An Apostle's Brother is Gay and Came Back to Church. Yea for the Church!

[Not Buying It]

I've sat on this one a couple of days, but I can't let it pass without comment:

One Gay Man's Powerful Journey Away from the Church and Back Again (+ Important Insights for Families and Ward Members)

http://www.ldsliving.com/One-Gay-Man-s- ... in/s/86366

This, of course, is Elder Christofferson's brother. From the comments I have seen, the article did exactly what it was written to do - make members feel OK about the Church's stance on gays. See? He left the Church, but then broke up with his partner and came back. The Church is true! All he had to do was commit to being celibate and alone for the rest of eternity. What's the big deal about that?

Most of the Facebook comments make me want to vomit (e.g. "An inspired perspective, from an inspiring journey", "What an amazing story of true love and acceptance! love is the greatest gift we can give to one another". Puke.) But of all the people who commented about how inspiring this story was, one guy nailed it:

I don't understand why he and his partner had to break up; would he have been able to come back to the church if he remained in the relationship, is he looking for a boyfriend? If the answer is "no," then there's nothing happy about this story, and shows the Mormon church is just as bigoted as it ever was.

This is nothing but homophobia and exclusivity dressed up as acceptance, which it clearly isn't. There's nothing wrong with gay people, but the LDS church continues to marginalize gay people by forcing, or cajoling, them to be singled out and be forced into a life of shame and loneliness. It's hate with hugs, nothing less, and you'd have to be very blind not to be able to see through this. The Mormon church continues to divide families and ruin people while making millions for the few at the top.

[2bizE]

This will be short lived, but there will not be another article when he stops being celibate...man was not meant to be alone.

[MoPag]

I saw this going through my FB feed, but I didn't have the emotional energy to read it then. Just finished reading it now. Surprisingly, I can cherry-pick a few goods things out of here:

“They welcomed both me and my partner to worship with them and partake of the Spirit without condition. Our responsibility is to create a loving, welcoming environment for the Spirit to work—everything else is up to the Lord. Our love shouldn’t be qualified based on someone else’s repentance.”

What a great ward. I don't think my ward would welcome a gay couple. I would; but I know some really bigoted (and unfortunately really loud) people who would be very unwelcoming.

“The happy ending is not that I came back to church. The happy ending is that a family learned to draw a circle of love that would include everyone throughout their lives, wherever they were in their journey, and that a ward learned how to expand their circle of love to include anyone who came through the doors of the chapel.”

I'm kind of surprised they put this in the article. The ending: "and they came back to church," seems like it is the only acceptable happy ending for most TBMs to any story about faith issues. I like how he takes this a step further with this quite. If God is love, he came back to God. God is not the church.

But overall this article was just sad. And it is even sadder that so many people think it is great that a man had to give up his partner for his religion.

I liked the quote you shared Not Buying It. That guy or gal NAILED IT!

[Spicy McHaggis]

Can the church afford the PR of having an apostle with a gay brother?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means but it wouldn't surprise me if there is something going on behind the scenes. Some sort of payment for sharing his story. I know that is probably dumb but I wouldn't put it past them.

[Corsair]

Can the church afford the PR of having an apostle with a gay brother?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means but it wouldn't surprise me if there is something going on behind the scenes. Some sort of payment for sharing his story. I know that is probably dumb but I wouldn't put it past them.

I rather think that the LDS church is harvesting a measure of good PR from this situation. They get to look like they are welcoming to the sinful LGBT community, but the policies and doctrines of the LDS church do not have to change. I certainly commend the welcoming and loving ward that Tom attended. But Tom is an older guy so the church did not have to grapple with the potential of Tom bringing young children into that ward.

