232 thoughts on “More on public affairs interview”

1. I simply couldn’t disagree more with such comments, based on my experience.

   I’m assuming your experience is as a heterosexual who believes that same-sex attraction is an illness or abnormality that can be cured (if not in this life, then the next).

   Most LDS I come across see heterosexual attraction as essential to beings and same-sex attraction as a disease or illness that clouds or overcomes their essential attraction. In other words, homosexuals are really just heterosexuals who happen to be attracted to people of the same sex/gender. Thus when same-sex attraction is ridiculed or condemned, most LDS draw a line between the attraction and person with the attraction (just as the cancer is distinct from the cancer patient).

   The problem arises when a homosexual doesn’t draw this same distinction because they haven’t experienced (or don’t recall experiencing) a life outside of SSA. SSA is a part of their being. Thus when others attack the SSA, they find themselves being personally attacked.

2. Another thing. Instead of taking the approach of showing why LDS “struggling” from SA shouldn’t feel hated or reviled, shouldn’t we instead acknowledge that they do feel hated and reviled and work on understanding why and finding ways to decrease this feeling?

3. In the vast majority of cases, people struggling with same-gender attraction self-segregate. They stop coming to Church because of actions that they have taken that make them feel uncomfortable at Church.

   To be accurate, shouldn’t this statement have been preceded by: “It is my belief based upon my own personal, heterosexual experience, and not by anything resembling a responsible survey of actual persons attracted to others of the same sex, that…”? I’d love to see any responsible documentation of such a sweeping and conclusory statement as this. Absent such supporting data, I’ll continue to believe my gay and lesbian friends’ own reports of how they are received and why they distance themselves from the Church.

   I guarantee that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that another member could say to me or manner in which I could be treated emotionally that would stop me from going to Church.

   I hope time proves you correct. The Apostle Peter seemed to have a similar sort of self-confidence at the Last Supper.

4. Greenfrog, I enjoy your comments here. Regarding #3, please note that I discuss what people “say” and how they are “treated emotionally.” I am mostly discussing the issue of people feeling uncomfortable. There is a big difference between this and Peter observing his Master being arrested and being faced with probable physical punishment if he agreed that he was part of the Master’s group. Nobody is threatening to arrest me at Church or beat me up, nor is anybody threatening to arrest or beat up gays and lesbians at Church. If they were, we would be having a completely different discussion, one that recognizes clearly that such actions are against the wishes of the Prophet.

5. To my (potentially faulty) recollection, none of the New Testament accounts of Peter’s denials describe any threat of violence to Peter associated with the questions that led to his three denials. Of course, the lack of a detail is hardly proof of its non-occurrence.

   Still, I find the absence of such a detail important for this reason: I believe the gospels were penned by people who I presume were likely to view Peter favorably. If that’s correct, the omission of details that would explain, if not excuse, Peter’s action suggests to me that the authors of the gospels didn’t have reason to believe that there were such threats of violence.

6. Loyd, re: your #1 (I know it was supposed to be #2 but we are having problems with comments being out of order), there are limits to how much time the Brethren should spend trying to make any particular group feel welcome at Church if it changes our foundational doctrine. You could very well ask what we should do to make Methodists or Baptists or Muslims more comfortable at Church (yeah, we need prayer rugs and all chairs should face Mecca). Just because a group says they feel excluded does not necessarily mean they are excluded (last time I checked, there were no bouncers blocking the way into Sacrament or Gospel Doctrine).

   Having said that, people should follow the prophet’s advice quoted above, which asks us to avoid intolerance, hatred and abuse of other people. If that is going on in any of our wards, it would seem very wrong to me.

7. Geoff, I appreciate your thoughts above. Like you, I think that the some of the statements made by the men featured on Nightline were quite opposite of an LDS understanding of deity and the church. In my undergraduate sociology classes, however, I learned an important principle: Whatever people perceive and believe to be real, is real in its effects.

   These men spoke of their own perceptions, which to them are very real. You have written from your own perceptions, which to you are very real.

   There was a time when I felt exactly as you do—that my testimony was so firm, that nobody’s actions, whether individual or as a body, would ever make me stop my activity in the church. As a teenager and young adult, I had this tested, because I frankly didn’t fit in with many of my peers (there was something “different” about me–go figure). This was tested for me as an adult also, often being the sole political liberal among conservative church members who honestly believed that theirs was the only view a “faithful” LDS could have. I didn’t stop going to church. I was stake executive secretary. I relished intense study of church history and doctrine. I had an LDS-oriented library that many envied.

   Now, things have changed. The last time I attended LDS services was the day after I came out to my wife. I am not inclined to do so again, but would probably give it some consideration if I was back in Illinois for a weekend, visiting my children. I can’t say what my actual decision on that would be. I don’t say that out of any “guilt” for being a gay man, however. I say it, because I frankly don’t feel I would be welcome.

   Shortly after I left Illinois, the ward bishop sent an e-mail intended for my ex-wife. It reached me by mistake. It voiced support for her, and went on to characterize me as satan’s special agent in “specially targeting” my children’s family. I have learned that several ward members, ones who previously respected me, now speak of me with open disgust. I am the subject of gossip and uninformed judgment. When my children are subjected to this, they defend me, as do a few other ward members.

   Would you expect me to feel welcome, or comfortable, in such a setting? I worry at times, frankly, that my children will be chastized and targeted for their efforts to defend me against such attacks. Will they be told that they are acting as enemies to deity, by trying to honor and defend their father?

   I don’t say any of this to try to rebuke you, Geoff. I’m only saying that things can change unexpectedly, even for the most certain among us. It’s true that some avoid the church because of their own feelings of guilt, but realize that some simply don’t feel welcome, regardless.

8. geoff:

   there are limits to how much time the Brethren should spend trying to make any particular group feel welcome at Church if it changes our foundational doctrine.

   I’m sure the Brethren have time limits. I was directing the comment to you.

9. Loyd, re: your #8, you have exactly hit the point. I don’t think it is my place to advise the Brethren on how they should change our Church experience. I’m probably in the minority in the Bloggernacle in the this regard, where every person with a computer apparently thinks he’s smarter and more inspired than the Prophet, but so be it. As to how individual people should behave, I think my #6 answers that.

   Nick, I appreciate you sharing your story. I think one of the reasons I started this thread was for people like you to give us another perspective. If I were your close friend or your Home Teacher, I would say the actions of people in your Illinois ward in no way decrease the truthfulness of Joseph Smith’s First Vision, the translation of the Book of Mormon or the prophetic authority of GBH. Those are really the primary things that matter for this dispensation. You might find it interesting to go back to your old ward and see how people respond to you. If it were my ward, I’d be willing to bet there would be several people who would come up and give you a hug or a hearty, friendly handshake. And of course, this doesn’t explain why you can’t go to a ward wherever you are living now.

   I sincerely hope you get to a point in your life where you can go back to Church.

10. Geoff:

    I agree that many gays and lesbians withdraw from church not necessarily because they have been poorly treated. However, chalking that up purely to guilt is a bit simplistic.

    Guilt often probably is a a factor… But guilt is a complex phenomenon. We often feel guilty for things that we really shouldn’t feel guilty for. For example, many, many gay and lesbian folks in the church have reported at some time feeling intensely guilty simply for having feelings of same-sex attraction. I can say I certainly experienced this type of guilt. In fact, at the time I requested that my name be removed from the church records, I had never had sex with a man; but my guilt about these feelings contributed to a strong sense of unworthiness. Nevertheless, the brethren have recently made it abundantly clear that simply having feelings of same-sex attraction is nothing to feel guilty about. It is only acting on those actions that is considered wrong.

    So if these feelings are nothing to feel guilty about, why do we nonethess feel guilty? And why do many of us withdraw from the church because of this unjustified guilt? I would argue it is because of strong anti-gay attitudes that many church members have, including the belief that there is simply something terribly wrong with someone with this kind of orientation.

    Another factor in withdrawing is not guilt, but our perception of how we would be treated if people knew. Many of us have some idea of what that would be, because, not being born with a pink triangle on our forehead, many folks just assume we’re straight and talk trash about gay folks right to our faces. Many gay folks could probably tell stories–I know I can–of friends and family members who at one time or another have made a strong, anti-gay statement that displayed extreme ignorance, fear, or discomfort. You only have to make such a statement once in front of a gay person, for that person to immediately be afraid of ever coming out to you. Instead, at the point where we start to come to terms with our sexuality, we will just quietly withdraw from your companionship.

    Now granted, once folks realize that when they talk trash about gay folks that they are actually talking about a beloved brother, aunt, Sunday School student or priesthood quorum leader, they often are forced to re-evaluate their attitudes. They would probably also be much more careful to monitor their behavior, and make sure that they always treat that person with as much respect as possible. I had this experience a couple of times, where I “came out” to someone who had said some pretty nasty things, and they apologized, and never said such things in my presence again. (Of course, you are always left wondering if they continue talking trash behind your back.) It takes a lot of courage for a gay or lesbian person to confront someone in this situation. As I said, it is usually easier to just withdraw.

11. Then of course, there are the examples of poor treatment.

12. I have made a decision to attend church regularly, and my experience has been very positive. And when I started to attend, I made a conscious decision that regardless of how I might be treated–even if it were negative–that this would not deter me from coming back. I even made a conscious pact with God that I would not allow myself to be offended by things folks might say that displayed some ignorance or insensitivity.

    And there have been things said–though thankfully, not many–that in another time might have upset me. But I have found that in letting go of such things, I am rewarded with growing, and positive relationships with folks. More importantly, my attendance at church has been very spiritually rewarding.

    So there is truth in what you say about the importance of not allowing yourself to be deterred… But please don’t assume that it is purely the problem of gay and lesbian folks if they stop attending because of how they are or might be treated… Part of what hospitality is all about is making efforts to include, welcome, and draw in; to educate ourselves and to make every effort to reduce factors that might be an obstacle to folks coming and hearing the gospel.

