Elder Gong: “Please don’t post that photo…”

[Jeffret]

Family should always come before anything else. I have LGBTQ in my family too, as well as one of my kids. They come first. You are either comfortable to be seen with them, and take pictures with them like a normal family, and treat them as a person, or....

"just be quiet about it..." → leads to abuse not being taken care of, leads to kids killing themselves when they cannot talk to anyone or be seen by anyone. Isolation - excommunication - don't communicate or talk to them - just keep your mouth shut....

Everyone can be in pain, everyone has the right to express themselves and tell their story.

This.

It is a fight for their lives.

And this.

For what it's worth, I love my transgender child desperately and I am overjoyed that she is in a relationship with a loving partner. That two outsiders, both Mormon and living in Utah, can even find each other is miraculous to me, and a cause for celebration. I would be deeply ashamed of myself if I felt I had to hide from being seen with them. Sure it has been tough on everybody, but we have all grown immensely.

And also this.

[Hagoth]

Matt certainly upped the ante with this act, but he may just be done. His Dad may have just pushed the wrong button this time. If that's what happened here, I certainly can empathize.

The ball is in Gerrit's court. He has three options: strike back, continue to hide his head in shame, or reach out in love like some kind of, I don't know, apostle of Jesus Christ or something.

[Jeffret]

If the son had waited a period of time or asked later for permission to publish, elder Gong might have been in a better position mentally and emotionally to assent.
Young people want change and they want it now. It will be interesting to see how they react when they reach their elderly years and have young people forcing change down THEIR throats.

I guess I'm still young because I still want change and I think we should work towards it now.

Some might say I should stay in the Church because it has and will change. I'm not willing to wait that long. I'm not willing to subject myself or family to that while hoping that someday in the future, the Church leaders may eventually come around.

I realize that someday I may be old and feeble and unable to learn and understand new things as they come out. I hope that day doesn't come soon, especially when it concerns such fundamental things as who people are, especially people in my family.

Why shouldn't we seek to change and improve things now?

[wtfluff]

This is one of those situations where I genuinely feel sorry for both Matthew and Gerrit...

Though not my initial reaction, sadness has become my reaction after seeing these posts, reading about them and having some hours to ruminate. Sadness for both of the Gong's.


That being said, I must type that I am also very happy that I have been able to (somewhat) separate myself from a "church" that taught me that withholding love and acceptance from my children was the right/righteous thing to do. I guess I should have started that sentence with: "I'd like to bare my NOM-imony that I know..."

[2bizE]

I have a differing view point than some….I think Gong is just needing time and space to work this all out in his mind. He didn’t ask for a gay son, and has likely never had to deal with this type of a situation. Give him time and I think he will be much different than Oaks.
I have been quite progressive, but still flash back at times to my primitive Mormon roots. For example, rather that going on a mission, my son got a girlfriend and started being intimate. Both my wife and I struggled…it took time. We processed the mission part fairly easily and there was a few years before he got the girlfriend. We like the girl. We were presented with a new challenge this year… DW wanted everyone to stay over for Christmas Eve…what to do with the unmarried son and GF? I spoke with my son and told him we would find a place in the house for he and GF to sleep. We did…in the closet under the stairs….no, just joking…in a bedroom. Both me and DW were fine with that…a few years ago it would have been different…it is super hard to shed Mormonism…but we are working on it. Give Gong patience and I think he will change.

[Mormorrisey]

This is one of those situations where I genuinely feel sorry for both Matthew and Gerrit...

Though not my initial reaction, sadness has become my reaction after seeing these posts, reading about them and having some hours to ruminate. Sadness for both of the Gong's.

This is absolutely where I'm at - I have some sympathy, and a lot of sadness for both the Gongs. Sad for the Elder Gong, that he'll put the church before his own kid, and sympathy for the crap he'll deal with from conservative TBM's. Sad for younger Gong that his Dad's loyalties are elsewhere, and sympathy that he'll deal with the same crap for posting the picture without his Dad's consent.

And that's why Da Brethren are eventually going to have to admit defeat on the war against "the gays." You can just feel the younger Gong's frustration when he tells LGBTQ+ folks to look elsewhere for an ally, other than his Dad. This crap is just going to continue to break up families, and now it's reached the level of the Q15. It's going to be even more prominent now.