I certainly have heard several stories of LGBT people doing things like:

• happily worshipping in church,
• getting divorced so they could return to church
• being stoically celibate in church
• managing a heteronormative marriage in church

But I have not seen any stories of LGBT people happily bringing their children to a church where they are denied saving ordinances. Nor have I heard of these children valiantly persevering until they are 18 years old so they can renounce the same sex marriage of their parents and fully join the fellowship of the LDS church. I have not heard if children of an LGBT couple might be violating the Honor Code if they attend BYU and go to their home for holidays.

[Random]

So, I'm looking at the list of topics, and I see this (I read it as one paragraph, not really noticing the second sentence):

An Apostle's Brother is Gay and Came Back to Church. Yea for the Church!
Not Buying It

edited to clarify

[Random]

But I have not seen any stories of LGBT people happily bringing their children to a church where they are denied saving ordinances. Nor have I heard of these children valiantly persevering until they are 18 years old so they can renounce the same sex marriage of their parents and fully join the fellowship of the LDS church. I have not heard if children of an LGBT couple might be violating the Honor Code if they attend BYU and go to their home for holidays

Bingo!

[moksha]

I imagine it will be a positive thing when members see this program in between the General Conference sessions. Anything that can make the LDS people be kinder and gentler is appreciated. A conference address that included the line, "black lives really do matter" would also be useful. Members listen to the stuff said at Conference.

[deacon blues]

Can the church afford the PR of having an apostle with a gay brother?
I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any means but it wouldn't surprise me if there is something going on behind the scenes. Some sort of payment for sharing his story. I know that is probably dumb but I wouldn't put it past them.

I rather think that the LDS church is harvesting a measure of good PR from this situation. They get to look like they are welcoming to the sinful LGBT community, but the policies and doctrines of the LDS church do not have to change. I certainly commend the welcoming and loving ward that Tom attended. But Tom is an older guy so the church did not have to grapple with the potential of Tom bringing young children into that ward.

I certainly have heard several stories of LGBT people doing things like:

• happily worshipping in church,
• getting divorced so they could return to church
• being stoically celibate in church
• managing a heteronormative marriage in church

But I have not seen any stories of LGBT people happily bringing their children to a church where they are denied saving ordinances. Nor have I heard of these children valiantly persevering until they are 18 years old so they can renounce the same sex marriage of their parents and fully join the fellowship of the LDS church. I have not heard if children of an LGBT couple might be violating the Honor Code if they attend BYU and go to their home for holidays.

Yup. things that make you go Hmmmmm..............

[SeeNoEvil]

This really makes me sad and a bit angry. It will be that story that is told over and over to prove gays are wrong and the church is true. I can only imagine the mental gymnastics he went through to get to this point. Sad.sad.very.sad. My prediction is it won't last.

[Newme]

I've sat on this one a couple of days, but I can't let it pass without comment:

One Gay Man's Powerful Journey Away from the Church and Back Again (+ Important Insights for Families and Ward Members)

http://www.ldsliving.com/One-Gay-Man-s- ... in/s/86366 All he had to do was commit to being celibate and alone for the rest of eternity. What's the big deal about that?

One type of logical fallacy is jumping to conclusions- another is dismissing inconvenient facts, and emotional reasoning. Some people WANT to overcome homosexual feelings & do. The big deal about overcoming homosexuality for him may be he could actually make love without anal sex risks of anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture & bacterial infection. And he could actually conceive a child - something such a part of human experience it's listed in human development spiral dynamics.

Most of the Facebook comments make me want to vomit...

This is nothing but homophobia and exclusivity dressed up as acceptance, which it clearly isn't. There's nothing wrong with gay people, but the LDS church continues to marginalize gay people by forcing, or cajoling, them to be singled out and be forced into a life of shame and loneliness. It's hate with hugs, nothing less, and you'd have to be very blind not to be able to see through this.