13. John, I liked your #12, and I think part of the purpose of this post is to do exactly what you suggest.

14. Geoff,

    I have no doubt that some church members are accepting of gays. That said, I would hate to be gay in this church. For example, and this is just my own observation, one known gay ward member (who attends church regularly) is the subject of all sorts of unkind gossip and backbiting by church members. And it’s not at all unusual to hear across-the-board denigrating statements. A few months ago, one sacrament meeting speaker spent ten minutes on the idea that gays are all secretly pedophiles and deviants (he must have said “deviant” a dozen times). Not exactly kind and welcoming.

15. 12 Excommunicate and disfellowship are two words with very strong connotations. I don’t think those connotations ought to be ignored.

    If your attendance at church is an act of defiance (e.g. “I’ll show you that I can be a proud gay man who enjoys his sodomy”) then I wouldn’t have any problem with people shunning you. Your example would be an offense to the church.

    On the other hand if you genuinely believe that you are a sinner and that you need his grace (but are not yet emotionally prepared to receive it (i.e. repent)) then you ought to feel welcome there. I hope that in time you will decide to live obediently to the revealed word of God.

    We are all sinners and the church is for sinners but not for defiant sinners.

16. My withdrawal from church activity was never about guilt. I do not believe there is anything inherently sinful about homosexual relations. As a deeply religious person, and having served a mission, I have learned to recognize the voice of God in prayer and through the Spirit. Believe me, I have been very prayerful and conscientious about what behavior is right in God’s eyes, given my sexual orientation. I have not always made the right choices and decisions, but I care deeply about my personal righteousness and morality.

    I ceased being active in the church because I do not want to be considered a vile sinner, nor deal with the shame of excommunication. Nor do I want to feel compelled to be dishonest or closeted and pretend to be I am something I am not. I am at peace with God, but would not be at peace with the church if I were to resume activity.

    Of lesser importance, is the fact that the church members do not consider my family a real family. In a community where family is central, I would feel out of place, even though I have a long-time companion.

17. Amen, Brother Howller!!! You have described my situation exactly. As a parent, your last paragraph is especially touching. For me, that is the most important thing. My family is my life. Why on earth would I support an organization which actively stands against it, and in which the georgeD’s of the world feel at home?

    Yet here I am, reading my BoM and thinking about religious issues (and blogging…).

    We need to form a Mormon Alumni Association. I have given up on the church based in SLC, but can’t walk away from the message of the Restoration. It seems the majority of people from a Mormon background are in situations more like mine, rather than TR-carrying tithe payers. Perhaps it’s time to re-claim the tradition somehow. Suggestions anyone?

18. Lloyd, Nick, John and MikeInWeHo,

    There is new hope for those afflicted with unwanted same-sex attraction following a significant development at the American Psychological Association’s annual convention last week. In an amazing turnaround from the association’s previous direction, APA President Gerald Koocher declared that “APA has no conflict with psychologists who help those distressed by unwanted homosexual attraction.”

    A little background puts the significance of his statement into perspective. Over the past three decades or so, the APA had increasingly been taking a “politically correct” position on homosexuality, including an aggressive position opposing treatment of unwanted attraction. This trend began in 1972 when the association removed homosexuality from its list of psychological disorders. It took this action not because of new research but under pressure from homosexual activists who were threatening to be increasingly disruptive of the association’s meetings until they got their way.

    Just last year, the association nearly declared that the treatment of unwanted same-sex attraction was an unethical practice. Had this happened it could have effectively shut off this option for thousands of individuals seeking treatment.

    However, several recent developments apparently have been a reality check for the APA. One of the most significant was the finding published several years ago by Dr. Robert Spitzer that some individuals really have responded to therapy and successfully changed their sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. Dr. Spitzer’s research was particularly significant because he is the one who led the effort in 1972 to remove homosexuality from the APA’s list of psychological disorders.

    Another important factor has been the growing criticism by former APA officers and others of the direction the association was taking on a whole range of issues. (See, for example, “The APA and Psychology Need Reform” by a past APA president.) How, they asked, could the APA ethically discourage therapists from helping people who wanted help and could be helped? The implication was that the APA was more concerned with social engineering than with its true mission.

    But the efforts of the National Association for Research and Treatment of Homosexuality (NARTH) were the precipitating factor. NARTH is the association formed by therapists and researchers treating unwanted same-sex attraction and related issues. Prior to the APA meeting, NARTH sent a letter signed by 75 of its most prominent members urging the association to rethink its position.

    At the convention itself, NARTH and a number of related groups which also help those with unwanted same-sex attraction, such as Exodus International, Evergreen International, and others leafleted APA members outside the convention advocating a change in direction. (It is significant that their requests to have a booth inside the convention hall or to run paid advertisements in the APA publication had been rejected, so the APA still has a long way to go.)

    While this shift is hugely important for the benefit that it offers to individuals, it also has major public policy implications. Whether people believe that homosexuality is innate and unchangeable or that it is a behavioral disorder that can be successfully treated in many instances or that it is simply a chosen sexual lifestyle understandably colors their perception of issues such as same-sex marriage.

    Homosexual activists and their allies try to argue that homosexuality is genetic or otherwise innate and immutable because it furthers their policy objectives. Recent polls show that an increasing number of people in the U.S. are buying into that myth, with clear implications for the policy debate on marriage and other issues. This is no doubt happening in other countries as well.

    It is a truism that good public policy can only be made on the basis of the most correct possible assumptions and the best available facts. This shift in position by the APA should have direct and positive benefits in the debate over marriage and other family related issues by anchoring them more solidly in fact.

    This emerging recognition of the true nature of homosexuality by the association will no doubt be life changing for many individuals, and for some it literally will be lifesaving.

19. I guarantee that there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that another member could say to me or manner in which I could be treated emotionally that would stop me from going to Church.

    This sounds amazingly like…well, perhaps like “pride” to me, being oh-so-sure of your strength. Do you really want to be tempting fate in such a blatant manner?

    Some years ago, one of my children was the victim of a heinous crime at the hands of a member in (very) good standing. It was just awful, involving church courts, civil courts and much therapy.

    I was serving in a stake calling at the time, and saw our stake president regularly–he told me that it was unreasonable to expect us to keep attending that same ward, that we could attend another ward in town if we so chose. We tried to be brave for many months on the same principles that you expressed, but we finally gave up and switched wards.

    So yes, technically we did keep going to church. But we failed your high standards because we switched wards due to the emotional difficulties. And what if we had been in a town that only had one unit, or under the system where we had to get permission tfrom the first presidency to change wards (which I don’t think we could have faced the humiliation of doing so)?

    So I would never say something that bold, nor judge others who make different choices.

20. In one of the wards I have been in, a stalwart couple divorced when she came out as a lesbian. He still took their children to church and served in various callings. When one of the kids gave a talk or had an important milestone, she came to church, and was always greeted very warmly, many hugs from the sisters.

    I never heard one unkind thing about that family, only awe at their ability to keep working together for effective parenting despite the difficult situation.

    But I understand that perhaps not every ward is that way. (And we live thousands of miles from Utah, which may make a difference.)

21. Naismith, again, please re-read my comment. I mention what another member could “say” to me or how they would “treat me emotionally.” Obviously, if my child were the victim of a “heinous crime” (I don’t even want to think about dealing with that) my reaction would probably be different. I certainly don’t blame you for wanting to change wards, and kudos for you for continuing to go to Church under such circumstances.

    As an olive branch to you, I would say that you are probably right that I cannot imagine all possible scenarios and how they would affect me emotionally.

    I would point out that your experience in #20 is much more common, in my experience, than the “discrimination” and “hatred” that many people with same-gender attraction claim to suffer from. People are not perfect, even (and sometimes especially) Latter-day Saints, but most often they do really, really try to make people feel welcome and loved.

22. Bot,

    Thanks for the news about the recent APA conference, that development makes me think the APA may actually see themselves as something other than an intrument of social engineering. Maybe they *will* decide they want to help people after all.

    And while I agree with you that gay activists currently suggest that homosexuality is a genetic disorder (though they seldom concede that if it is genetically based, then it is a genetic disorder akin to other conditions that reduce the probability of reproduction), there’s no reason to believe they’ll stick with that talking point once they think it’s more effective to present homosexual behavior as a personal choice.

    Nick,

    I’m sorry to hear about your situation. From your comment it sounds like you have left your family since declaring your homosexuality, and from my experience with my parent’s divorce, it is this fact, and not the sin itself, that most upsets Mormon communities.

23. Matt,
    Given human origins, homosexuals may not be disadvantaged in reproduction, particularly because we are social animals. While this isn’t an original idea, in the last year I’ve come to believe, given they way many women get on so well with gay men in the workplace (my wife included, although I won’t repeat what she calls attractive gay men), that in the pre-civilization hunter-gatherer groups we came from, groups where the breeders produced a few gays had advantages over other groups. Since one fit man can father thousands (i.e. Genghis Khan), a few gays certainly wouldn’t have altered birth rates but may have provided big advantages in overall group survival. And the genes of the gay men are more likely to get passed on via the shared genes of the groups breeders. Perhaps this is why there seem to be more gay males than lesbians, and why homosexuality has been with us from the beginning of our recorded history. The phenomenon being somewhat common among humans may be completely natural.

24. Mike, the “georgeDs of the world” may not be as bad as you think.

    My online personna is far more ideological and strident than my real-world personna. In real life I tend to be much less polarized and far more concilliatory than I am online.

    The trouble is that this is a debate forum. Here we discuss concepts and ideas in isolation from reality. We don’t personalize it in the same way we do our day-to-day interactions with our friends and neighbors.

    Thus, it is entirely possible that, while you hear me saying online “yes, as a general matter, gay sex is evil,” if you met me in real life, you might not get any sense of that sort of condemnation at all. You might not even get a feeling of disapproval from me. It is possible.

    I’d be more worried about the people who aren’t willing to tell you directly what they think (when they know these details about you) than those who are willing to tell it to you straight.

25. I think Geoff B.’s post is right on.

    Much of it applies to many sins, regardless. Regardless of a person’s sin, we should welcome them to church – there is no better place for them to be.

    That does not, however, mean the person has the right to flaunt the sin – i.e. deliberately smoking in the chapel while the sacrament is being passed, or whatever.