[Palerider]

Why shouldn't we seek to change and improve things now?

I understand what you're saying.

My analogy and I think it's a good one is the contrast between the House of representatives and the Senate, WHEN THEY ARE WORKING PROPERLY. (Right now we're pretty disfunctional)

The House, sometimes in the heat of the moment or with a little too much emotionalism comes up with legislation for change. The Senate is supposed to be the body of consideration. Is this change truly for the benefit of ALL CITIZENS? The Senate is where ideas for change have TIME to cool so that society doesn't lurch back and forth. Unintended consequences can be weighed. Is there actually a better way to do this than the House is suggesting?

"By making this change do we end up mistakenly taking freedom away from some people while helping just a few. How do we build in equity under the law for everyone."

So my point is that yes, we are always trying to improve through change but taking some time for everyone to get on board is not necessarily a bad thing.

I'm also a firm believer that you can't legislate morality. Those issues are of the heart and mind and that's where those changes have to occur.

We fought the civil war regarding slavery and we FORCED the change but that didn't change the minds and hearts of many Southerners. Many resent the change even to this day. The old adage, "He who is persuaded against his will, is of the same opinion still" rings true.

Fighting the Civil War was as a last resort, the right thing to do. But didn't we learn anything about how to come to terms with those we have disagreements with? I think Gays have made significant strides in the past 30 years. But do they know what happens when a pendulum gets pushed too far?

[Jeffret]

My analogy and I think it's a good one is the contrast between the House of representatives and the Senate, WHEN THEY ARE WORKING PROPERLY. (Right now we're pretty disfunctional)

Have they every really been functional?

There's something to that analogy. The Senate's primary function is to maintain the status quo, to maintain power for the people who are already in power. (It's the primary function of government in general, but in the American system, that duty primarily falls upon the Senate.) That's why they're so resistant to pursuing fair and free voting and elections.

I think Gays have made significant strides in the past 30 years. But do they know what happens when a pendulum gets pushed too far?

Interesting. In what ways do you think the pendulum has swung too far? What do see as the appropriate discipline for this situation?

[moksha]

In what ways do you think the pendulum has swung too far? What do see as the appropriate discipline for this situation?

I am hoping Palerider's answer is not the grand opening of a new Soylent Green factory in Lyndon, Utah.

I remember Utah residents grousing years afterward about the Civil Rights Act. They thought it had gone way too far and wished to roll it back through "states rights". Glad that never happened. It was incumbent on the Nephites to accept the Lamanites and quit bitching about their lack of lox and bagels.

[Palerider]

Have they every really been functional?

Actually yes, after the War of 1812 there was what we called the Era of Good Feelings where political parties were frowned upon and lost influence and power. About the time of Andrew Jackson political parties gained prevalence and began to polarize the process.

The Senate's primary function is to maintain the status quo, to maintain power for the people who are already in power. (It's the primary function of government in general, but in the American system, that duty primarily falls upon the Senate.) That's why they're so resistant to pursuing fair and free voting and elections.

And you actually learned this in a civics class? I'd love to see the textbook reference on that.

Interesting. In what ways do you think the pendulum has swung too far? What do see as the appropriate discipline for this situation?

One example would be the issue of allowing biological males who identify as females to compete in women's sports. I think this is already getting some serious blowback from society in general. There's no true integrity or victory in this case. It may get crammed down people's throats but you can bet that the majority are not going to be celebrating those "victories" internally. They see it for what it is.

If I understand your question correctly, the appropriate discipline would be obvious. The individual involved would have the good judgement and personal integrity to choose not to compete in that venue. Being great advocates of equity and fair play, they would see the integral inequity of the situation and do the right thing of their own volition. No legislation necessary.....

[hmb]

Good on Gong for having dinner with his son and partner. Bad on Gong for trying to hide it from social media. It's no secret. He could be such a support for other LDS members who "struggle" having LGBTQ children; a show of inclusion and acceptance of those who use their agency. It isn't like his son will hold the PH or have a high position in the church. It isn't like he's committed a crime (unless being gay becomes illegal again).

