- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
Dark Jedi – I have actually wondered if he’s not the “outsider” in his family
The last few GC talks he’s given I have wondered the same thing. Before this book and the articles supporting it, I had known that their Mom had been the guiding influence in the family’s response. I wondered how she felt about some of his talks that had a less inclusive tone.
The other part that flumoxes me about D. Todd, is he has met one on one with the Mama Dragon’s leaders, and a few other couples about FC and LGBT. Each group said, he was kind, understanding, and encouraged them to be leaders in their areas of experience. So now I am totally baffled. Is he a closet supporter? Is he trying to support, like his mom, but just lacks the skill? I don’t know.
mom3 wrote:
Quote:Dark Jedi – I have actually wondered if he’s not the “outsider” in his family
The last few GC talks he’s given I have wondered the same thing. Before this book and the articles supporting it, I had known that their Mom had been the guiding influence in the family’s response. I wondered how she felt about some of his talks that had a less inclusive tone.
The other part that flumoxes me about D. Todd, is he has met one on one with the Mama Dragon’s leaders, and a few other couples about FC and LGBT. Each group said, he was kind, understanding, and encouraged them to be leaders in their areas of experience. So now I am totally baffled. Is he a closet supporter? Is he trying to support, like his mom, but just lacks the skill? I don’t know.
I wonder what pressures being in the Q12 as a junior apostle brings to his situation. I have heard that they are really into seniority.I have many of the same reactions the rest of you do. I actually think it’s wise to let Tom do most of the talking because otherwise, it’s letting the cishetero guy, the “ally,” take the mic away from the person with the experience, and that’s Tom. It’s Tom’s story to tell, not his brother’s. But I think the desire to have his brother speak is because of the leader-worship culture, that somehow it’s got more gravitas and sanction if it comes from the brother. It’s tough to say if that’s true. My one “concern,” which isn’t the right word because how dare I, but rather than say the direct things about how hateful and hurtful the Nov 5 policy is, he peels away in that game of chicken and bears testimony. I just don’t think it’s strong enough in terms of criticism. It feels like the courage and love have to be equal to influence change. But that’s just my two cents. I would like stronger censure of the church’s actions and inactions toward our own LGBT people. I share the concern that TBMs will take this story and use it as a cudgel against gay people because we have a nearly inescapable history of punishing people for being unhappy. We love to kick em when they’re down.
There was a piece by Peggy Fletcher Stack in the Trib:
http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/09/17/mormon-apostles-gay-brother-shares-his-religious-journey-preaches-love-for-his-former-partner-faith-and-family/ Quote:Christofferson had a brother in California who voted for it [Prop. 8], the partner complained. “They know us. I thought they loved me.”
It broke his partner’s heart and created some distance between the partner and the church.
David Checketts, the pro sports mogul and then an LDS stake president overseeing a group of congregations in Connecticut, met with the partner to explain why returning to the Mormon fold meant so much to Christofferson.
The partner responded by saying, the writer recalls in the interview, “
Your church should be supporting our family of two, not splitting us up.” I am glad that this article shared a bit more on the partner’s side to the story. To be abandoned after a 19 year relationship has got to sting (the article states that Tom was “freed” from their “mutual commitment” and that Tom had hoped that the partner would be cool continuing on as a platonic friend. No dice! I can only wonder what he must feel about Tom’s book and being a supporting character in Tom’s journey back to Mormonism.) At least with Courtney and Rochelle the divorce seemed to be oddly mutual.
Quote:I actually think it’s wise to let Tom do most of the talking because otherwise, it’s letting the cishetero guy, the “ally,” take the mic away from the person with the experience, and that’s Tom. It’s Tom’s story to tell, not his brother’s
Hawk – I totally concur. I never desired an entire “Let me tell you about my brother talk. But a statement over the pulpit about families including everyone, and using his mother as the example isn’t telling his brother’s story.
Utah and Idaho is crowded with kicked out LGBT kids. Think of the families that might cool down if GA Christofferson shared his mom’s example of love and faith. That was my wish.
Quote:Utah and Idaho is crowded with kicked out LGBT kids. Think of the families that might cool down if GA Christofferson shared his mom’s example of love and faith. That was my wish.
From your mouth to God’s ears. Sincerely.
Quote:Hawkgrrl -From your mouth to God’s ears.
That line seems to be busy.
hawkgrrrl wrote:I actually think it’s wise to let Tom do most of the talking because otherwise, it’s letting the cishetero guy, the “ally,” take the mic away from the person with the experience, and that’s Tom. It’s Tom’s story to tell, not his brother’s. But I think the desire to have his brother speak is because of the leader-worship culture, that somehow it’s got more gravitas and sanction if it comes from the brother. It’s tough to say if that’s true.
I agree, too.
Roy wrote:
Quote:Christofferson had a brother in California who voted for it [Prop. 8], the partner complained. “They know us. I thought they loved me.”
It broke his partner’s heart and created some distance between the partner and the church.
David Checketts, the pro sports mogul and then an LDS stake president overseeing a group of congregations in Connecticut, met with the partner to explain why returning to the Mormon fold meant so much to Christofferson.
The partner responded by saying, the writer recalls in the interview, “
Your church should be supporting our family of two, not splitting us up.” I am glad that this article shared a bit more on the partner’s side to the story. To be abandoned after a 19 year relationship has got to sting (the article states that Tom was “freed” from their “mutual commitment” and that Tom had hoped that the partner would be cool continuing on as a platonic friend. No dice! I can only wonder what he must feel about Tom’s book and being a supporting character in Tom’s journey back to Mormonism.) At least with Courtney and Rochelle the divorce seemed to be oddly mutual.
