, and has therefore in the exact same manner denied allowing any church ordinances from baby blessings to baptism to these minor children in order not to be seen as sanctioning polygamy.
The silence regarding this policy on polygamy would indicate that no one cared about it (or cared enough to even know about it). Why would that be? It’s because polygamists are a moral out-group, and therefore they and their children are afforded a corresponding low status. Over the past decade, gays have been made not only part of our society’s moral in-group, but are increasingly held up by entertainment media and the press as moral paragons and thus given a corresponding high status.
It is difficult not to conclude that much of the negative response to the recent policy change and the previous non-response to the identical policy re: polygamy are indicative of status-signaling or virtue-signaling. Real psychological angst is felt when there is the possibility of being considered and thus shunned as part of the moral out-group. So you get the negative responses that have been so common on social media, which, when translated as the virtue-signaling they are, come to read something like, “Please know that by feeling badly about this new policy I too should be considered part of the moral in-group. I have come to see over the past decade that caring about gays–especially married gays, and most especially their children–is kind, decent and virtuous. I therefore wish to register my kindness and virtuousness and thus be afforded the high status of an in-group member.”
Wilhemus,
I’m not sure if you’ve seen my current post on the topic, but I didn’t know that polygamists were excluded until last month, and I object to that policy as well. See http://www.wheatandtares.org/19487/suffer-little-children-and-forbid-them-not/
@VVilhelmus
I have been an active member in every sense of the word for over 30 years. I just found out about the policy as it pertains to children of polygamists because of the leak of the new policy regarding children of ss parents. This is because the manuals that these ‘policies’ are written in are unavailable to the women of the church. More than half of our membership are not…and if the policy on that stands…will never be privy to that information. (That’s a whole ‘nother discussion to be had).
So, to say that somehow we wouldn’t care or we were not concerned about the children of polygamist families is false. I feel just as strongly about that situation as I do about the SS policy. Children should not be punished or withheld from the spirit or full fellowship based on the decisions of their parents. Especially if their parents fully support their participation in the church.
I love the brethren and support them. I know they are trying their best. But, in my personal prayers and promptings, I cannot feel anything but sadness and pain for this new policy. I am not seeing Christ in this decision. I don’t feel His love there. I can only go with what Heavenly Father is telling me. And if I err, then I choose to err on the side of love and understanding and compassion for those who are suffering so greatly for this change.
If you are a member of the LDS Church, you must accept the revelations that the Prophet and Apostles receive as being from The Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, let us have this discussion in that light. His ways are not our ways. His ways are higher than our ways. Whoever has issues with the leaders in this church, need to be talking to the Lord Jesus Christ, because that is where the policies come from. It is good to be crystal clear here regarding that. If you read the scriptures, meaning all of the scriptures, the positions taken by those authorities follow. The problem here is not dissecting the policies. The problem is that people want to belong to this church without sacrifice. We all must sacrifice in our particular lives. To sacrifice means to give up the desires of our own hearts and take on the character of the Lord Jesus Christ. Let us get to the root, and say, those who will not sacrifice anything, and everything, for the kingdom of God will not inherit it.
#41
If you go to the New Testament and look for the actual words of Jesus Christ one of the things you will find is Matthew 19:14:
“14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
…
16 ¶And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
…
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
Mark reports the incident the same way and in both places it is Jesus who enumerates the ways we can follow him including honoring parents. What is doesn’t say is some parents or in what circumstances we don’t honor them.
Now, Denise Storrs, perhaps you’ll show us where Jesus’ “ways” include excluding gay people and asking their children to denounce them before they can have entry level — the very minimum — LDS blessings.
I will choose Jesus. And if the church’s ways are different than Jesus’ ways I will want to know why and who is responsible for saying that they are.
I am a member of the LDS church, and I have read all these comments. I have really liked several points already made. I am struggling with hurting the children and making them feel that they are not good enough to be baptized. I agree that we baptize almost everyone with all kinds of backgrounds from drug addicts, alcoholics, unwed mothers, and many other themes of life. Our church has been based on helping these people.