I fear for my transgender daughter's future. I know there has been lots of progress for LGBTQ rights and acceptance. I did think that the church would have to eventually be accepting due to political pressures, but I worry that the progress is quickly eroding. As some states work to reverse citizens' rights, law suits with happen and I fear that the supreme court will reverse most rights for LGBTQ citizens. Yes, I am becoming a pessimist, but as voting rights tank, republicans take over, Biden may very well be out of office in 2024, you can bet it will be a straight, white man's society. The church will have its foundation, against anyone who doesn't fit their mold, strengthened.

Somebody straighten me out and tell me it will be okay.

[Jeffret]

(I knew there was danger in asking that question, but I didn't expect it to diverge from the topic here quite so much. I'm going to try not to derail in that direction, but would be happy to discuss the notion of "biological" sex in some other more appropriate thread.)

[annotatedbom]

I get what some are saying in defense of Elder Gong. I have a queer child and my wife was in denial for years about it. My queer child just wouldn't go easy on my wife - would bring up LGBTQ+ issues with wife, and I probably thought more than once "Can't you just back off? Don't you see this isn't getting anywhere?" Years later, said queer child now lives with their long-time partner and my wife adores their partner. My point isn't that all homophobes are going to end up accepting and loving LGBTQ+ folks like my wife did. Some might do just the opposite as others have said here. My point is that I get the defense of Elder Gong.

However, the toxic homophobia of the Iglesia, backed by it's megalomaniac obsession, is just one more thing it does to harm people. I wish Elder Gong could do a little thought experiment to see how hurtful the LDS stance on homosexuality is. Imagine it's the late 1970s and a young and promising Gerrit Gong is sitting down to dinner at a restaurant with his partner, Susan Lindsay (who would marry Gerrit in 1980), and her parents. All's going splendidly until Susan's father is spotted by a fellow member of his country club, Bob. Bob starts to walk across the room. Susan's father jumps out of his seat to intercept Bob half way across the room, they talk, and then return to their respective tables. Susan asks daddy, "Why didn't you let Bob come over to talk to us all and introduce Gerrit?" Daddy replies, "We wouldn't want people to get the wrong idea."

Racism and homophobia are not perfect analogous, but I think they're about as analogous as anything gets. Elder Gong's reaction to his son's selfie is at best pitiful. I feel badly for his son; I feel badly for Elder Gong being so Church broke he let's it harm his relationship with his son.

[alas]

My gay daughter might agree with you. I asked her once about “gay pride” and she turned up her nose like I had asked her opinion of Trump. I of course questioned that, and she said that gays have to respect the feelings of straights just as they ask to have their own feelings respected and she said that too many people involved with gay pride are purposely offensive by shoving their sexuality into the faces of straights. She said she wouldn’t like it if straights had a parade to brag about their sexual relationships by the same kind of behavior that some gay people use. She said the point shouldn’t be to offend. She said that you have to give homophobes time to adjust to the idea that you are just as human as they are and that you love your partner/spouse just as much as they do and you don’t accomplish that by embarrassing them. Embarrass a homophone and you give them more reason to hate you. You don’t gain love and respect by showing hate and disrespect. Who was more successful with civil rights? Martin Luther King or the rioters throwing bricks?

Eh, I don't know. That's really hard to answer. Such a complicated consideration.

Oppressors rarely give up power and grants rights and opportunities to the oppressed just because they're asked nicely. Playing along and being nice rarely accomplishes anything. I'd like to see any serious academic information on the topic, but my repeated observations in history and things I've seen show me that your question is a false dichotomy. I'm not in favor of violence and am a significant pacifist, but I recognize that without the violent or threat of violence groups, the going along to get along groups make no progress. If it's only violent groups, then there is no demonstration of reasonableness and it's always just stuck with conflict. Calling it a dichotomy and explaining it the way I have is still very wrong, because it's not just about two extremes. To make progress requires a wide variety of approaches, ranging from those that quietly going about living their lives to those that are out and proud and loud.

So, to answer the ending questions: It's really impossible to say and the question itself is erroneous. Martin Luther King Jr. would not have been successful without the more extreme efforts of those like Malcolm X. And Malcolm X wouldn't have succeeded without the more accommodating efforts of MLKJr. It's kind of like asking which is more important in making salt, the sodium or the chloride. And the comparison tends to whitewash MLKJr. He was considered pretty radical in his own right. He wouldn't have been successful without the many people who just went about living their lives and voting and sitting on buses.

