Several weeks ago, I was excited to learn Elder Quentin L. Cook would be visiting our Annapolis, Maryland Stake Conference. (When I learned he had brought his wife, Mary, I was even more thrilled.) My husband’s calling required him to attend the Saturday afternoon priesthood leadership meeting, and I rode down with him to avoid having to drive down by myself for the Saturday evening adult session. I settled in on the couch in the foyer to listen to the priesthood meeting, and will always be grateful to have heard what I heard.
Elder Cook shared some prepared thoughts, and then opened the meeting for questions. My husband was called on, and asked about a matter concerning the Church’s teachings about families and LGBT individuals. Elder Cook first answered the particular detail my husband sought, but then continued in a much more personal vein.
He reminisced about presiding over a San Francisco stake in the early 1980s, when the city was an early gathering place for many LGBT individuals and social tensions were high, in part due to the AIDS scare. Elder Cook found himself responsible for many heartbroken individuals in extraordinarily difficult circumstances–––diagnosed with a terrifying disease, estranged from their families and the Church, sometimes disowned by their families and shunned by members of the Church, alone and unmoored as death approached.
Elder Cook’s recounting of this situation was no humdrum recital–––his voice shook with plain emotion. His descriptions of the men he tried to help were incredibly tender. It was obvious that even all these decades later, the love he felt for those men, and his sympathy for their pain, had stricken him to the core.
Elder Cook ended his answer with a forceful command to love everyone, and especially LGBT members. To try harder to reach out with compassion and understanding.
When new Church policies cause controversy, it’s tempting to suppose our experience, joined with the experience of the multitude of voices weighing in on social media, gives us sufficient wisdom to judge. It’s good to learn from others, and to have the easy opportunity to learn from so many others via the internet. But those voices can give us no insight into the motives and hearts of the leaders responsible for the policy–––only assumptions that often reveal more about the assumer than about Church leaders.
I share my experience listening to Elder Cook not because it will resolve the debate about the new Church Handbook policy on baptisms and parents in same-sex relationships, but because part of that debate is perpetuating a troubling falsehood. The accusations that the Brethren are bigots and clueless about people out in the real world are false. The accusations that the Brethren are acting out of hatred or ignorance are false.
Sustaining our leaders means, at the very least, extending to them sufficient benefit of the doubt to reject such accusations. Fully reject accusations against Church leaders; don’t let conventional wisdom and assumptions constantly repeated by others start to cloud your judgment. I fear that even when we don’t agree “the Brethren are bigots,” we almost subconsciously incorporate some cynicism into our opinions of them just because we see the accusations repeated so often. We conclude so much smoke proves at least a tiny fire. We have to consciously reject that false conclusion.
Church leaders are not automatons at a podium. They’ve led full lives and had broad experience. There’s no Utah bubble to hide in for Church leaders, because to be a high-level Church leader, even in Utah, is to deal with a constant stream and bewildering variety of hard and heartbreaking situations.
And to be a former Stake President in San Francisco is to have a deeply compassionate and loving perspective on the situation of LGBT members. That’s not incompatible with the new policy.
This was so well stated. I lived in the Bay Area for over 40 years and went through that AIDS scare. I had my share of Gay Hairdressers, wonderful men, real people who always treated me with respect so how would I not treat them with respect.
I had a cafe and catering company in San Francisco for 20 years in the 90’s and early 2000’s, I got to know, hire and work with many, mostly, Gay men. I have to say I would not want their struggle and many told me they would never choose to be Gay, it was too hard. These were lovely men who treated me with great respect, I would have been proud to have any of them as my son. We react to the label, we need to see the person. If anyone has watched someone die of AiDS and can still be hateful, will have no place in the Celestial Kingdom Of God, no matter how many years they have gone to Church, how many Sacraments they have taken, how many callings they have had. My best friend’s son is Gay, I have known him since the day he was born, how can I not love him? How can I judge him? Everything about him shines from his LDS upbringing, the only issue is he is Gay. I feel those who are so judgmental and hateful have not really know a Gay person. Do I understand it….NO. Do I need to understand it…NO. Is it my position to judge…NO. I remind myself all the time that “there but for the Grace of God go I “.