That one makes me want to vomit for several reasons:
1) He's cruely deceptive. He ignores the horrific consequences medically & statistically associated with homosexuality (some medical risks mentioned above) & USCDC's nation-wide gathered health reports show homosexuality involves high cases of STDs, AIDs/HIV & mental illness. Why would he be so cruel as to pretend something KNOWN to be unhealthy to be desirable??
2) He is so cruel likely because he cares more what others think of him rather than the genuine well-being of others.
3) I've seen & experienced mob-mentality of this cruel peer-pressure based thinking distortions. It's ugly & even threatens my rights like freedom of speech.

4) The Mormon church shuns not just homosexuals but any apostate. Stop with the disgusting victim mentality.
5) Yes, Mormons deny children of homosexuals to be baptized. People freaked out about that announcement. Yet FOR YEARS, children of polygamy families haven't been able to be baptized & they had no problem about that. Why? Because it's not about the children.
6) If such people genuinely cared about children, they'd realize the biological as well
as social need of both a mother and father. And even when being kind to homosexuals, they would defend marriage between a man & a woman, rather than trip up people who struggle with reality by pretending along with them that a man is a woman if he "feels" like it & other logical fallacies.

[StarbucksMom]

One type of logical fallacy is jumping to conclusions- another is dismissing inconvenient facts, and emotional reasoning. Some people WANT to overcome homosexual feelings & do. The big deal about overcoming homosexuality for him may be he could actually make love without anal sex risks of anal fissures, anal cancer, colon rupture & bacterial infection. And he could actually conceive a child - something such a part of human experience it's listed in human development spiral dynamics.

Most of the Facebook comments make me want to vomit...

This is nothing but homophobia and exclusivity dressed up as acceptance, which it clearly isn't. There's nothing wrong with gay people, but the LDS church continues to marginalize gay people by forcing, or cajoling, them to be singled out and be forced into a life of shame and loneliness. It's hate with hugs, nothing less, and you'd have to be very blind not to be able to see through this.

That one makes me want to vomit for several reasons:
1) He's cruely deceptive. He ignores the horrific consequences medically & statistically associated with homosexuality (some medical risks mentioned above) & USCDC's nation-wide gathered health reports show homosexuality involves high cases of STDs, AIDs/HIV & mental illness. Why would he be so cruel as to pretend something KNOWN to be unhealthy to be desirable??
2) He is so cruel likely because he cares more what others think of him rather than the genuine well-being of others.
3) I've seen & experienced mob-mentality of this cruel peer-pressure based thinking distortions. It's ugly & even threatens my rights like freedom of speech.

4) The Mormon church shuns not just homosexuals but any apostate. Stop with the disgusting victim mentality.
5) Yes, Mormons deny children of homosexuals to be baptized. People freaked out about that announcement. Yet FOR YEARS, children of polygamy families haven't been able to be baptized & they had no problem about that. Why? Because it's not about the children.
6) If such people genuinely cared about children, they'd realize the biological as well
as social need of both a mother and father. And even when being kind to homosexuals, they would defend marriage between a man & a woman, rather than trip up people who struggle with reality by pretending along with them that a man is a woman if he "feels" like it & other logical fallacies.

Oh my. Grabbing my Whirley Pop. (Best thing ever, if you don't have one go to Amazon right now.)

[Not Buying It]

Oh, my, Newme, where to begin? Rather than try and argue your points, I will seek to understand - so let me ask, what is it you think someone who is born homosexual should do? It is undeniable that some people are born homosexual, and since you apparently don't accept their lifestyle as legitimate, moral, or defensible, do you then recommend they simply pretend to be straight their whole lives? What exactly are you advocating for them? You've presented your perceived problems with their choices, but what are your solutions?

[Newme]

Oh, my, Newme, where to begin? Rather than try and argue your points, I will seek to understand - so let me ask, what is it you think someone who is born homosexual should do? It is undeniable that some people are born homosexual, and since you apparently don't accept their lifestyle as legitimate, moral, or defensible, do you then recommend they simply pretend to be straight their whole lives? What exactly are you advocating for them? You've presented your perceived problems with their choices, but what are your solutions?