There are similar parallels in the struggle for gay rights. Stonewall was out and proud and loud and brash. And violent. It was a seminal event in the struggle, pretty much launching modern American gay rights. Harvey Milk was involved in some of the first big successes for gay rights. He urged gays to come out and let people know about themselves. His tagline, "My name is Harvey Milk—and I want to recruit you", was bold and brash and shocking. Much more so than Matt Gong sharing this photo and describing the story.

The Mormon Church has made the most progress towards gay acceptance not by people asking nicely, but as a result of loud protests, attacks, and pressure. The vocal, directed protests after the passage of Prop 8 made a noticeable difference. Also at the same time, the fine the Church had imposed based upon the efforts of Fred Karger changed their behaviors.

I don't think you can really reach true homophobes in the same way that we continue to see you can't reach racists. Gay rights were won in spite of the homophobes. Success, as much as it is so far, has come from a variety of approaches and factors, including those who are out and proud and brash and vocal.

Yeah, comparing people’s human rights to family relationships is a bad comparison. I agree that fighting for human rights sometimes takes “getting people’s attention” even if that takes getting angry, getting violent. Scratch that lousy comparison.

Let’s compare something we are more familiar with, our own families when we left the church. We know our still believing spouse would be upset with us if we put up a picture on Facebook that hints to TBMs that they agree with our use of coffee or alcohol. Maybe they compromise enough to have dinner with us in a bar, and we slap a picture up on Facebook tagging them. That will be seen by their neighborhood and bishop. That would be disrespect and slapping them in the face for trying to meet us half way.

Maybe my position is because I was caught between a believing spouse and my lesbian daughter. I am glad my daughter didn’t put up a picture where it would have impacted his attendance or acceptance at church. Yeah, I am advocating for protection of the homophobe. G*d awful position to take when I really want to smack them. But family relationships are worth working for and something like a picture on Facebook isn’t worth offending your parents over. This isn’t worth It. Pick a real battle, like I cut my brother out of my life for about ten years, not because he was being a jerk, but his wife just kept saying nasty things about our daughter. So, I didn’t see them until my brother was fatally injured. Because I didn’t want her hate getting back to my daughter.

And don’t forget that Mathew in this case is an adult. He isn’t a teenager and his father is TRYING. A picture published on Facebook is just not the hill to die on. Let’s get upset if the father refuses to attend their wedding.

[Jeffret]

Let’s compare something we are more familiar with, our own families when we left the church. We know our still believing spouse would be upset with us if we put up a picture on Facebook that hints to TBMs that they agree with our use of coffee or alcohol. Maybe they compromise enough to have dinner with us in a bar, and we slap a picture up on Facebook tagging them. That will be seen by their neighborhood and bishop. That would be disrespect and slapping them in the face for trying to meet us half way.

I accept that as long as we acknowledge that is a personal decision.

I joined NOM many years ago because my wife and I had a relationship that was based on mutual respect and consideration. We had a relationship that was worth working on and worth saving. (We still do, but we're all out of the Church these days.) For some of those earlier years I was on NOM I was still attending Church, but was shifting family prioritization away from the Church. Prior to that my wife and I had both declined church callings for family reasons. I turned down a call to be EQP. My wife was RSP for a relatively short time and informed the bishop she needed to be released. Both experiences were based on long discussions between the two of us.

I can't imagine what it would be like to have a relationship like Gerrit and Matt. Gerrit has always demonstrated that he'll do whatever the Church asks, even to possible ignoring of his family. (See Matt's blog.) He leads an organization that actively tries to harm people like Matt. I just don't know what I would do in that relationship, but I really don't think I would quietly acquiesce and be respectful of everything they do.

He isn’t a teenager and his father is TRYING.

I don't know that we know that to be true. That particular instance related by Matt is the minimum that Gerrit could do, really, the absolute minimum. Matt put care into choosing the place and Gerrit did accompany them. So, a little bit of trying, at least, at some point in the past. (Notice that, according to Matt's blog, this picture was taken some time ago.) But, is Gerrit still trying, at this later point when Matt has decided to publish the photo? From Matt's side of the story at least (which is what he bases his choices on), it appears that Gerrit may have done a little bit of trying at some point in the past, but he doesn't seem to still be trying enough for Matt to respect that request. As Matt writes, "For anyone looking for someone to pin your hopes on that the Church will change, it’s not him." He knows where his father stands and he doesn't respect him so he doesn't feel the obligation to reciprocate a higher level of respect.