    I find GeorgeD’s wording too harsh, but the basic sentiments are still correct – we recognize none of us are perfect and we all need what the church offers us.

    But what Nick, Mike, etc. are demanding is that we welcome them while declaring their sin is no sin at all. It would be, of course, in bad taste to call someone on their personal sins in church. Yet it would also be bad doctrine to declare that the sin is/was not a sin – akin to telling any sinner that their sin is not really a sin.

    So, while I think Geoff is right on, I think his post ignores that too many gay members, their condition for returning to church isn’t that people will treat them well, it’s that people will approver of their lifestyle. And that isn’t happening anytime soon.

26. As a follow-up, I think it is worth a quick lesson on accountability, which I believe to be a crucial but much-abused doctrine both in the Church and outside of the Church.

    I am accountable for my own sins (see AoF #2). What this means to me is that at some point I will have to answer for the actions for which I have not sincerely repented.

    Each person will be held accountable for his or her own sins. I personally believe that I cannot imagine what the judgement scene will be like for another person, although I have a very, very small idea of what it will be like for me.

    So, if I am rude to somebody or discriminate against them — therefore “driving them away” from Church — I believe I will be accountable for that action. But I am not accountable for all of the actions that other person takes — he or she is responsible for their own actions. So, I am rude to somebody. That person can make the decision A)ignore the rudeness and concentrate on the good in the Gospel, on the love of Christ and the wonder of the Restoration or B)concentrate on the rudeness and decide not to come back to Church.

    Can you see how during the accountability process decision B) will probably not be the best decision to make?

    There is a saying in Spanish that I will translate, although it’s better in Spanish (“No me ofende quien quiere, sino quien puede”). This means, “You can’t be offended by the person who wants to offend you, only by the one who you allow to get to you enough to offend you.”

    You have a choice. You can choose not to be offended in the vast majority of cases. This certainly applies to people with same-gender attraction who say they are discriminated against at Church.

27. It’s pretty clear from the comments on the two threads that if Gays/Lesbians want to worship in a tradition akin to main body Mormonism, they have to start their own church, and that’s very sad.

28. Since I’ve commented a bit on this running discussion, I think I need to say something that many others (who have taken my own argumentative stance to some degree or another) have already said.

    I really appreciate Mike’s, Nick’s, and John’s participation in this discussion (I think it was John-Gustav… please correct me if I’m wrong).

    I have sensed, in some degree or another, that they all remain highly committed to this religion and, in their own way, love this Gospel at least as much as I do. They are dealing with a tough situation that presents their lives with some hard decisions and harsh contradictions. But I thank them for remaining committed “members,” at least in some sense of the word.

    I actually share Steve EM’s anxiety over how on earth we are going to integrate such brothers and sisters into our faith in a way that is meaningful and uplifting for all concerned. It makes me sad as well. But I remain hopeful that this issue can be faced. Perhaps if we cannot escape our fate, we can at least rise to meet it.

29. Naismith #20,
    I find it interesting that society as a whole is more accepting of lesbians, than of gay men. I’ve already talked about what has happened in my last ward, in regard to my coming out. What I didn’t mention was that approximately a year before, a divorced sister came out as a lesbian. She continued to attend and participate, and her partner often attended with her. They were both welcomed with open arms, until the ward split. She was in the newly formed ward, and not long after, the bishop held a disciplinary council and she was excommunicated. Even so, she and her partner continue to attend, at least part-time. I’ll be honest—If I was back there to visit my children, and showed up at church with a partner, I don’t think we would be welcomed at all.

30. Geoff:

    I don’t think it is my place to advise the Brethren on how they should change our Church experience.

    I’m not trying to tell the ‘Brethren’ what to do. I’m telling you. When you say “in general I think many of the claims of discrimination are exaggerated,” you are just further adding to the discrimination many gay LDS feel. What gives you any right to make judgement claims on the private phenomenological experiences of what these members feel. How do you know they haven’t been treated this way? Even if they haven’t been treated this way, how do you know that they are exaggerating their feelings and not being honest about the way they feel?

    As I have said before, you’re going off and telling gay LDS that they shouldn’t feel discriminated againt, and especially accusing them of exaggerating their feelings, does no good. Too many LDS (and humans in general) need to get off their high horses and start learning to empathize with others.

31. Bot and Matt,
    Thanks for the update on the APA question and answer session, in which the organization’s president clarified that the APA has no issue with therapists assisting those who are troubled with homosexual feelings. Those who seek such assistance should certainly be able to obtain it. For those closer to the center of the Kinsey scale, this approach may even be useful in fulfilling their particular goals.

    I find it interesting, however, that each of you seem to jump from that fact, to a conclusion which rejects the current position of the LDS church. Elder Oaks, in particular, has acknowledged that there seems to be at least some genetic basis for homosexuality.

    Matt, I frankly have not forgotten that after several years of friendship, you let me know in no uncertain terms that I no longer had anything useful to contribute, once I came out of the closet. You made it clear that you felt I was no longer capable of any sort of spiritual insight, etc. I have tried to be cordial, but your rejection of me as a person was frankly an example of the discussion topic at hand. Please keep your public pity to yourself.

32. re: 18 Bot is totally distorting the APA’s positions, which remain solidly pro-gay. I also suspect he’s cutting and pasting his entries from a conservative political website somewhere, but don’t have time to research that.

    The same convention at which this “amazing turnaround” occurred issued this press release:

    http://www.apa.org/releases/gaymarriage.html

    Anyone who thinks the APA and other mental health organizations are on the brink of embracing reparative therapy as practiced by NARTH, EXODUS, et. al….well, they probably need to checked for DSM-IV diagnosis 297.1

    re: 24 Thanks for the reality check, Seth. I agree that one can’t determine much about a person based on their blog comments. Goodness knows I come across as some strident, left-wing wacko sodomite in here at times, but in reality I look/dress/sound exactly like a 40 year old Mormon. I’m sitting here at my desk in a white shirt and conservative tie right now!

33. A comment by Mayan Elephant was deleted in this space for violating M*’s comments policy.

34. do tell, what was the offense?

35. Nick, #31, just as a castigated Nat in another thread for bringing old battles onto this board, I would encourage you not to do the same thing. Your comment #7 discusses personal issues that Matt referenced in comment #21. I don’t believe it’s necessary or called for in this thread for you to lash out at him for things that are not discussed in this thread. I would encourage you to take such discussions private and perhaps e-mail each other about them. Thanks.

36. Mayan Elephant, in your comment you directly insulted Church leaders and used several offensive words. You are welcome to comment here as long as you follow the comments policy. If you do not, and if you attempt to thread-jack this thread, your comments will be deleted. Thanks.

37. You’re absolutely right, Geoff. My apologies to the board.

38. ME, you can cuss all you want at my blog.

39. Thanks Steve, “see ya real soon”

40. Geoff B,

    Nice post. I like your thread idea where you ask: One of the key issues that comes up often is how people with same-gender attraction are treated in the Church. It might very well be the KEY question in this whole debate.

    I’m interested in asking this question: For those of us who disagree with the Church’s policy/teachings related to same-sex attraction issues, how do we respectfully express dissent? This is a difficult question for those who consider themselves active Mormons.

    If anyone is interested in discussing this question, I just posted a Blog Post here: http://sunstoneblog.com/ Thanks!

41. Sorry, the link is http://sunstoneblog.com/

42. I don’t post here very often (at M*) and of late, I’m finding most of these conversations defeating. Why do straight Mormons feel they need to do anything at all about gay people, in or out of the Church? I don’t find myself walking around saying “what am I gonna do about all these straight people in my ward?” GeoffB’s original comment, that gay people are self-separating, is perfectly true, and perpetuates the fact. Gay people leave the Church precisely because they are not wanted there, and for no other reason (although plenty of people, gay and straight, leave the Church for plenty of reasons such as… they don’t believe it anymore).

    Something I said to my nephew Chris Williams the other night — our Church is coming around, just like the other Churches, to the realization that a gay preference isn’t a sinful thing, and that committed relationships of any adults should be encouraged, not discouraged. If the Church welcomed gay people back to the fold, even without the promise of exaltation, the tithing receipts would soar! Always a good thing.

    🙂

43. I hope I have made it clear that a homosexual who comes to church convicted of his sins (including homosexual behavior) should be very welcome. A homosexual (or any sinner) who flaunts his sin should be shown the door as quickly as possible. One way to flaunt your sin is to refuse to address it while adopting a pious demeanor. Telling people that you are guided by the spirit in your lifestyle choice is flaunting your sin. The doctrine of the church denies that people who are actively in sin and in defiance of the brethren have no access to the Holy Ghost. Claiming that you have such access when you are an active homosexual with no intention of changing is false doctrine.

    The message of the restoration is that the apostles are prophets, seers and revelators and hold the keys of the priesthood including all issues of doctrine and church governance. If you don’t agree with that you are essentially a heretic. That may sound harsh but that defines the restoration. If you believe something else go have yourself another church and see if God finds that acceptable.

    Perhaps you find this hateful and disrespectful. So be it. The scriptures are a lot sterner than this. I am positively mealy-mouthed by comparison.

44. D., I always enjoy your comments, and I’d like to point out that I was at the Lincoln center chapel about a month ago and sat next to Danithew (purely by coincidence.) He introduced himself to me and my wife, and we found out we were both Bloggernacle people. He pointed out that you were playing the organ, and I thought you played beautifully. The chapel was incredibly crowded, and when I tried to find you to say hi you had apparently left.

    I will agree with you that the two sides tend to talk past each other on this issue. One of my purposes is to try to point out to those with same-gender attraction that there are people who will welcome them to Church. I really don’t care what people do with their private life. I like to see a full chapel, and I encourage all people to come to Church.

    So, to a certain extent your comment “why do straight Mormons feel they need to do anything at all about gay people” is valid in that nobody should be involving him or herself with another person’s private life. In my experience, people don’t do that. On a personal level, most people I know in the Church are welcoming and friendly to everybody.

    I don’t see the Church changing its position during our lifetimes on the “committed relationships of any adults should be encouraged, not discouraged” issue. I’m sorry we don’t see eye to eye on that one. But all the best, and I hope to hear you play the organ again soon.