Rather than argue your points, I'll ask you to respond to what I wrote before.

[EternityIsNow]

Here is a response to some of the points Newme made ...

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... s-debunked

Churches can do whatever they want (or can get away with) regarding sexual orientation, but that does not make their policy-doctrines correct, or humane.

My brother has been in a gay marriage for over a decade, and it is the best thing he ever did. I have seen only improvements in his and his husband's lives. Being LDS nearly killed him, literally. I suppose if someone considers gay people to be less human or have fewer natural rights than everyone else, maybe they won't care about the facts here. But God (of evolutionary processes) created gay creatures, many species of them, and they persist. All this shows is that our biology is fluid, every part of the human body can evolve, sometimes in a useful way and sometimes not. And of course that includes our sexuality. The test for us is whether we are willing to accept this reality and show genuine love and caring towards those who are not stereotypical human beings. I think accommodating LGBT needs does need to be done carefully, our society is complicated, but the secular world is on the right track, and as usual, the church has decided to resist actual human progress.

[alas]

My daughter is also much happier married to her love. She tried straight marriage and it was a disaster. in a lesbian relationship, there are none of the dangers you are suggesting are there with anal sex. So, why should she be forbidden from marrying who she loves.

Then there are the dangers of PREGNANCY for heterosexual couples. My first pregnancy damned near killed me. I am not exaggerating one bit. I bet more women have died of pregnancy related complications than gay men have died from complications from anal sex, so let's outlaw heterosexual sex. It is FAR more dangerous.

Yes, I am being ridiculous. It should be the couple's choice. If women are willing to risk the dangers of pregnancy because they love someone, and you as a male are perfectly willing to allow women to take such risks, then who the blank are you to not allow gays to take whatever risk they choose to take. I bet as a male, you have never considered the risks women take, but you get on here and rant about the risk of gay sex. So, the solution is, if you think gay sex is risky, then don't YOU do it. But you have no right to tell others what they can or cannot do. Sure, inform them of risks, then shut the f up.

My husband suggested that you go on and on about gay sex because you happen to be gay and are fighting your tendencies. Don't worry, I won't hold being gay against you.

[Not Buying It]

Oh, my, Newme, where to begin? Rather than try and argue your points, I will seek to understand - so let me ask, what is it you think someone who is born homosexual should do? It is undeniable that some people are born homosexual, and since you apparently don't accept their lifestyle as legitimate, moral, or defensible, do you then recommend they simply pretend to be straight their whole lives? What exactly are you advocating for them? You've presented your perceived problems with their choices, but what are your solutions?

Rather than argue your points, I'll ask you to respond to what I wrote before.

OK.

Some people WANT to overcome homosexual feelings & do.

And plenty of people with homosexual feelings don't want to "overcome" them - and why should they? Because you say they should? Because it doesn't mesh with your ideas about what "normal" is? Other than religious arguments that none of us are in any way required to accept, by what standard can you claim that homosexuals have any need or moral obligation to "overcome homosexual feelings" if they don't WANT to?

...he could actually conceive a child - something such a part of human experience it's listed in human development spiral dynamics

Plenty of heterosexual people opt not to have children - is there something wrong with them?

1) He's cruely deceptive. He ignores the horrific consequences medically & statistically associated with homosexuality (some medical risks mentioned above) & USCDC's nation-wide gathered health reports show homosexuality involves high cases of STDs, AIDs/HIV & mental illness. Why would he be so cruel as to pretend something KNOWN to be unhealthy to be desirable??

Heterosexuality involves risks of STDs, AIDs, etc. As alas so eloquently noted, women die in childbirth - which is a clear consequence of heterosexual behavior. Shall we all refrain from sexual behavior completely then?

2) He is so cruel likely because he cares more what others think of him rather than the genuine well-being of others.

His was the only quote I saw that didn't gush about how wonderful the article was - peer pressure was clearly against him in this case. If he cared what the other commenters thought of him, he wouldn't have made his comment. He didn't strike me as someone who was all that concerned about what people thought of him.