I know our General Authorities follow the word of God and will never harm one of his Children. Hate mongers will happen, we, as members of the Church who understand the spirit of these changes, must keep a calm head and follow our faith.
Articles like this are important to keep things in perspective and help to minimize the Spin City that always accompanies changes in Church policy like this. I know much more is to come, we will be tested.
Thank you again for your calming voice and perspective.
Surprisingly, I haven’t seen much in the way of hateful language aimed at the church leaders or even the policy. I am also certain these men make sacrifices most of us armchair critics never would. But I don’t think disagreeing with the policy is the same as calling someone incompetent or worse. Prophets are not infallible. Policies change over time.
Thanks for sharing this. I thought it was also interesting that Elder Christofferson was chosen to be interviewed. He has a close connection with his own brother who is gay – Tom Christofferson (http://www.wheatandtares.org/19470/tom-christofferson-transcript).
They are definitely not out of touch. Each of the brethren has gone through many experiences, and have been prepared for this time, and calling.
The Prophetic Brethren didn’t see this backlash coming. Let that sink in for a moment.
They most certainly foresaw the backlash, yet, as disciples of Christ, they chose to follow Him and obey.
Dave, I let it sink in for a moment. Now what? Or did you want me to accept it as a truth. You really believe they naively went forward with the announcement and were surprised by the backlash? I am not even close to General Authority material and I saw the backlash coming.
But there is a long history of prophetic statements generating backlash. Moses frequently met opposition among his own people, and many after him suffered from the reception of their statements. Lehi stands as an example close-to-home. It hasn’t ended because we are in the Dispensation of the Fullness of Times, either. Without the Manifesto, there might not be an FLDS group.
I will grant you, this may be as much a policy declaration as doctrine. It hardly matters to me, because I trust the people that officially speak for God. But to imply that these men, all of them eminently successful in the world before their call to the Apostleship, didn’t know what they were doing is disingenuous. Anyone with a testimony of their divine calling would have to assume they are acting under guidance.
@Dave-how do you know they didn’t see the backlash coming? is their a source?
You think so Dave McGrath?
Would it not be fair to say we would have, in their day, defended the brethren of the 40’s the same way in their doctrinal statements on race? We would have asked dissenters to recognize these are older men, full of experience who understand well the issues of race and are not bigots. The view of presentism will always have us defending our beliefs at all costs and only with hindsight saying…. you know we might have been wrong when we did that. I dissent and hope you will allow my comment to stand.
On what basis do you make that assumption, Dave? Do you think they’re oblivious to the backlash over LGBT issues that’s been ongoing for at least seven years? Do you think they try to decide church policies based on political correctness and popular opinion? Did you read their minds to determine that they were shocked and surprised by this reaction?
@ Dave McGrath What does a prophet do when God does not give him the warning that many think they should have gotten? Prophets are only prophets.. when they are acting as such. Only as God gives them what he wants them to see. And who said they did not see it? You think that if the Lord tells them what he wants them to say.. and they follow.. that if they had known the outcome… they would have chosen to not have said what the Lord asked them to say? Really?
I was touched by what by what Elder Cook said. I know what he was feeling. I was an original member of Shanti, a group of volunteers who took care of Aids patients, along with Catholic Charities and Mother Teresa’s Nuns. People were dying as in a war, which in a way it was. I stopped counting at 100 the deaths of my patients. I ran out of tears. I still have none to this day. I experience the best and worst of mankind during the first ten years of the epidemic. Patients were literally dying on the streets, evicted from their homes, fired from their jobs. Those that over came their fear, and there was a lot of fear) were truly God’s hands.
Instead if hearing second hand what someone else heard Elder Cook say and the emotion heard in his voice it sure would be nice to hear that supposed message/tenderness from him directly during general conference. We’re just supposed to believe he said those things? I’d like to hear it from him. He’s had ample opportunities to share this message at a general conference or in a Mormom message.
The fact is that the Mormon Church endorsed and practiced reparative therapy – a practice that has been roundly and appropriately condemned as cruel, callous, fake science. Shame on the Mormon Church. And shame on Hinckley and Packer for saying gay people don’t even exist.