45. 40 Matt Thurston

    When the brethren have spoken clearly on an issue we don’t express any dissent. There is no tone in the universe that exists that can be respectful enough if you are in defiance of the prophetic calling of the apostles. The apostles led by the chief Apostle and President of the Churchm Gordon b. Hinckley) all subscribed to the Proclamation on the Family. The only discussion you need to have is how you can get yourself in alignment with what they have said.

    The church is not a debating society. It takes its lead from on high not from the ranks. Many consider themselves smart enough that their opinion should count for something. It doesn’t nor should it.

46. GeorgeD, I will ask you once again to tone down comments like #44. I know you feel you are simply following Church doctrine, but such comments simply do more harm than good. They will not persuade anybody, and I mean anybody, who is likely to read this that your position is more Christ-like than theirs. Please leave such judgements and condemnations up to God. Nobody will change their ways because you have called them a “heretic.” I’d like to quote myself from the top of this thread, and then remind you of President Hinckley’s quote:

    I believe that people calling others to repentance is rude, unnecessary and ineffective. One of the great things I have learned from the Bloggernacle is that my stewardship does not include others in the Bloggernacle, so I try to avoid issuing calls for repentance to them regarding their individual moral behavior. I will proclaim the Gospel and defend the Church, and I will occasionally make the strong political comment, but I really do try these days to avoid personal moral statements. It simply doesn’t work.

    As always, the prophet has the best words to say on this subject. Let’s hear from him a bit:

    “Nevertheless, and I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married” (“Why We Do Some of the Things We Do,” Ensign, Nov. 1999, 54).

    GeorgeD, I would urge you with all my heart to consider these comments in the spirit they were rendered. Please find room in your heart to simply love those brothers and sisters with whom you disagree. Please don’t call them heretics. If you continue to do so, I will have to delete your comments. Thank you.

47. You’re a Biddolph, aren’t you? Related to Romney, et al. I led the Carnegie Hall concert in 1999, and the Biddolphs were in the choir. Your parents?

    My experience isn’t the same as others (since I’m very evidently single) but I haven’t found ostracism from the members of my wards. Everyone who knows me, *knows* about me, and some have even encouraged me to find a companion. This is why I feel that our Church is… coming around.

    However, I should temper this statement with another — most of my leaders, through the years, who have had some official authority over me, have felt they needed to take the official line. Two years ago, the Stake decided to fire me from my little job of playing the organ at a Church fireside with President Hinckley that was held at Radio City Music Hall, for no other reason than I was not worthy. Not worthy, even though I have been active in the Church my entire life. It was a very traumatic experience for me, and precipitated a period where I didn’t attend.

    I’ve come back, and you can see, I’m an organist again, because a new ward was created, and the new Bishop called me right up and said he couldn’t be the Bishop unless I agreed to play the organ. So, you see the conundrum? I feel a great deal of embrace, but I also know that the dissonance isn’t going away anytime soon.

48. D, yes, my parents. I hope you continue to go to church and that I can say hi on my next weekend trip up there.

49. There must be more than one Mormon Romney Biddolph in the Northeast. The one I know moved to NC for retirement.

50. Great post, D. A conundrum indeed. Troubling that your day-to-day life in the Church seems to depend on the whim of whatever leader comes your way. This is reminiscent of what happened to Buckley Jeppson.

    Apparently there are wide variations between wards as to how openly gay people are received. I’m not surprised that these seem to reflect the sensibilities of the communities in which they are located. So perhaps the solution is for gay Mormons to all move to Manhattan, or Westwood.

51. Oh brother. I am very close to closing comments on this thread. Steve EM, this is not a forum for you to start discussing individual gay people and/or “outing” them. Please stop the threadjacks. Thanks.

52. Sorry Geoff regarding discussing individual gay people, you’re correct. But I didn’t “out” anybody.

53. Geoff B

    I am so mealy mouthed that I have not directly issued a call to repentance. I just have declared what I believe the doctrine of the church to be. Is that so painful? Why?

    D. Fletcher

    When we decide to persist in sin we are always going to find ouselves separated from the church whether that was our first intent or note. If the church teaches that homosexual behavior is a sin and you can’t stand to hear that over and over again then if you have any degree of ego in you you won’t stick around. The church only makes sense for people who agree with it’s doctrines and have a basic intention to live them. How do you think I would feel at a the “Society for the Promotion of Same Sex Marriage”. They may be very very friendly but if they keep saying things I disagree with and keep calling me homophobic and disrespectful then I will for sure feel uncomfortable there. Who wouldn’t?

    I just think that the we members of the church need to be sure that none of us are ever uncomfortable talking about what the brethren have called a sin. Soft-pedaling this is tantamount to accepting it.

54. georgeD makes a great point.

    there are a lot of folks that feel morally obliged to follow the brethren, in word and deed.

55. I don’t know how to answer you, georgeD. On the one hand, if I stick around, while believing that my preference isn’t sinful, you will think me “egoless,” or perhaps, cowardly. On the other hand, if I “go,” I went out of my own sense of guilt in my sinful state — no one forced me. In either case, I will live a life in shame and distress, separated from the people and the God I love.

56. georgeD:

    Please read my Comment #10 over at http://sunstoneblog.com/?p=112#comment-2260

    After you’ve read that, answer this: You honestly don’t believe the Brethren learn anything from “the world”, to say nothing from faithful, dissenting Church Members? By dissenting, I believe I am serving the Lord, and by extension the Brethren and the Church.

57. “a homosexual who comes to church convicted of his sins (including homosexual behavior) should be very welcome. A homosexual (or any sinner) who flaunts his sin should be shown the door as quickly as possible.”

    3 Ne. 18:31-32
    31 But if he repent not he shall not be numbered among my people, that he may not destroy my people, for behold I know my sheep, and they are numbered.
    32 Nevertheless, ye shall not cast him out of your synagogues, or your places of worship, for unto such shall ye continue to minister; for ye know not but what they will return and repent, and come unto me with full purpose of heart, and I shall heal them; and ye shall be the means of bringing salvation unto them.

58. A few thoughts. In advance let me note I’ve not really followed the discussion on these matters much here the past week or two.

    1. We’re all persisting in sin (unless you got translated and didn’t mention that)

    2. What constitutes having an intention to live the doctrines of the Church?

    3. Are sinners better served being away from the Church and the spirit or with the Church and the Spirit.

    4. While we are to only cry repentance ultimately when we teach the gospel how we do this matters. The old missionary addage of be bold but not overbearing seems apt. I’d add in the suggestion of looking inward and asking whether we are saying what we do to make others better or make ourselves feel better. (That’s not pointed at anyone in particular – just something I’m constantly doing myself to keep myself from screwing up too bad in these matters)

    5. We should keep in mind that the aim of crying repentance is to get people to repent. I think some feel the aim of crying repentance is something else. One wishes some of Christ’s sermons to the prostitutes and publicans were recorded. (Well, more than likely they were about the same as the sermons that were recorded – I suspect he tended to give the same talks over an over again) The point being that Jesus cried for people to take up their cross.

    6. At the same time one must ask if someone has no intention of living the basic commandments what is the point? Perhaps some don’t think something is wrong. But let us say I was a drug dealer and felt that many kinds of illegal drugs weren’t against the Word of Wisdom and that the brethren were wrong on that. Further I felt (with some justification perhaps) that they weren’t as dangerous as made out. Now, would someone be wrong to preach against drug dealing? Perhaps we should consider this analogy rather than the current one with its overtones.

59. “why do straight Mormons feel they need to do anything at all about gay people”

    I should point out that in day-to-day life, I’d be perfectly content to leave homosexuals alone, so to speak.

    The problem is when some feel the need to make an “issue” of it. I’m willing to co-exist and simply not raise the issue out of politeness. But if I’m confronted and asked: “is gay sex wrong?” I’ll say yes simply because anything else is dishonest.

    If you don’t seek to evangelize your lifestyle with me and my friends and family, then I won’t really feel the need to “have it out” with you. I don’t mind homosexuals being in my ward. I don’t mind them teaching my child’s CTR 6 class (within the bounds of common sense of course). But if they wish to change my mind, or change anyone else’s mind on the actual evil of homosexual practices, there may come a point where their presence is counterproductive.

    I realize that some homosexuals will not be satisfied with this because it sounds too much like the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” and that’s a real concern that I can’t see much way around. I’d point out that I don’t even require that one’s own sexual orientation be kept under wraps (except with minors of course, since they all too often draw the wrong conclusions from adult statements). I don’t care if you feel the need to out yourself with me (although I’d consider it odd if we weren’t good friends). So it’s not quite “don’t ask, don’t tell.” Perhaps some homosexuals will still be uncomfortable with how much “like unto it” my stance is. But I’m afraid I can’t bend much further than that.

60. Clark,

    That is exactly the analogy that was used in the press release, well not exactly, the press release involved another crime – stealing. so, thats been done.

    i think a better analogy would be to consider race. after all, one doesnt choose ones race, one is born into a race. one doesnt choose to have homosexual attraction, one is born that way.

    Now, would someone be wrong to preach against being black? Perhaps we should consider this analogy rather than the current one with its overtones.

61. I don’t think stealing is a good analogy because I think most people think stealing is always wrong. The issue of say smoking marijuana or doing ecstasy is trickier since (a) there’s not a revelation clearly banning them (b) they probably aren’t as harmful as they are sometimes portray (c) it seems a much more minor issue than say breaking into people’s homes and stealing from them. That is it affects the individual rather than others as much.

    The race analogy isn’t apt since there’s nothing about a particular race that inexorably makes one wish to engage in prohibitive activities. Recall that that issue isn’t whether “being gay” is wrong but whether “engaging in homosexual acts” ought be condemned.

62. nice seth. very nice.

    dont tell the minors who is gay. good one. sounds like a fun place for a homosexual.

63. I’m wondering, as a practical matter, how likely the sort of “flaunting” georgeD is talking about actually is. You’re always going to get a few unhinged individuals who feel the need to harangue the congregation in testimony meeting and those incidents are highly visible. But I wonder how common it is.

