[ydeve]

Old Timer wrote:

Thank you for the update. Our first goal is to help people stay, but our second goal is to help people who must leave do so without bitterness and anger.

There’s definitely bitterness and anger. The lds church is an incredibly dangerous place for a fair number of people. It’s like peanuts. Some people like them. Others don’t. But for some, it’s deadly poison. I don’t think your goal should be to straight-up help people stay, but rather to help people find where they should be and get there without burning bridges.

[ydeve]

10 is not young for kids to be masturbating. I was playing with my privates before I turned 8. No, it wasn’t because of outside influences; I discovered it on my own. Don’t go overboard shaming her about it. I had self-worth issues where I was sure that adhd symptoms and being bisexual were because I was “sinning” by masturbating. It was not fun sorting through that mess later on.

[ydeve]

Beefster wrote:

The church walks a fine line on these issues and I personally think it does a pretty good job. For example, I see why people are/were upset about the policy on children of LGBT parents, but I can see where the church is coming from. It’s a challenging thing to create policies which show love towards everyone while not condoning sin. YMMV on whether it is a sin or not, but the church holds a strict view of it whether or not you agree.

I strongly disagree that they do a good job showing love to everyone. It’s simply not possible to communicate love to someone while simultaneously communicating intolerance of a fundamental part of who they are. And many of us have had strong spiritual experiences confirming that our sexual orientation is a god-given, fundamental part of our identity that is not sinful.

Actions speak louder than words, and the only things the church has done to “help” lgbt people are just empty words. They receive no revelation to address the doctrinal gaps, they make no room for us in their marriage focused communities, they provide no support or guidance on celibacy; all they do is say to stay single and hang in there. And then make or keep around policies like the PoX, banning lgbt members from ever working with youth (because either we’re pedophiles or will corrupt them, take your pick), not allowing us to hold leadership callings, etc.

Holland says that there is room for everyone in the choir, but if by choir he means the church, the only room they’ve allowed us is pretty similar to the room given to blacks before 1978. For the longest time I hoped and listened for them to communicate love. All I got was kicks and insults followed by admonitions to the general membership to love me in the same way they did. It was excruciating and I didn’t want to admit it, but in the end I only found peace when I accepted that there is no place for me here, that I am to walk a different path.

[ydeve]

Roy wrote:

I think what he is trying to say is that a good number of us have secrets, sins, or baggage.

For me, a huge step was recognizing that what I had in my closet and on my shelf was not sinful. The process of emptying and cleaning them has had the opposite effect of what that bishop would have hoped.

[ydeve]

To clarify, the talk wasn’t the peanuts. The talk was pressuring everyone to eat the peanuts and how our friends all must have peanuts for proper nutrition. And how it’s our sacred duty to ensure that everyone eats peanuts. With the strong implication that suggesting that anyone is allergic to peanuts is blasphemy.

That is why the talk is so offensive. It’s not just something that some people should ignore. It perpetuates a culture of forcing people to partake of things that are deadly to them and shunning those who choose not to.

[ydeve]

I like to apply this allegory to the effects of teachings on your life, instead of about a person as a whole. People are a mix of good and bad, but if what they teach has a strong bias towards good or bad results when you personally follow it, you have a clear idea whether you should continue to listen or disregard what they have to say.

This allegory isn’t religious in scope, either. It’s common sense. Do what works for you. Stop what doesn’t. Don’t listen to people who insist you do what doesn’t work for you.

I don’t think the Q15 are exempt from this. Some of their teachings can have very negative effects on people’s lives. Common sense suggests such teachings are best disregarded.

[ydeve]

Old Timer wrote:

Having said that, please be careful about judging Elder Christofferson. Everything I know of him tells me he is a good man who is trying to walk a difficult tightrope right now. I don’t envy him in that regard, and I can’t condemn him – especially since I have no desire to walk in his shoes for any distance.

I make no judgment of him as a person. We all strive to do the best we can with the cards we’ve been dealt. I just have no particular respect for what he preaches, as I’ve seen its fruit and judge it bad. For that matter, I have little respect for the teachings of anyone who says or treats me as subhuman, whether or not it is intentional or they are conscious of it. Assuming Christofferson is sincere, I do not envy the cognitive dissonance he must be experiencing.

[ydeve]

Mom3, I only see one of your questions. If there’s a second one, please restate it for me.