I was in the San Francisco Stake from ’56-’66, and again from ’82-’99 (while Elder Cook was Stake President). He was greatly loving and compassionate and did definitely encounter much suffering and opened many doors with others for LGBT-oriented individuals to reactivate, and, indeed, hold responsible callings in the Stake. He is truly called of God, and I would say of him and all of the Brethren, I trust them and believe they have greater vision than I can hope for, and my trust is that they are doing Heavenly Father’s will, whether we can see it or not at this moment.
I’m willing to give the brethren the benefit of the doubt here, but at the same time I think they are sometimes completely tone deaf to how things are perceived in the outside world. I know the handbook change was not meant to be disseminated to the public, but it got there and now we all have to deal with it. The thing that bothers me, though, is that this policy change comes on the heels of many, many occasions when the church could have taken a bold stand for something, such as civil rights, and didn’t.
The ironic thing is that this policy was probably initiated as a response to gay couples asking the church to not allow their children to be baptized. Remember the Holocaust proxy baptism controversy? No one is calling the church bigoted by forbidding those baptisms, yet here we are.
I am sure the Brethren knew exactly what would happen with the decision to name gay marriage apostacy. This decision has been in consideration for years. You will note that being gay is not apostacy. And, in fact, the Church has supported a number of protective laws protecting the rights of gay people, and has certainly spoken out clearly against unkindness toward them. Many active church members and leaders have loved family members who are gay.
But advocating and living and teaching a doctrine on marriage that is directly against church doctrine IS apostacy.
The LDS Church has never baptized children (that’s those between 8 and 18) without the consent of both parents. I know, I was one of them. I attended church for years before I was old enough to be baptized without parental permission. So did my best friend. We were accepted and welcomed and loved and treated kindly, and certainly were open to the Spirit. But the children of parents (polygamous, as well) who are living in apostacy are in a difficult situation when the Church teaches one thing, and the children are taught another in the home. That is a terrible conflict for children to bear–best to let them make the decision to be baptized when they are of age and not under the authority of their parents. My father continued to fight me for over 40 years about my church membership, but at least I was not dependent on him for my very physical and emotional life.
I believe that Elder Cook is sincere, but I can tell you from personal experience in my immediate family that his message of love and acceptance was not communicated in this policy. My granddaughter, a very active president of her Mia-Maid class choose this week to leave the church.
I believe the doctrine of marriage between a man and a woman is correct. But the policy feels mean and hateful.
“Fully reject accusations against Church leaders; don’t let conventional wisdom and assumptions constantly repeated by others start to cloud your judgment.”
That statement is more revealing than you think. Read it over a few times.
Well I guess we as Mormons can continue to blindly follow anything and everything Church leadership decides to do or we can exercise some level of independent thought. I for one completely disagree with this policy. It is harmful to people (I have seen it firsthand) and the Church doesn’t really care or they wouldn’t do it. To me the purpose is clear and has nothing to do with protecting children. It is all about keeping homosexuals out of the Church and those who sympathize with them (i.e., their children). Church leadership is circling the wagons to protect the unquestioning believers from those who would lead them astray. If no one ever voiced dissent over blacks and the priesthood, blacks would still not have it. The Church only changes when public pressure mounts to the point they really have no choice and that is sad. At what point will Mormonism stop being dominated by lemmings?
I, for one, (among many) know that God does, indeed, give revelation to the children of men as it is needed. It is determined by Him who needs what and how much and when. Whether or not we receive that information is determined by us and by each of us, alone. by and through our personal righteousness and willingness to hear and obey. Not only prophets and authorities of the church but every single human on this small planet. (And if there are other planets in His jurisdiction, there, too.)
Noah heard and obeyed as did Moses. Each had his own revelation and followed it is why we have record of them. I have had friends, co-workers and acquiantances with those of the LG communiry. In many, maybe most regards they were excellent people.
if there are members who are gay, they can remain in the church and in good standing just as those of us who are “straight” can when we have urges that are inappropriate. God loves us all and just wants us to behave ourselves and do what is right.