We don’t wish that LDS church members’ marriages end if their partner wants to re-join or join a religion that doesn’t approve of Mormon teachings, so I find it disappointing that we rejoice when others’ marriages end so that we may have more members. Since Tom reports feeling at peace I trust that he is telling the truth about what he feels, but I think that all the reporting (and most likely the book) is building up the one side. Also, reducing their nearly 20 year marriage to a mutual commitment that Tom had to be freed from is condescending. My take on hearing Tom’s partner’s side is that the church ultimately mattered most to Tom so that’s what he chose, over all else. However, he’s had a fulfilling marriage (they lived in SF for a number of years, which might’ve infused the marriage with activism, and if that’s not your cup of tea I could imagine that it could grow wearying) so he’s gotten to experience a lot of different worlds in his lifetime. I can see how returning to the church of his childhood would be meaningful to him after so many years, even if I don’t imagine I would make the same concessions.
The church has drawn this firm line in the sand. The problem is that they have defined this as a sin and are unwilling to back away from that stance. I think a closer analysis of why same-sex relationships is considered a sin is warranted. I have read very compelling arguments that it is not really supported by scripture, and there are no modern revelations regarding this. (See here for one example: https://www.hrc.org/resources/what-does-the-bible-say-about-homosexuality This is just another issue where if there truly is continuing revelation in this church, then the church needs one now – and not a lip service revelation but one where the brethren are willing to stand behind it and canonize it by common consent. If they are unwilling to do that, then why the staunch unwillingness to bend on this issue other than following the tradition of policy? We know how problematic doing that is (i.e., priesthood).
Joseph Smith constantly would get requests for revelations from individuals and often complied with those requests. Just look at almost all of the D&C for examples. Often for seemingly trivial things. Where is that today?
DoubtingTom wrote:
Where is that today?
I don’t really have an answer. The committees and councils just seem to be the source of revelation in a different way, and it just doesn’t feel the same…but…it seems to be what we have.
It is just so hard to compare the church in Joseph’s day and the D&C from the church today and General Conference and all the structure and organization and policy and lawyers that have risen from seemingly necessity to protect the future of the church.
Perhaps to progress, they are willing to compromise on some things…and in those compromises are collateral damage that they don’t know how to avoid.
DoubtingTom wrote:
Where is that today?
There was an article that compared new religion to volcano eruptions.
http://forum.staylds.com/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4213&p=56759&hilit=lava+flow#p56759 Quote:The beginnings of the great religions were like the eruptions of a volcano. There was fire, there was heat, there was light: the light of mystical insight freshly spelled out in a new teaching; the best of hearts aglow with commitment to a sharing community; and celebration, as fiery as new wine. The light of doctrine, the glow of ethical commitment, and the fire of ritual celebration were expressions that gushed forth red hot from the depths of mystical consciousness. But, as that stream of lava flowed down the sides of the mountain, it began to cool off. The farther it got from its origins, the less it looked like fire; it turned into rock. Dogmatism, moralism, ritualism: all are layers of ash deposits and volcanic rock that separate us from the fiery magma deep down below.
But there are fissures and clefts in the igneous rock of the old lava flows; there are hot springs, fumaroles, and geysers; there are even occasional earthquakes and minor eruptions. These represent the great men and women who reformed and renewed religious tradition from within. In one way or another, this is our task, too. Every religion has a mystical core. The challenge is to find access to it and to live in its power. In this sense, every generation of believers is challenged anew to make its religion truly religious.….
Our religion started as an eruption and has become a monolith. The good news is that I would MUCH rather be a member of this stable and steady modern church than the unpredictable and sometimes very destructive nascent church of JS and BY.
I agree, Roy. As much as our current issues concern me, I still would not choose the earlier time. Tom Christofferson spoke at a very recent gathering in SLC that included many former and current, global church leaders, as well as major names in the LDS LGBTQ+ community. He said, explicitly, that he hopes parents don’t use his book to assume their own children will abandon relationships and come back to church as single, celibate members – that such a message was not his intent. I appreciate that, and I hope it gets stated much more openly and broadly.
Curtis Sunshine wrote:
I agree, Roy. As much as our current issues concern me, I still would not choose the earlier time.Tom Christofferson spoke at a very recent gathering in SLC that included many former and current, global church leaders, as well as major names in the LDS LGBTQ+ community. He said, explicitly, that he hopes parents don’t use his book to assume their own children will abandon relationships and come back to church as single, celibate members – that such a message was not his intent. I appreciate that, and I hope it gets stated much more openly and broadly.
Glad to hear that.Old Timer wrote:
I agree, Roy. As much as our current issues concern me, I still would not choose the earlier time.
Thanks for that. I also prefer stability to the possibility of being asked to offer my wife or daughter to the prophet or other challenges early members faced. However, at the same time i would like to see some evidence of continuous revelation on serious hot-button issues like this, especially in a church that claims on-going revelation to the prophet as one of it’s cornerstones.
I’m sorry, but I personally don’t see any evidence for it today. I see reactionary policies that come about as a result of social pressure, and they often come much too late in my opinion. I may be overly cynical but this is one of my shelf items – the lack of any apparent ongoing meaningful revelation in a church that continues to claim it is happening.
General conference plattitudes about reading the scriptures, paying tithing, meaningful prayers, being more Christ-like, etc. are great and if we apply these things we will truly be better off. But we can get these same suggestions simply from reading old conference addresses. Meanwhile people are hurting and gay youth in the church are committing suicide. I don’t want more plattitudes. I want this to be a living church, even as I struggle to believe it can be.
DoubtingTom wrote:I’m sorry, but I personally don’t see any evidence for it today.
I also wonder what it felt like back in the day also for them. Maybe there was never anything different than what we have today.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.