    For myself, I’m willing to assume that most homosexuals who choose to come to Sacrament Meeting are going to behave as mature adults and mind their manners. As long as they do, I don’t see any problem with them being there, even if they aren’t privately “repentent.”

    Of course, it gets more complex when you’re talking about calling a (chaste) gay woman to the Young Women’s presidency (or any position working with “our impressionable youth”). Even if the individual doesn’t “flaunt” their orientation, is her mere presence in that calling going to give the girls the wrong idea, if they become aware of it?

    Or is the outcry from concerned parents going to make it into a bigger hassle than it’s worth?

    Possibly, but I hope these issues could be ironed-out tactfully by the Bishop. Any thoughts?

64. David H

    See D&C 42: 20-21, 23-24, 26, 28, 37, 74-75

    Modern revelation does allow us to bar certain persons from meetings. Think defiant.

65. well, you need to bring the stealing issue up with someone more important than me 🙂 i didnt make that one up. just the messenger there.

    clark, perhaps you can suggest a venue we can discuss this further. i clearly cant be trusted here. sorry.

    but here are a few bullets. the church is full of revelations about race that are less than bright. so if revelation is the criteria, race is a great example.

    i agree, when one breaks this down to the act of sodomy or oral sex, it becomes more black and white. but, to simply exclude any act, is very gray. and how is holding hands with someone of the same sex bad and the opposite sex good. why can courting be so appropriate, inspired and holy if done between guy/girl but not girl/girl? its tricky clark.

    can i politely ask you a favor clark? please dont use crimes as analogies to homosexuality. is that fair?

66. DavidH

    I will grant you that someone may be finding it difficult to change their life in spite of their desire. This sort of unrepentant person should be very welcome.

    We need to keep ministering to them to help them summon the fairth and will to change.

67. As usual, Clark manages to cut through much of the noise and suggest something very interesting.

    I think the drug analogy works very well, since I know quite a few members who feel that smoking marijuana is okay and even approved by the wording of section 89 (herbs of the field and all that). They go to church, they feel there is nothing wrong with their choices, and when people preach against the use of marijuna they get offended and stop coming to church or start loudly proclaiming why it is okay. I know several people like this.

    So – how would y’all treat those people? What if it was ectasy, heroin, opium, or cocaine they were using? Or steroids? or prescription drugs? And what if they claimed the Holy Ghost had revealed to them their use/abuse of these drugs was just fine? (Not really hypothetical – as I said, I know people like that in the church).

    Very though provoking comparison, Clark.

68. why can courting be so appropriate, inspired and holy if done between guy/girl but not girl/girl?

    Because that is the proper order of things as God created them, ME. Why is that so difficult to accept? I can understand not being happy with that, but that is how it is.

    Race is a completely different issue- it had nothing to do with sexual sin.

    ME: Can I politely ask you a favor? Please don’t compare the Church’s stance vis-a-vis sexual sin with the Lord’s blessing of allowing all men to enjoy the complete blessings of the priesthood. The two are separate issues.

    FWIW, I think Seth raises some very good questions. It seems like the answer would be based on personal inspiration to the local area leaders on a case by case basis.

69. I have such high confidence that one is not genetically predisposed to shoot heroin in their arm, tongue, toes and buttocks that I am willing say again, the analogy is irrelevant.

    also, I have not seen any suggestion that parents should not allow their smoke doper kids to visit, nor should they be seen in public situations with their children that smoke dope.

    try again. ill ask you the same thing. please please refrain from anaolgies that compare homosexuality to a crime. agreed?

70. Seth: (#63) Of course, it gets more complex when you’re talking about calling a (chaste) gay woman to the Young Women’s presidency (or any position working with “our impressionable youth”). Even if the individual doesn’t “flaunt” their orientation, is her mere presence in that calling going to give the girls the wrong idea, if they become aware of it?

    What wrong idea would it give? That being chaste is good? I don’t understand this mentality.

    My sense is that some would like to think there is no physical basis for homosexual desires and that it’s a fully free choice on par with deciding what kind of ice cream to eat. While there are undoubtedly many people who engaging in homosexual acts based upon that kind of free choice I think it undeniable that it’s not the case with a significant number.

    Now some members undeniably don’t distinguish between the inclination to sin and sin. But that’s simply false doctrine on their part. I think it sad if anyone were to treat someone differently just because of an inclination that they are successfully not acting on. It’s a deep sacrifice and (in my opinion) indicates a far deeper devotion than most of us can manage.

    Mayan (#65) but here are a few bullets. the church is full of revelations about race that are less than bright. so if revelation is the criteria, race is a great example.

    As I said that’s clearly not the only criteria for a good analogy. But I’d urge caution about there being a revelation to the church as opposed to simply the opinions of individuals. Let’s not conflate things (nor turn this into a discussion about race)

    Mayan (#65) why can courting be so appropriate, inspired and holy if done between guy/girl but not girl/girl? its tricky clark.

    If you consider such acts independent of their aims then perhaps it might seem tricky. But I don’t think it particularly tricky once one considers such things. Now one might think this situation unfair. But that’s a completely different matter.

    Mayan (#65) can i politely ask you a favor clark? please dont use crimes as analogies to homosexuality. is that fair?

    Well considering that most people don’t really consider drug use that significant a crime – more on par with driving more than 25 mph over the speed limit – I’m not sure that’s fair. For any analogy to be an analogy it has to include within it the aspect of prohibition. If you are asking for an analogy that doesn’t include that then it simply won’t be an analogy since prohibition is key to what is in contention. Now you might think the prohibition wrong. But that’s why I brought up the drug angle since it’s arguably a “crime” where no one is getting hurt (at least with certain classes of drugs). So to me it’s a pretty good analogy.

71. Clark, I think a better analogy these days may be to alcoholism. There are genetic components to alcoholism (some people appear to be born with a predisposition to drink). It is not illegal to drink. There are different levels of alcoholics. And the Church asks people to abstain completely from drinking but welcomes to Church (and even gives them temple recommends) if they are able to control their temptations and stop drinking. I would also like to add that I would not like to see at Church or in my home somebody who flaunts his alcohol use and alcoholism (especially in front of my kids), but I’d clearly welcome somebody who doesn’t make it an issue (don’t ask, don’t tell) or somebody who I know to be a reformed alcoholic.

72. Good analogy, Geoff! I like it.

73. jordan,

    holy order of things? well that explains it. clearly, I have a wee bit more empathy for those that were created as unholy and unordered creatures whose souls would cry out in loud rejection of this. you don’t need to go far to find people who feel quite holy and content to be homosexual. in fact, read above. some posted here.

    so you got to hold hands with sister jordan before you were married. but ms. smith and ms. young are reduced to nothings with no chances for affection. huh. what else is part of this order?

    as for race, I was simply pointing out that there was significant revelation about race in mormon history. the opportunity for all men can now have the priesthood in no way validates the instruction to parents to avoid public situations with their own children.

    or, maybe it does? give it a whirl there jordan. why should a mother not join her lesbian daughter at church, in her home, or at a school? and how does blacks being unbanned from the priesthood compare?

74. Geoff, that is perhaps a better analogy. I chose the drug analogy so as to make the situation clear in a non-church context (where perhaps alcohol is less of a parallel). There were a few other reasons but as I think of it the alcohol analogy perhaps is much better.

75. geoff. I agree that there is a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. I my dad, grandfathers and great grandfathers are/were chronic alcoholics. there are some parallels there, agreed.

    its fair to say that my dad and granfathers made some rotten choices along the way. sadly. its also fair that their diseases were the single greatest inspiration in my participation in the church and going on a mission.

    I also think its a greater concern, medically, socially, spiritually and in terms of public health than lesbianism. I am puzzled that the church would commit the resources to fight gay unions and do much less to fight addiction diseases. but. that’s not the point here.

    as an adult. and now as a parent, I would shelter myself and my kids from any organization that suggested I avoid public situations with my dad or asked him to not stay in my home. he is my dad.

    so why, given your analogy, is it ok to shut the door on gays? why is righteous to not be in public with them?

76. and how does blacks being unbanned from the priesthood compare?

    It doesn’t. That was my point.

    so you got to hold hands with sister jordan before you were married. but ms. smith and ms. young are reduced to nothings with no chances for affection. huh. what else is part of this order?

    Nobody is reduced to “nothing.” Ms. Smith and Ms. Young have plenty of chances for affection, if done in the way which has been given to us by the Lord- in a hetersexual relationship.

    Personally, I do not know the Church’s stance on same-sex attracted individuals holding hands or showing affection less than out-and-out sexual offense. I can imagine that it would be frowned upon as a manifestation of an affection that cannot be righteously consumated.

    What else is part of this order? Well, ME, it is very simple. It is that men and women (not men and men or women and women) have no sexual encounters EXCEPT with the person to whom he/she is legally and lawfully wedded, and I would assume this means in the eyes of the land, and more importantly in the eyes of God (which would preclude, for example, a same-sex marriage between Misses Smith and Young legally performed in Canada from being valid for the purposes of the law of chastity).

    The Lord has set a certain order to things. That order sanctions the proper display of affection between people whose relationship can actually be consumated in marriage in the eyes of God, and does not condone similar displays of affection in other settings. That is how it is. Arguing about it will change nothing.

    [Admin: The commenter asked that his comments be edited]

77. As I browsed the blog, I found that the “Matt Evans” to whom I responded earlier was NOT the same “Matt Evans” I thought I was answering. The “Matt Evans” I know made the remarks I referred to, while I am entirely unacquainted with the “Matt Evans” who is apparently a regular contributor here.

    SO SORRY, Matt, for my confusion and resulting comments.

78. And make no mistake about it- I would welcome anyone with any affliction/predisposition into the Lord’s church, even if they were acting on those dispositions. It does not mean I would paint a rosy picture that the Lord condones such.

    I hope that everyone finds something fulfilling in Christ’s Gospel. Acknowledging that certain acts are not condoned by God does not mean that I don’t love and care for the individuals engaging in those same acts.