I am a grandmother of children who were born to my son, who I guilt tripped into marrying a women. They have several children and after years of abuse, anger, and passive aggressive behavior on his part, he has released my daughter in law who is now living a productive and happy life with her husband.
My son has since married his monogamous partner, who he has lived with for several years. These children are being raised by both families with joint custody. My daughter-in-law and grandchildren are full members of the LDS church. However, the last two will not qualify for baptism or other ordinances now.
My son tried to make the right choice and do what the church wanted, and it lead to heartache and misery for all. Now, his children will never feel like they are good enough to be a full member of the church. My question is: Did they ask to be born into this situation? When all their peers are being baptized and passing the sacrament, they get to sit back and know each and every week that they are not worthy to do it as well. If we teach them that no matter what they do to be true and faithful to heavenly father, they will never receive the same respect and love from people in the church. How often do we make a huge deal out of the boys who pass the sacrament? We uphold them for being worthy all the time. Why would my grandsons stay and follow him when they have a constant reminder that they are not good enough based on their family member not on their testimony? Why even have them find their own testimony of the church? Will this make them hate the church and become atheists-like so many in the past have done.
Rulings like this one will hurt the children. It is emotionally abusive to ostracize them from doing the same thing that their peers as well as all the struggling new members can do. Why are they unworthy? What is wrong with them? What is this doing to their self-worth? Their self-esteem? If they do what is right, why isn’t Heavenly father honoring them. Also, kids in the church can be mean. Do you not feel like they will pick on these kids and make sure they know that they are substandard members. They are not good enough or worthy enough to participate also.
I think the leaders are so worried about making sure that everyone knows that they think that gay people are wrong. I wonder if they have ever put themselves in their shoes. How would they feel if they were all of a sudden the pariah of society because they were white. What if Obama made it a federal law that they couldn’t buy groceries or own a house just because of their skin color. Being gay is not something they choose. It is something they are born with and struggle their whole lives with. If they could just choose to not be gay, why wouldn’t they make the easy choice.
This should be about the children. It should be left up to them to decide what they want for their future. If every other eight year old can decide to join the church, then I think these kids can do the same. I also think that many church members make themselves feel better about their sins by picking on the one they don’t have to worry about. Isn’t America full of gluttony, lust, greed, sloth, wrath, envy, and pride? These are many times washed under the table. I think this needs to be about the future of these children–not about the parents.
Its so sad to read so many hateful things “members” are saying about our church. You are going about this the wrong way.
*If your faith is being tested…. Get on your knees and pray for understanding.
I really liked Denise Storrs comment!
*New Flash
Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”1
Leviticus 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them.”
YES.. Being gay is a CHOICE!!! You are foolish to think otherwise!!!
The children that are caught in the middle can blame…. The parent who acted upon their own desires. They are the ones being irresponsible.
STOP blaming the church for following God’s LAW. It’s sad to see the devils work in the church.
Str8 up lds. If you’re going to quote Leviticus as your argument against gays, i do hope you follow all the laws in Leviticus. I wouldn’t want you to be are seen as the a hypocrite.
Please let the children who struggle with their attraction to the same gender that it’s their choice. Think that will keep them from killing themselves because ppl at their church pound into their heads that the way they feel is wrong. That’ll work.
Denise Storrs: “If you are a member of the LDS Church, you must accept the revelations that the Prophet and Apostles receive as being from The Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, let us have this discussion in that light. His ways are not our ways. His ways are higher than our ways. Whoever has issues with the leaders in this church, need to be talking to the Lord Jesus Christ, because that is where the policies come from.”
Even E. Christofferson does not make the claim that this policy is a revelation. Revelations may come from God. Doctrines are teachings. Policies are the rules that govern the church. Revelations > Doctrines > Policies. If you are unclear about that, you probably aren’t ready to be part of this discussion, so please put up your sword.