Jeanette Fabello
I have no doubt that the quarum of the twelve are compassionate men. I love and pray for them. I wonder should we not all be asking the Lord what purpose do these LGTB people have in God’s creation. Who are they and what are they here to teach us. Are they a mistake? I hardly think so. Are they complete? We need to understand. And so my prayers include these questions. They are not hard to love for me, or admire, I can do that. I want to know the why of them. epb
Reputations are earned.
I have often read comments and teachings of general authorities written over the last two centuries that are clearly marked by bigotry: against blacks, against ‘communists’, against Catholics, against critics, against women, against homosexuals, against the United States, against Missouri immigrants passing through Utah. Blanket statements about a large group of human beings that deny common, even natural, human traits are propaganda. All of us are flawed. All of our leaders are flawed. It doesn’t serve you or the community of Saints to insist otherwise. When I was young I went to maybe half a dozen dime-a-dip dinners where the movie Polyanna was shown afterwards. Nice for kids, but I wonder now how adults could have put up with it.
Well take this very common scenario:
Member X has former Mormon member,his brother , gay , legally married too another man and physically live apart from family members. The brother and partner are apostates so must member X and let’s say his member parents too disavow these apostates and not interact with them in order to truthfully answer temple recommend questions?
Just askin
Frank that is a great question. I wonder if more clarity will be made on that front. It has always been a bit ambiguous to me.
“Do you affiliate with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or do you sympathize with the precepts of any such group or individual?”
The word affiliate has a become a bit of a synonym for the word associate. While to associate is a bit of a causal interaction, the word “affiliate” actually means “a person or organization officially attached to a larger body.”
The second word in question for me is; sympathize. Of course, you would sympathize for the struggles of you homosexual son. You want them to be happy and receive eternal life. But there is a second definition of that word, to “agree with a sentiment or opinion.” While parents can, and should, sympathize (feel sympathy) for their son, they should not sympathize (agree) with his choice to enter into a same-sex union.
That is my take on it at least. I hope it adds some clarity.
Those who are leaving the Church because of this policy announcement, no matter how active they are said to have been, were not sufficiently tending and growing their testimonies, were feasting more on media’s presentation of Satan’s subtleties than to the word of God.
I feel sure everyone paused when reading of the policy clarification, the addition of same-sex marriage and cohabitation as apostasy and the resultant inclusion of children in the caution about the effects to the family and child if that child were blessed by Priesthood and/or baptized. It is what we did after that moment that indicates how closely we have been walking with God, I think. Those defending the Church and the Brethren paused, prayed, kick started our testimony and inquired further. We have received understanding and peace in our souls. We know that it is from Christ and is given out of love and superior knowledge and eternal perspective with the welfare of the child and family at its heart.
This is a test. This test gives us all a chance to strengthen our faith, to choose whom to believe. These are the last days. The Lord is moving at a faster pace, so Satan has picked up his pace, too. It was time for those who had bought into Satan’s subtle lies to confront their choice and decide whose side they were on.
Repentence is still offered, last I knew.
Prophetic? https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/neal-a-maxwell_meeting-challenges-today/
Actions speak louder than words. So he helped some AIDS patients in the 80’s? What is he doing now? He’s promoting a policy that requires children to DISAVOW their parents! This isn’t some “oh, I love you but not your sins” action. This is a distinct “with us or against us” division of families in a time when unity is demanded.
Whether or not they are bigots is a completely different question than if they LOOK like bigots. And when you have 15 white guys and no men of color you LOOK like bigots. And I am NOT saying they are bigots. I am just saying that they LOOK like bigots.
I am amazed at this discussion. I joined the church in 1958 smf was surprised at the lack of blacks in the church. When I learned about the policy I started to include a petition in my daily prayers that it would change. Eventually it did. And I fully believe that it was, at least in part, due to my prayers and the prayers of others like me. perhaps that was all the Lord was waiting for. We wait upon the lord. Not He upon us. He is the one that knows better than any of us, the times and the hearts of the population at large. Then, He tells the prophets and apostles (Called by Jesus Christ, Himself) what He would have them say and/or do.