79. jordan,

    great tangeants. there is much to discuss.

    given what the lord has said, or what elder dallin h. oaks has said, why should a parent avoid public situations with a lesbian child, including church, schools or yankee stadium?

    why should a parent treat an alcoholic child with more respect and dignity than a gay child?

    your suggestion that a lesbian is free to seek affection in a heterosexual relationship is brutal. perhaps you should run that by a lesbian and listen to her response. have you ever done that, asked a lesbian?

80. Or how about your hetero child in a homo/hetero marriage?

81. [Admin] Let’s keep the explicitness down please.

82. Clark and Geoff –

    over in the original thread, MikeInWeHo already posited a rather detailed take down of the alcholism analogy.

    However, no analogy is going to be perfect. That’s a given – however, some people will never be happy with any analogy. I think Clark’s original one is much better since:

    1. It’s easy to prove the detrimental effects of alcoholism. The detrimental effects of being gay or smoking dope are a lot harder to prove (or are of a differnt class of detriment altogehter).

    2. Alcoholics are usually very aware they are caught in a downward spiral – in my reading about addictions, most addicts realize their behavior is despicable – they just can’t stop the cycle for whatever reason. The same can’t be said for people who are gay or many casual users of marijuana or other softer drugs.

    3. It would be a rare case for an alcoholic to claim that God wants him to get constantly inebriated. But there are people smoke dope to get closer to God, while others feel that God approves of or doesn’t condemn it’s usage. And, as we’ve seen, many gay people feel similarly.

83. Clark,
    Am I crossing a line when some members advocate homo/hetero marriage, asking if they would be happy for one of their kids to enter into such a relationship?

    [Admin Edit: your post was not what I was referring to. The post in question was deleted due to explicit discussion of a particular sex act. Let us all be a little circumspect in how we discuss the issues.]

84. Good points Ivan, I was thinking of a few of those when I made the analogy. However as you said no analogy is perfect. (Edit: for the record I don’t think either of us are saying marijuana is harmless. Far from it. However the level of harm isn’t as high as some substances)

    Let me once again emphasize that I’ve not yet read the Elder Oaks talk that has engendered all the controversy. (I hope to tonight) So I’m playing off a hand of ignorance here. However let me leap in and address “Mayan’s” concerns in #79.

    If I had a homosexual son or daughter I wouldn’t mind being with them in public in the least. I’ve not read the papers in question but I’d be very, very surprised if Elder Oaks said anything like this. Undoubtedly there are families that have done this but it is undeniable that many people have emotional difficulties and this leads to family dynamics that are less than what God would wish. But I think it unfortunate that this would be portrayed as the typical situation as I just can’t believe it is.

    Regarding respect, that is a two way street. I’d certainly treat my children with respect even if they were doing things I felt were morally wrong. However if they wished to be under my roof they have to also respect me and respect my beliefs. That would mean that I would not tolerate unmarried sexual acts within my house. To do so would be to disrespect me in a fundamental way. How I’d react would vary according to the context. However if say I had one child who would disrespect me unapologetically and consistently in that fashion then they simply would not be welcome. I’d say the same for drug use. (Which was what prompted my original analogy)

    The issue of sexual relations that don’t include petting or full on sex is more troubling. However I tend to think that kissing between dating couples is OK because it is seen as leading to marriage. I think many, if not most Mormons see NICMO’s (basically non-committal makeout sessions) as wrong. Although clearly wrong at a different level than sex. Some might condemn me as a bit of a hypocrite in that since I had my fair share in my single days. But I’d be the first to recognize it as wrong.

    Let me cut to the chase in all this. I think we can respect and be respectful to each other. However if some require for respect certain views on the acceptance of homosexual acts then we’re at an impasse. There’s really no possible common ground. I’d hope that we all can recognize that there is common ground we can find without going to that extreme. i.e. that we can disagree on these fundamental views yet be respectful. But perhaps for some on either side that isn’t possible. If so then I find that very sad.

85. I think as a people, we Latter-day Saints are not even close to providing a safe place for even repentant gay and lesbian members to attend. To the extent Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman intended to make the Church a safer place for celibate gays and lesbians to participate, I think it is a step (albeit a baby step) in the right direction. And I commend Geoff B for opening the topic for how the Church might be a safer place for gays and lesbians who wish to attend. I am sorry many members apparently would prefer that gay and lesbian members continue to stay away.

86. That might be true David. Certainly I’ve heard in many wards I’ve been in cringe-worthy comments about homosexuals. (Although in classes I often raise my hand to make a correction) One hopes we can do better and I think (without having yet read their comments) that this is what the brethren wish.

    However in being more loving and respectful we also can’t lose track of the standards of morality that God has given us. It’s a fine line to walk. We often say love the sinner and hate the sin but I think that a line some have trouble with. Often we all fall prey to the same failings that those in the ancient churches did.

87. It sounds to me like most people on this thread only want to let gay folks attend church unless you get to set all kinds of conditions–most of which involve humiliating them or subjecting them to some ideological or morality test.

    Did anyone stop to think that a gay person who shows up despite all of these obnoxious attitudes is coming because they are drawn by the Spirit and want to be closer to God? Why not just accept that and thank God that they want to be there?

    It also sounds like there’s not much trust in the ability of the Spirit to teach and move people. If a person’s behavior is sinful, being present at church, being exposed to the church’s teachings, being in the presence of others who have the Spirit, and feeling the Spirit themselves will eventually work on them and help them repent. It sounds like you feel like you need to do something to control how the Spirit works in someone else’s life.

88. John, why do you say that? I didn’t read the other thread but I don’t see any indication on this thread that folks were setting conditions. It seems that the only condition that people are setting is that we still be able to speak about the law of chastity. (i.e. that homosexual acts are wrong) But I’ve not seen any claims beyond that. Certainly I’ve not seen people demanding that sinners not come to church. Far from it. The majority have been strongly saying the opposite.

89. What about georgeD, Clark? (see post #44, etc) Remarkably, a number of people here (including bbell, sad to say) have basically said: Well, georgeD’s rhetoric is extreme but he’s saying it like it is….

    Besides, the proof is in outcomes. You don’t have to physically kick out the homos. You just have to create an environment that is so intrinsically hostile that we leave. And that is exactly what occurs most of the time. For every longsuffering D. Flether there are dozens of MikeInWeHos who just walk away.

    In Mormonism, the status quo regarding gays has left behind a trail of heartache, excommunication, suicide, and broken family relationships. That’s just the way it is. We can debate who’s at fault ad infinitum, but that seems pointless because we will always arrive at the same impasse.

90. clark

    my quote of oaks was deleted. he makes it abubdantly clear that parents should not invite homosexual children home without stipulation and he says that parents should avoid public situations with gay children.

    as for the sex acts in someones home. well duh! again, I find it offensive that one would assume that a child would lose all social manners and dignity when they are gay. I doubt heteros are invited to display there sex acts for a parent either.

91. I’ve got to admit that I just heard about this issue this evening (I read the whole Oaks/Whatshisname interview, and all the comments at bycommonconsent.com). I live in Salt Lake City, but I haven’t been a Mormon for many years.

    The discussion is fascinating to me, as a heterosexual man who fully supports all aspects of gay rights (including full marriage benefits), and as a former member of the LDS church (though I don’t keep up-to-date on many of the church’s ongoing issues).

    Anyhow, I’ll try not to beat any dead horses here. I’d just like to make two points:

    1) I’m fascinated by the thought-experiment of a celibate gay couple.

    Imagine two faithful LDS men. Neither of them have ever had any romantic feelings toward women. As adults, they fall in love with each other, and enter into a long-term relationship. Out of their respect for, and faith in, the principles of Mormon theology, they remain celibate. But they go out frequently together. When they see a movie, they hold hands. And when they attend church, they sit together, arm in arm. More than anything, they just like to cuddle. But they are completely steadfast in their celibacy, never exchanging anything more than a kiss on the cheek. They believe they’re being true to themselves, while honoring God’s commandments. Although they’d like to have the opportunity for a deeper sexual intimacy, they accept the consequences of their faith. For them, it’s better to be together, in love, and celibate than to be alone, lonely, and celibate.

    And although they know they can never be sealed to one another, they’d like to attend temple sessions frequently together. Both of them have served missions, and neither of them have any unrepentant sins.

    What do you think should happen in this scenario? Certainly, it would be a difficult decision for their bishop.

    What if the bishop granted them a temple recommend? What do you suppose the reaction would be, amongst the other temple-goers, if these two were seen together at the temple?

    In my opinion, Oaks’ is being somewhat disingenuous to claim that the rules of intimacy and celibacy are exactly the same for all single people, and that the prohibitions against intimacy for unmarried people are the same, for gay people and straight people alike. I think the distinction would quickly become apparent in any LDS ward with a demonstrably affectionate (though staunchly celibate) gay couple.

    2) Although I really like the gay-men-holding-hands thought experiment, I actually have (what I think is) a more compelling analogy. According to the article, God is offended by same-sex marriages. And although I don’t agree, I can understand how such a belief is consistent with LDS theology. **HOWEVER**, Mormon doctrine also tells us that civil marriages are also considered invalid by God. Only marriages performed in the Lord’s temple, by his ordained representatives, have any relevance or efficacy in the eternal order of things.

    According to the recent Oaks/Whatshisname interview, “The hard reality is that, as an institution, marriage like all other institutions can only have one definition without changing the very character of the institution. Hence there can be no coexistence of two marriages.”

    But in the world of Mormonism, these two kinds of marriages routinely exists, side by side. They’re not considered equal. But civilly-married couples are certainly considered different than unmarried cohabiting couples.

    My question is: why does LDS theology give any recognition **at all** to civil marriages? And if Mormon doctrine already acknowledges the existence (and qualified legitimacy) of two different kinds of marriage, why can’t it also accept a third kind of marriage? You’d think–if there can truly be “no coexistence of two marriages”–that civil marriages would be considered completely illegitimate. They’d be essentially identical to unsanctified cohabitation.

    Since that’s not the case, I find the LDS leaders’ collapse-of-the-institution argument pretty dubious.

    Anyhow, it’s been a very interesting discussion. Keep it up. 🙂

    Thanks!