I do not really understand people like Mitch Mayne and Tom Christofferson. My guess is it might come down to a different understanding of the Kingdom/Choir/Zion and the church’s role in it. To me, Zion is purely metaphorical and completely divorced from any one church. I don’t believe the truth claims of the lds church, and I don’t believe it is necessary in any way for salvation or building up the Kingdom. I see it as a vehicle that some use to do so. If you do believe the truth claims, then I can see how you could be like Mitch or Tom.

[ydeve]

I’m on my phone right now, and it’s hard to reference the talk and write out my response at the same time, so I will write in context of the type of attitude of the talk instead of the talk itself. If you need further responses in context of the actual talk, I can do that after I get home, but otherwise I’m happy not to go read toxic narrative that mostly just serves to make me angry.

Heber13 wrote:

It almost sounds like you are suggesting that love is acceptance for others as they are…therefore, you can’t correct or judge others and love them or you don’t understand what love is. I’m guessing you don’t mean that…but that is what I hear. Clarify for me if you can on how you feel about this.

Heber13 wrote:

ydeve wrote:

I find that many church leaders do not correct out of genuine love for people, but rather out of “love” for the imaginary people they would rather those people be.

Is this similar to the point above…that they cannot correct or judge another. If it is love, then they must accept the other person as they are and not try to change them or it is not love? If so, how do parents do this for children? How do teachers do this for students? How does your boss do this to employees? How should church leaders to this for members?

Yes, you absolutely need to accept people as they are. Otherwise, you are not loving the person they are, but rather the person you want them to be. It is possible to correct someone while accepting that they are who they are. However, there is such thing as boundaries, and violating them shows disrespect and is not loving. Mormons are notoriously bad at this. The church teaches by example that it is ok to pressure people into acting the way you want them to act, and that there is no such thing as boundaries. I have yet to see someone use the phrase “righteous judgement” to describe their behavior and actually be showing love to an adult.

You can point out what I’m doing. If you love me, you *should* point out what I’m doing as long as it doesn’t violate any boundaries. But you point it out once, and then you stop. Nagging is inappropriate, and shows that you do not respect my agency. It’s loving the ideal, not the person.

Heber13 wrote:

ydeve wrote:

When you “love” someone but disregard their experiences, that is not love.

How did Elder Christofferson disregard experiences? I’m not saying you are wrong. I am trying to connect this talk with the reaction some have, and why some do not have that reaction.

Without going back and rereading the talk, I cannot tell you if or where *he* disregards people’s experiences in it, but I can tell you how members and GAs will do so as they “apply it to their lives.” Here are a couple examples. I’m LGBT, and I understand exmos. These are two groups who are often demonized by the church, its authorities, and its membership. And if not demonized, our experiences are disregarded or misconstrued. Savannah is an excellent case in point. Her heartfelt testimony was deemed unchristlike because it did not toe the party line. Shunning and hateful behavior towards friends and family are often because people feel the need to show that they do not “support” so and so’s actions. Talks like Christofferson’s fuel abusive behavior, again by the church, its authorities, as well as the membership.

Heber13 wrote:

ydeve wrote:

When you “love” them and demand they behave without regard for their *actual* wellbeing, that is not love.

Is “demand” too strong of a word for the invitations of an apostle?

No, “demand” is not too strong a word, because that’s how it is in practice. The church doesn’t just “invite” LGBT people to live unauthentically. It’s backed by threat of excommunication and loss of community. “Ponderizing” was an invitation. Paying 10% of your income as a tithe, regardless of whether or not you can feed your children, is not. Oak’s “there is no such thing as a loyal opposition” was also not an invitation. Neither was Prop 8 an invitation, but an “invitation.”

Heber13 wrote:

ydeve wrote:

Nor can you hate a fundamental part of who someone is and still truly love them.

If Elder Christofferson is claiming the only motivation correction should be done is out of love, why do you feel they really hate fundamental parts of others?

Because I’m LGBT, and I experience this on a regular basis at church. Again, from both GAs, including the Q15, and membership.

Heber13 wrote:

ydeve wrote:

And when it comes to the kinds of things that the church corrects people on, the results are tragic. The fruit of their actions is self-evident. It’s poison, and no amount of apologetics can change that.

Are there fruits that are NOT tragic? What of my son serving his full-time mission, trying so hard to be completely obedient, and is a sponge listening to all the MP and other leaders and scriptures and church manuals have to teach him…and he has never been happier in his life…and has had spiritual and emotional experiences connecting with people he teaches. For him…there is fruit of love that he has never felt in his life that strong. I don’t believe he is being tricked. I respect him and admire him.