I think this relationship has more similarity to your relationship with your brother (and wife) than the relationship between your daughter and her father.

[alas]

Let’s compare something we are more familiar with, our own families when we left the church. We know our still believing spouse would be upset with us if we put up a picture on Facebook that hints to TBMs that they agree with our use of coffee or alcohol. Maybe they compromise enough to have dinner with us in a bar, and we slap a picture up on Facebook tagging them. That will be seen by their neighborhood and bishop. That would be disrespect and slapping them in the face for trying to meet us half way.

I accept that as long as we acknowledge that is a personal decision.

I joined NOM many years ago because my wife and I had a relationship that was based on mutual respect and consideration. We had a relationship that was worth working on and worth saving. (We still do, but we're all out of the Church these days.) For some of those earlier years I was on NOM I was still attending Church, but was shifting family prioritization away from the Church. Prior to that my wife and I had both declined church callings for family reasons. I turned down a call to be EQP. My wife was RSP for a relatively short time and informed the bishop she needed to be released. Both experiences were based on long discussions between the two of us.

I can't imagine what it would be like to have a relationship like Gerrit and Matt. Gerrit has always demonstrated that he'll do whatever the Church asks, even to possible ignoring of his family. (See Matt's blog.) He leads an organization that actively tries to harm people like Matt. I just don't know what I would do in that relationship, but I really don't think I would quietly acquiesce and be respectful of everything they do.

He isn’t a teenager and his father is TRYING.

I don't know that we know that to be true. That particular instance related by Matt is the minimum that Gerrit could do, really, the absolute minimum. Matt put care into choosing the place and Gerrit did accompany them. So, a little bit of trying, at least, at some point in the past. (Notice that, according to Matt's blog, this picture was taken some time ago.) But, is Gerrit still trying, at this later point when Matt has decided to publish the photo? From Matt's side of the story at least (which is what he bases his choices on), it appears that Gerrit may have done a little bit of trying at some point in the past, but he doesn't seem to still be trying enough for Matt to respect that request. As Matt writes, "For anyone looking for someone to pin your hopes on that the Church will change, it’s not him." He knows where his father stands and he doesn't respect him so he doesn't feel the obligation to reciprocate a higher level of respect.

I think this relationship has more similarity to your relationship with your brother (and wife) than the relationship between your daughter and her father.

You are possibly right that Matt has given up on his father, and in many ways, Elder Gong is choosing his relationship with Elder Oaks over his relationship with his son. Now, THAT is a sobering thought. So, I can really see giving up on one relationship to protect a more important one, like I gave up on my brother to protect my daughter. And Matt may have given up on his father to protect his life partner.

We all have limited information and don’t know the full history. Looking only at the one evening of going out to supper and request not to publish the photo, I think the younger Gong should give the senior Gong time to adjust.

But I could take one incident with my sister in law, say when she was horrified that I had pictures of all my kids and their partner up in my living room, and implied I wasn’t a good Mormon (thank goodness I am not a good Mormon) because I wasn’t doing as Elder Oaks had told us. But I could take that one experience and say that I should given her time to see the DD is still the same loving person she ever was. But instead I just kind of let go of the relationship. Because I had put up with it for years.

But full perspective, my SIL has a lesbian daughter, who also cut her out of her life for pretty much those same ten years. Now, after I reconnected because of my brother’s death, I find out that she has finally accepted her daughter and her daughter’s wife and their adopted son. But it took years and her sisters intervening and I suspect that the sisters did a lot of education of their mother. So, even the most homophobic people can come around. But it took her own daughter cutting her out of her life. So, there is that vote for sometimes it takes the angry rioting approach.

Bottom line is swearing at the church for putting families in this position to begin with.

[Wonderment]

Jeffret wrote: ↑
Why shouldn't we seek to change and improve things now?