92. Naismith, again, please re-read my comment. I mention what another member could “say” to me or how they would “treat me emotionally.” Obviously, if my child were the victim of a “heinous crime” (I don’t even want to think about dealing with that) my reaction would probably be different.

    But let me be clear that it was not dealing with the perpetrator that was so hard and caused us to change wards. It was what members said to us and how they “treated us emotionally” that was so difficult.

    It’s pretty well established that victims are outcasts. This is why the names of rape victims were not published by newspapers for many decades (a practice that has recently changed in many places). And in the medical literature, there is a lot of research about how cancer patients are stigmatized by their former friends.

    That’s what my family went through, at the hands of ward members and leaders. We were judged to be bad parents, told that we would be stronger for going through this, considered troublemakers for disrupting ward unity, and so on.

    The basic issue is (and I think this absolutely applies to homosexuality as well) that people are terrified of having cancer or being raped or whatever, and so they seek to find ways that they are different from the victim, and thus it could never happen to them. This is a very useful defense mechanism that is functional for the person doing it. It is not fun for the person they are separating from.

    So I wonder if a certain part of the negative treatment of gays at church (when it happens and I haven’t seen it, only heard about it) is motivated by this same fear and need to find differences.

    (I do have to say that there were some positves to that whole nightmare, which didn’t come close to making up for the negatives. One is that I learned to rely on the Lord and not my ward members for comfort. Another is that there was a sister who brought me chicken soup, saying that she had no idea what was going on, but chicken soup could help whatever. Her example of nonjudgmental empathy is one I always try to emulate.)

93. benji #91,
    You must realize LDS leaders rarely comment on bigotry in the church, so we shouldn’t expect them to address bigotry against a celibate gay couple in the temple. That’s why the Q&A was a step backward. We already have simple clear statements that Gays are welcome but sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and women is sin. The Q&A went way beyond that and gave a green light to the type of bigotry in your example.

    I also take issue with the “………and neither of them have any unrepentant sins.” in your example. Even GBH needs the atonement everyday, as do we all. There are no sinless except our King, Jesus. Hence why bigotry against certain sinners is antithetical to the gospel of JC.

    I haven’t said this on either thread, but have said elsewhere I believe the real objective of the church’s support of a constitution marriage amendment is to legally enshrine anti-polygamy “forever” and that gays are just pawns in all this. There will never be enough gays to warrant all this attention. But the word polygamy brings up an issue the church wishes to distance itself from, so they proceed in a less than candid fashion.

    It also amazes me that more of my fellow active believing LDS don’t realize that current LDS sexual mores are a backlash against polygamy that have long outlived their usefulness. Such strict mores were probably useful for a few generations to weed out underground polygamy, but today they are harming us by making some sinners unwelcome and they definitely are contributing to the shrinking of the church.

    Someday a generation of LDS leaders will lead the church back to the whole gospel of JC and away from basing the church on the WofW and the LofC, but it won’t be this generation.

94. 89 Mike In West Hollywood

    Does the continued teaching of the church’s position that all sex outside of marriage is sinful and that marriage is between a man and a woman constitute the creation of a hostile environment?

95. Clark:

    You are right… I was over-reacting to a few of the more extreme posts on this thread, and also to the very long–and, pardon me but from my point of view, humiliating and demeaning–argument about whether homosexuality is like smoking dope, alcoholism, or stealing. I shouldn’t have said “most.” You are right that a number of folks on this thread have expressed strong support for just letting gay folks attend church and supporting them in this. I should have deleted the word “most” and substituted “some” before clicking on that dang “post comment” button.

    By the way, I have stated elsewhere that although I love my partner deeply and I cannot see how it would be possible for me at this point in my life to give up the 14-year-long relationship I have with him, that I am not calling for the church to “change” for me or others like me. That is not my place. I could say more about this, but bottom line is, I accept the church’s stance and I accept my condition and my family life, and I hold the contradiction between the two in faith, trusting that God will help me work things out one way or the other, if not in this life then in the life to come.

    However, the dynamics of this thread are instructive… If gay folks did start to attend in any significant numbers (not very likely right now), we would be crazy to expect that at least some members might not react in a rude, hostile, or demeaning way. So if the question is “how do we welcome?” I’d be interested to hear how we handle the potential hostility in a Christ-like way.

96. Since folks seem bent on applying weird analogies to this issue, here’s another one I’d like to toss up.

    In the ward I grew up in, there was a non-member who attended for many, many years without ever being baptized. His wife and two sons were baptized and active members, and he supported them in this in every way. He attended meetings faithfully himself, and even, on rare occasions, got up and bore his testimony during fast and testimony meeting.

    The reason he could not join the church is because he owned a liquor store. Didn’t drink the stuff himself. He obeyed the Word of Wisdom and lived in every way he could as a faithful LDS. I don’t know if his inability to be baptized was self-imposed or imposed by the bishop. All I know is he owned a liquore store and that is why he couldn’t become a member.

    In all the years he attended, I never heard a soul say an uncharitable word about Tom. We loved him to death. When people did talk about his case, folks always understood the significance of the sacrifice that would be involved in order for him to move forward and join the church. He would have to give up his entire livelihood, and the means by which he supported his lovely wife and two kids. Tom did eventually sell the liquor store and join the church, and you can imagine how much rejoicing there was over that.

    What the church is asking gay folks to give up is much bigger than our livelihood. It is essentially our lives. Folks are asking us to give up the one thing that everyone in the church cherishes the most: love and family. We are told that in order to “come unto Christ” we must be prepared to live the remainder of our lives in heart-break and loneliness. When we point this out, many on this thread–instead of acknowledging the enormity of what they are asking us to sacrifice–launch into denigrating lectures about how the love we feel and the relationships we form aren’t “real” love or “real” relationships, but more like alcoholism or stealing.

    Oaks and Wickman are very clear on this subject: they acknowledge that marriage is simply not a possibility for folks with same-gender orientation. In fact, they actively discourage marriage, and instead emphasize that life-long celibacy is the only church-sanctioned option for us that would allow us to join the church, hold the priesthood, attend the temple and fill callings.

    I would hope that people would understand why we would hesitate to make a commitment to life-long celibacy; and I would also hope that if–when we understand that, accept it, and nonetheless wish to attend church and live as faithfully as we can in every other way–that every member of the church would embrace us, love us and encourage us in the same way my home ward embraced, loved and encouraged Tom the liquor-store owner.

97. By the way, Benji, I loved your “thought-experiment.” My relationship with my partner is about so much more than just sex, and thank you for acknowledging that.

98. Wow, I was in a unit once with a Mormon bartender and Mormon tobacco farmer. We used to joke about which was worse. Some church leaders are just evil zealots.

99. In the real life example I gave, I said I did not know if the liquor-store owner was prevented from being baptized by the bishop. It is entirely possible that this individual himself saw liquor-store ownership as incompatible with church membership, so I wouldn’t leap to conclusions here.

    The point of my story was to show an example of a ward that embraced someone as their own despite his “lifestyle choices” and despite his inability to become a member.

100. What the church is asking gay folks to give up is much bigger than our livelihood. It is essentially our lives. Folks are asking us to give up the one thing that everyone in the church cherishes the most: love and family. We are told that in order to “come unto Christ” we must be prepared to live the remainder of our lives in heart-break and loneliness. When we point this out, many on this thread–instead of acknowledging the enormity of what they are asking us to sacrifice–launch into denigrating lectures about how the love we feel and the relationships we form aren’t “real” love or “real” relationships, but more like alcoholism or stealing.

     John, the Church doesn’t ask gay folks to do this — it asks all people to be celibate until marriage, so the standard is exactly the same. I know plenty of heterosexual men, including some in my ward in their 60s, who have remained celibate and temple worthy. Sheri Dew is a good example of a heterosexual woman who has done the same thing. This does not diminish the difficulty of what you are asked to do, it just points out that the standard is the same for everybody.

101. Geoff, it’s always impossible to get this across, but the standard is *not* the same. Straight folks are asked to be celibate, until they find a partner to love, and start a family. Some people aren’t able to find this partner, so they have to remain celibate.

     But gay people are asked to be celibate even if they found a partner. No sex, with the person you love and wish to marry, and this ad infinitum.

     I don’t expect you to understand the difference, no one does (who doesn’t feel the pull of same-sex attraction). But the standards are not the same.

102. Some people aren’t able to find this partner, so they have to remain celibate… the standards are not the same.

     D. — it looks like the same standard to me as far as the conditions of engaging in intimate relations. If you’re not married, don’t. The standard is different for who possible marriage partners may be. However, it seems like a move to just shut off dialogue to suggest “you are not gay so you can never really understand.” I don’t understand anyone else’s experience in the way you suggest, but it doesn’t disqualify me from the dialogue. I am not a woman, but I can discuss women’s issues. I am not a Catholic, but I can discuss Catholic theology and my perspective on the Catholic life. I am not gay, but I am a person with desires that I have been asked to keep within the bounds set by the Lord. (BTW where are the lesbians in this dialogue?)

     No sex, with the person you love and wish to marry, and this ad infinitum. Well, heteros too are asked to refrain from having relations with just any person they might fall in love with. If it is a natural male urge to mate with as many females as will allow, that is not license to do so. That I may fall in love with a woman not my wife, that is not license to do so.

     That said, the dialogue is a wake up call to be more open, loving and accepting of gays. I appreciate the dialogue and the opportunity to explore a perspective different than my own and to share the challenges that face us together. I also appreciate you sharing about challenges that you face because of your gender orientation that I don’t. But that doesn’t mean that I also don’t face challenges.

103. I don’t see much point in arguing about it, since no matter how often we repeat ourselves on this subject the other side doesn’t get it. But all you heterosexuals out there who are happily married, I’d just like you to deeply contemplate what it might mean to you if the church required you to divorce and never marry again in order to keep your membership in the church.

104. One final observation…

     A number of you have commented that you were OK with gay folks attending church as long as we do not try to change the church’s teachings on chastity.

     I understand where this fear comes from. Many—probably most—gay folks do believe that the church’s teachings on homosexuality are wrong. And I acknowledge it would be disruptive to the life and mission of the church to have folks coming in and openly challenging this—or any!—teaching of the church.