Can you really say that the fruit is tragic and self-evident? Or do you think you are seeing one outcome is that for some it is tragic. But for others it is not?

Good fruits do not erase bad ones. If your food contains peanuts, you do *not* demand that everyone eat it, make those who don’t feel horrible guilt, and then go and ostracize them. The fact that most people may enjoy your food doesn’t change the fact that it’s deadly poison to others. The fact that those others can still technically choose not to eat your food does not absolve you of how you pressure them into eating it. In practice, this is what happens in the church, and much of it is enforced by the GAs, not just local membership. Except the number of people with deadly allergies to aspects of what the church teaches are *far* greater than the number of people allergic to peanuts.

When I heard this talk, I heard the same rhetoric that mormons use to justify all the hatred and abuse they deal out to me and people like me. And not just LGBT people, but rather people who do not or cannot fit the mormon mold. That’s why I call it poison and toxic, because it fuels the cycle of abuse in the church.

[ydeve]

I find the talk not just offensive, but harmful and poisonous. Reuben’s already explained much of what I take issue with. Talks like this foster the kinds of attitudes that reject and shun people who cannot authentically fit in with the rest. Talks, lessons, and teachings like this are a huge (I’d wager the main) factor in why Utah has such a high youth suicide rate.

When many members of the church use the word “love” in conjunction with correction or not judging, I don’t think they know what it really means. When you “love” someone but disregard their experiences, that is not love. When you “love” them and demand they behave without regard for their *actual* wellbeing, that is not love. Nor can you hate a fundamental part of who someone is and still truly love them. I find that many church leaders do not correct out of genuine love for people, but rather out of “love” for the imaginary people they would rather those people be. And when it comes to the kinds of things that the church corrects people on, the results are tragic. The fruit of their actions is self-evident. It’s poison, and no amount of apologetics can change that.

[ydeve]

SamBee wrote:

I think caffeine is overused in our society and is basically a mean to burn employees into the ground.

For some, it’s a way to be able to concentrate on things. It’s not always a matter of overworking. I use caffeine when I forget to take my medication for ADHD. There have been times where I forgot to take my meds in the morning and the lack of caffeine on campus screwed up a good chunk of my day.

[ydeve]

SilentDawning wrote:

How would you handle the aftermath? Would you meet with the 12 year old who spoke and their parents? What about the future? If these people are members of the Ward, what might you do afterwards, if anything?

I don’t think that anything a local leader can do will have any long-term effect on whether or not an LGBT individual stays in the church. Like I said above, the Q15 have set things up so that we must choose between being damned in the garden of Eden and leaving so we can live up to our full potential. But it can have a huge effect on their self-worth. I would be as supportive and affirming as I can and stand up for her to ward members, and like I said, it would get me released very quickly. But at least this girl would have heard a church leader affirm her worth as a daughter of God.

[ydeve]

SilentDawning wrote:

If you were presiding over the meeting in which this happened, how would you have responded?

I’d follow my conscience, praise her for her courage, and probably be released rather quickly. I’m very mentally out and have no respect for people or policies that treat me as subhuman/sub-child-of-god. Yes, I’m bitter, but I’m in a place that continually rubs me raw, and I don’t think that forgiveness will be able to come until I’m able to get out.

[ydeve]

SilentDawning wrote:

I think she made a mistake making statements that are against the doctrines of the church in that F&T meeting context. I don’t fault her opinion, I feel for her plight as a gay member of the church. I would want her to feel accepted in my Ward and would support her in her membership. So my disagreement is not a disaffirmation of her position or her sexuality.

What this says to me, and this is not new insight, is that there is no place for self-respecting LGBT people in the lds church. We can live a full, happy life, or we can be members of good standing in the lds church. The two are mutually exclusive. The doctrine of the church *is* that our deepest need for companionship is evil. To teach otherwise is apostasy.

[ydeve]

Reuben wrote:

From a cursory inspection, it looks staged. Upon closer inspection, everything about it looks totally legit.

On the timing of the story, for those who think this was staged, the story was originally posted as text on r/exmormon on May 9th and was highly upvoted. We then heard nothing about it for over a month until NewNameNoah posted the video 5 days ago (June 14th). This looks like something genuine that later got attention, not staged.

[Author]

Posts