Agreed. It's very difficult to create social change by going slowly, always being gracious, and always aquiesing to the status quo. It would make things a lot more comfortable, especially among family members. Everyone wants social change to be easy and comfortable, if they want it at all. But I'm reminded of civil rights advocate and Congressman John Lewis' advice to "get in good trouble." That's what is happening here.

Especially in the past, gay people spent their entire lives hiding themselves and pretending they were something that they were not. Even going out to dinner with a partner and parents can be seen as something traumatic, something to create worry and stress. Finally, as times change, gay people have the chance to be their authentic selves.

Mormon singer Marie Osmond, whose famous family has tithed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars to the church, came out in favor of gay marriage when her gay daughter, Jessica, married her partner, and Marie attended the wedding with joy, to show love and support. She was quoted in the "Advocate" magazine, a long-standing magazine of the gay community. This is from 2013, I believe, quoted in both "People "Magazine and "The Advocate"

Osmond has a gay daughter, Jessica, who wed her partner, Sara, this summer; the performer has publicly expressed support for them and same-sex marriage to the backlash of some of her conservative fans. “My daughter is gay and I went to her wedding. And people were shaming me for supporting my daughter,” Osmond told People. “You should never shame anyone, especially for loving your child. Never.”

Obviously Marie's not a high ranking church official whose work depends upon supporting church doctrine. But she took a considerable risk in alientating her large family and many of her more conservative fans. She was willing to get into "good trouble" in order to support her daughter, because her child's well-being was her top priority. I pray that Elder Gong will realize also that his son is his first priority. - Wndr.

[moksha]

Somebody straighten me out and tell me it will be okay.

Sometimes God sends floods and pestilence as punishment to the earth. This time He sent Republicans.

[Hagoth]

“You should never shame anyone, especially for loving your child. Never.”

[/quote]
Marie has a bigger pair than Gong. His are locked up in Oaks' china cabinet

This topic is important to me for two reasons: I have a transgender child and I am in an interracial marriage. I have seen considerable crossover between the two issues over my lifetime. If we had been 30 years older it would have been illegal for me to be married to my wife in Utah.

On one hand you have the church bragging about how loving and accepting they are of LGBTQ people, while on the other they do pretty much everything they can get away with to dehumanize them.

On one hand you have the church claiming to be the ultimate authority on defining family and marriage, while on the other hand, if you just look back a couple of generations, they are famously the most horrendous example of what is NOT a healthy and "normal" family.

On one hand the church loves to highlight mixed-race families on their videos and publications, while on the other hand they still have quotes from modern prophets in their youth manuals that condemn it.

Somebody straighten me out and tell me it will be okay.

Those of us with transgender children have cause to worry. Last year was the worst year in history for violence against transgender people. And good luck finding a real career in a place like Utah. As a TMB I never thought I'd say such a thing, but I sometimes wish I had a gay child, because they would safer and more accepted in this environment. As it is, I have a transgender daughter who is the sweetest, kindest, most loving and intelligent person I know, but I have to worry that some dumbass MAGA Mormon might take it upon himself to represent his religion at her expense.

[Jeffret]

Being transgender has got to be rough in many ways. The idea that someone would just choose to be trans is patently nonsense if anyone bothers to learn about trans people, their lives, and their experiences. The claim that someone would go through all of that just to go in a bathroom or win a sports competition makes no sense. As my wife puts it, what man would willingly deal with all the discrimination and issues women face, without serious motivation.

We have an extended teen family member who came out as trans within the past year. One of the things I've learned over and over again from LGBT people is that coming out isn't a single, one-time event. Their mother shared with us about it last June, but confided in us that this teen was concerned about other extended family members knowing because of what they might say and do. We had this family over for Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners, but didn't invite any other extended family because 1), it's a pandemic and we're trying to limit contact, and 2) we wanted to provide them a safe space to be who they are. I get the impression that they've been pretty well accepted at school and by friends. (They live in Colorado, not Utah, which could be a big difference.) I understand that their mental health has dramatically improved since coming out to parents.

My daughter has many trans friends. They seem to be managing pretty well and getting by, certainly better once they acknowledged who they are. It makes a huge difference when they have family who accepts and supports them.

Best wishes to your child, Hagoth, on being able to live to an authentic life. It's great that they've been able to find a loving partner and have loving, supporting parents. That makes a huge difference.