3) I've seen & experienced mob-mentality of this cruel peer-pressure based thinking distortions. It's ugly & even threatens my rights like freedom of speech.

Nobody is telling you that you can't have your opinion. If you are expecting to express an opinion without anyone else reacting to it, then you aren't being realistic. Who is suppressing your free speech? Even in this forum you are free to express your opinion - just as others are free to express their opinions that are opposed to yours. And does the mob-mentality bother you when it is directed at oppressing homosexuals (as it literally did for hundreds of years), or do you only object to it if you think your opinions are being threatened?

4) The Mormon church shuns not just homosexuals but any apostate. Stop with the disgusting victim mentality.

The fact that there are victims in both groups doesn't make it "disgusting victim mentality". I think most people on this board would agree that the Church needs to change the way it treats all apostates, homosexual or not. The fact that apostates who aren't homosexuals are shunned doesn't make the shunning of homosexuals any less despicable.

5) Yes, Mormons deny children of homosexuals to be baptized. People freaked out about that announcement. Yet FOR YEARS, children of polygamy families haven't been able to be baptized & they had no problem about that. Why? Because it's not about the children.

Actually, the reason is that hardly any of us knew that. How could we, since we are denied access to the Handbooks? I don't think most of us feel any better about persecution of children of polygamists than we do persecution of children of homosexuals. The Church was horrible to children in both cases - so yes, it is about the children.

6) If such people genuinely cared about children, they'd realize the biological as well as social need of both a mother and father. And even when being kind to homosexuals, they would defend marriage between a man & a woman, rather than trip up people who struggle with reality by pretending along with them that a man is a woman if he "feels" like it & other logical fallacies.

Are widowed mothers guilty of deficient parenting? What about a single father whose wife has left him and his children? Is child abuse by a father in a heterosexual relationship preferable to a loving care from homosexual parents? What makes you think that anything other than a family with a father and a mother is deficient? Because children need the nuturing of a mother? There are nuturing men and cold, rejecting mothers. Because they need a father to teach boys how to be a man? There are plenty of disengaged fathers who don't teach their kids much of anything. You seem to be hung up on some kind of "ideal" image of what a family should be that doesn't square at all with what many families are. I reject the premise that healthy parenting can only be accomplished by a father and a mother. To say otherwise is to demean literally millions of single parents, many of whom do a pretty damn good job of providing a healthy family life for their children. Or would you argue that they can't?

THERE - I have responded to what you wrote before, as you requested. Having done that, I don't think I am out of line to repeat my question:

You've presented your perceived problems with their choices, but what are your solutions?

[Red Ryder]

Have we cycled back to anal fissures again?

Can we make an unwritten board rule that anal fissures are not a valid reason for or against homosexuality?

[Newme]

Have we cycled back to anal fissures again?

Can we make an unwritten board rule that anal fissures are not a valid reason for or against homosexuality?

Yeah, it's best to avoid medical facts - they don't mix with emotional reasoning.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/H ... uality.pdf

[Red Ryder]

Yeah, it's best to avoid medical facts - they don't mix with emotional reasoning.
http://abcnews.go.com/images/Politics/H ... uality.pdf

Did the Methodists pay somebody to come up with this?

The anus and rectum, unlike the vagina contain no natural lubricating function. Thus insertion of unlubricated objects or inadequate dilation of the anus before insertion of a large object can result in tissue laceration. "The internal and external anal sphincters are elastic rings of muscle which generally remain tightly constricted except during defecation. The anal sphincters are also intended for material to pass through them in a
direction that leads out of the body. When an attempt is made to insert something in the reverse direction, the muscles of the sphincter constricts (Agnew, 1986).

If we are talking about medical facts as the litmus test for who can love whom, then we must also recognize the dangers and risks associated with heterosexual sex and oral sex.