I did a post back in 2013 and let me quote from it.
See http://www.wheatandtares.org/10471/re-evaluating-gay-scriptures/
I am responding to Delilah who said that these children have been deemed “unworthy”. I do not see it that way at all. In fact, quite the contrary. Do we look at children under the age of 8 who have not been able to be baptized yet as “unworthy”? No. They are exempt from the need of baptism at that point because the are “innocent” and not yet held accountable. I think it is somewhat the same for these children of same sex parents. They are innocent and not yet mature enough to be held accountable. No blessings have been taken away in this case. These children have just been given some extra years to think about and make a very important decision that has some pretty serious eternal ramifications for their family.
Becky, but these children grow up. I don’t know if you saw my post where Madison Brown, age 19, was denied baptism because her parents are polygamists. At age 18 she is no longer “innocent”, nor is she a young child but an adult. Still she was denied baptism, not because she was “unworthy”, but because her parents at polygamists. This too will happen to children of gay parents. They will grow up, and past age 8 are neither innocent, but are accountable, and considered unworthy of baptism. Madison has had these “extra years to think about and make a very important decision” but is still denied the free agency to choose baptism. BLESSINGS ARE DENIED in her case. See http://www.wheatandtares.org/19487/suffer-little-children-and-forbid-them-not/
Children don’t stop growing at age 8, and in this case, she has been denied baptism at age 19, despite being otherwise worthy.
I’ve thought about the children who aren’t baptized because of mental disabilities. Is this considered a hateful policy also? I wonder if we will be adding to the problem by telling these children that they should feel offended and hated and picked on, instead of teaching them that this policy was created to show love for them and their families. I wonder if it is because of our culture, not the churches policy per se, that will cause the painful feelings to erput.
Just for clarification, I too am trying to figure out where I stand on this, but it seems to me that if we tell children that certain policies were made because they were hated, that is where the harm will come from. That in essence it will be our our backlash that will cause these children to feel like this policy means they are hated. If we instead chose to help them feel loved, helped them feel like this policy comes from a place of love, would that make a difference? Do children of polygamists or Muslims feel hated by people in the church because they have to wait to be baptized? I am worried our reactions will cause more of a problem. Just some questions and thoughts.
I for one, have a strong testimony of the gospel, but also have the knowledge that our leaders are not perfect and will pray that they will be guided.
But, children of gay people are NOT mentally disabled; they are just like you and me. Nor are gay people disabled. We’ve essentially ruled that gay parents are not capable of giving consent for their children to be baptized, even if they are supportive, even if they love the church but couldn’t make it work for them, even if they hope for what they consider a better path for their kids.
It will also pit parents of gay people against them so that their grandchildren are not affected and result in unnecessary custody battles. Whether that consequence is intended or not, it will result in fearful members persecuting their own gay children and trying to bully them into pretending to be straight and entering mixed orientation marriages to “save the grandchildren.” It’s taking the worst behaviors that exist in church families today and adding fuel to the fire. Gay children are born into LDS families every day. God isn’t going to stop sending them into our families. This policy just makes their lives even more difficult for them.
If we’re all about protecting children, let’s be clear, we are absolutely not trying to protect gay children. Just straight ones.
Yes Rachel, you’re arguing apples and oranges.
The mental disability restriction is based on the idea of innocence. A very young child is innocent before God because they cannot sin – they are just learning to distinguish between right and wrong. If a mentally disabled adult has the cognitive abilities of a small child, then can we consider them truly capable of understanding right and wrong? Should they be held to the same level of accountability of someone who does not have the disability? The legal defense of pleading insanity is similar – it’s understood that someone who is incapable of judging right and wrong should be treated differently.
This is not applicable to children affected by this policy, unless leaders feel that home environment is enough of a disability to make it impossible for a child to truly understand right and wrong. This would imply that children of gay couples should not be held to the same level of accountability as their peers. I don’t see that as the argument they are making, though.