     But I think the scenario a lot of folks are conjuring up in their minds is not fair or realistic. Those of us who feel drawn to attend church feel drawn from the same reasons you do: because at some level we have a testimony and we want to worship God. The last thing on any of our minds is “flaunting it,” as one poster here so genteelly put it.

     We are not likely to forget what the church’s teaching is on this subject. How could we, when most of us have either been excommunicated or have voluntarily resigned over it? In fact, no one would ever have to say another word to about it for the rest of our lives, and we’d pretty much be reminded of it every single time the sacrament tray is passed and we can’t partake.

     I think what really makes folks uncomfortable is the possibility—even the likelihood—that many, likely most, gay folks might come to church, pray, listen to the music, listen to the talks, and still think that they are OK despite everything the church teaches. You’d prefer we sit there and mentally flagellate ourselves about how evil we are for being homosexual, and it really bugs you that we just might not.

     I used to think I was the only one who had received a spiritual confirmation that A) the church is true and B) that my relationship with my partner has value and it would be wrong for me to abandon it. Now on this blog, I find there are at least two other gay folks out there who have had similar experiences. As I have pressed God about this in prayer, I have also received a strong spiritual confirmation that the church’s leaders are divinely chosen and that I need to accept their authority. I accept that these personal revelations seem contradictory, but there you have it. As I said, I can’t really resolve the contradictions, all I can do is hold them and trust that everything will work out in the end.

     The experience of blacks and gays in the church is not analogous. The reason it is not analogous is because blacks have now received the priesthood and temple blessings, while gays in same-sex relationships are excommunicated from the church. If someday a revelation is received to change all of that and to allow gay folks in same-sex partnerships all the privileges of membership, then in that hypothetical future we might be justified in saying that the situation of blacks and gays was analogous. We cannot say that now, and we do not know if we will ever be able to say that. (Nor, I should point out, can we deny that we will ever be able to say that.) Only God knows.

     But for you gay folks out there who feel drawn to the church, who have a testimony of the gospel and of the church leaders as I do, I encourage you to read the book BLACK AND MORMON. Particularly read some of the very moving first-hand accounts by African-American Mormons that are quoted in this book. They cite extreme rejection, people literally discouraging them from even coming to church (even though they were allowed to be baptized!), people telling them they would NEVER have the priesthood, people confronting them with demeaning doctrines about how they were the children of a murderer, how they had been unfaithful in the pre-existence, etc., etc. Because of such attitudes, many blacks did give up in despair and leave and never come back. But some—a faithful few (the book says there were maybe 5,000 black Mormons, tops, prior to 1978), hung in there. And the reason they hung in there is because of the numerous, powerful, personal reassurances they received from the Spirit that even though their status seemed contradictory and anomalous, things would eventually work out in the end.

     I do not feel I—or anyone else—would ever be justified in drawing far-reaching conclusions based on my personal spiritual experiences. I feel it in fact would be extremely inappropriate for anyone to publicly teach anything in a church setting contrary to what is taught by the brethren. I acknowledge that based on what I know of official church teaching at this point, the only means of exaltation in the next life is through heterosexual marriage. All I know is that based on my personal experiences, I trust that this will all work out for me personally in the end. This has freed me to focus on trying to be as faithful as I can in every other way possible, including attending regularly at church and in supporting standard, orthdox teaching on this and on all other topics.

105. D, I have heard that argument many times. I guess I would respond that from an eternal perspective there are always blessings for following God’s laws. You would not believe how many single women get baptized in Brazil, for example, where I lived for four years, and stay single all of their lives because there are many more single LDS women than LDS men in Brazil. As a member of the bishopric, I heard their laments, which are exactly like yours (!!!). “Why am I being asked to face this test? It isn’t fair. Other people can get married. I can’t but am asked to be celibate when everybody else in society is having sex.” There is really no good way to answer this except to ask them to put their faith in God and that their Father in Heaven will make sure things work out alright in the end. In their case, these women keep on hoping they will meet the right man, and you are correct that they have a hope of marriage in this life that you don’t have if you cannot overcome your same-gender attraction, which is that some day they may get married. But in the meantime, they are asked to keep the same law that everybody else is asked to keep, and that you are asked to keep.

     At the end of the day, our Father in Heaven loves all of us. Some people are born with same-gender attraction. I don’t know the reason why. But I know that He has a plan for us and that he wants us to be happy in the long run and that great blessings come from following his laws.

106. D. Fletcher,

     I have to admit that you’re right. It’s not fair. It’s not equal. The standard may be the same, but it impacts our two focus groups so differently as to lose it’s quality of evenhandedness. Pointing out celibate, single heterosexuals doesn’t change that.

     The question is whether that inequality can or should be erased.

107. I’m hetero and understand exactly what D is saying in #101, and have for years. The standard isn’t even close to being the same. It’s easier to grasp when you’re not an apologist and look at things objectively.

108. Could it be that the scriptures against certain homosexual activities were disease prevention warnings from a loving God that have been misinterpreted as anti-homosexual in general?

109. And do we know Sheri Dew’s orientation? Does it matter? I don’t recall any GAs discussing their personal orientation.

110. Geoff:

     In response to 105… Growing up in the church, I knew single LDS women who occasionally married non-Mormons. They were not excommunicated for doing so. They knew that they risked not being able to be married in the temple if their husband never converted–but that was the extent of the penalty they faced.

     I also knew of MANY situations in which one spouse of an existing marriage converted, and the other did not. Often it was the women who converted while the husband remained a non-member. Again, converts in such situations are not required to divorce their spouses in order to retain their status in the church.

111. John, I will agree with somebody who posted above and said that the two sides on this issue simply talk past each other. It’s worth pointing out that I’ve read at least 10 other threads on the Bloggernacle that would look very familiar to you — the arguments are exactly the same we’ve had here around and around and around. I’ve tried to give an explanation of my view on the matter (as somebody who has had literally dozens of gay friends over the decades). I’m not really interested in arguing it to death. I appreciate your input because I believe the more information one has the more he or she is able to make good choices and be emphathetic.

112. Geoff (#105) “But in the meantime, they are asked to keep the same law that everybody else is asked to keep, and that you are asked to keep.”

     Well, technically, as long as unmarried hetero couples are allowed to kiss, cuddle, and hold hands, your claim of equality in the standard is clearly not true.

     Also, what about my point #2? The LDS church already recognizes two fundamentally different kinds of marriage: civil marriages and temple marriages. This business about “changing the fundamental definition of the institution” is an awfully big stretch, since Mormons already accept a bifurcated definition of the marriage institution.

113. My impression is that straight folks have to make it “equal” somehow in their minds in order to feel good about themselves. I respect Seth’s acknowledgement that it just isn’t equal but it is doctrinal. That to me seems more honest. To me it also seems more truly empathetic.

114. Blake, unless more of my comments have been deleted, i have favored using lesbians as examples and have been very deliberate in an effort to speake towards gays (men) and lesbians equally. i appreciate you pointing this out. i noticed that the entire dialogue with oaks was centered on gay men. though, that is typical in the church and many other religious groups. it seems that men are often portrayed as horny, uncontrollabe beasts that have a natural urge to mate with as many females as possible and women are portrayed as un-horny eye-candy temptresses that should be modestly dressed to keep those beasts from wanting to mate.

     also, i think jordan explained in some detail that things are absolutely NOT the same for all people. some can hold hands, and some cant, thats the holy order of things. some can pursue relationships with those they are comfortable with and some cant, thats the holy order of things. a lesbian can seek affection, with a man, thats the holy order of things. if in fact you believe that the standards are the same for everyone, perhaps you could address your comments to jordan and provide some clarity to him and us regarding this holy order.

     hey G, sheri dew? right on. whats a conversation about lesbians without a mention of sheri dew? just kidding folks, relax. in all seriousness though, this is not a good example. sure, she may be celibate. but as far as we know, she is not hiding. she is free to date men, if that is her orientation. she is free to hold hands with a man, if that is her orientation. she is free to court and would not be an embarrassment to her family if they were to share a public situation, despite any sins or shortcomings she may have.

     to all,

     clearly i am not a regular here. i post in the damu. its been almost a year since i was here, with the last visit being quite confrontational and something that still sits very negatively for most of you. i dont like many of your positions. that should come as no surprise at all. but, allow me to say this….. i think the tone of this thread, and the discourse that has evolved is very informative and helpful. jordan says i came here just to stir things up. that is not true. i came here to practice stating my position and proposing questions, just as I would anywhere else. i do enjoy pointing out what i feel are misperceptions or inaccuracies within the mormon community. this thread of comments has been much more than i expected in that regard. will this thread change anyone? i doubt it. i seriously doubt it. but perhaps there is a sliver of chance. And who knows, maybe I am the one that will change.

     i dont expect to come on here some day and see a joint post by clark and geoff b that says they are resigning from the church because mayan elephant showed them that elder X was in error and the church is the new ________ of the earth. (use the scripture reference of your choice). however, i do think it would be cool if a few folks realized that there is a huge spectrum of perceptions and experiences. i think it is very clear that gays, for the most part, may not feel comfortable in the church. what we have argued here is whether they should be comfortable or whether their discomfort is due to their own sin or whether it is the part of the collective community, or both. we may never know, the reality is, gays leave or live sad mormon lives, generally. again, the perceptions are all over the place in variety and reality is different for everyone.

     this next paragraph will probably get the entire post deleted. i am prepared for that. dont feel obliged to keep it.

     another topic i wanted to explore, and we have done in a limited way, is the the very very very different reaction people may have to oaks comments in the mentioned pr piece. you dont need to click around the internet too much to find folks that couldnt even finish the pr piece. i personally know people, members of this church, that cried intensely painful tears only part way through reading and couldnt finish. you all may not agree with the merits of those reactions. i hope that despite using foul language that rhymes with bam and bell on this thread, that you will trust me when i tell you that there are members of the church that were absolutely crushed by the oaks comments. sure, there is the obvious reaction in the damu, a fire i have no reservation stoking, but it goes much deeper than that, and i am not simply referring to cyber-anecdotes in the examples that i have seen.

     you can parse the words of oaks in many ways, split the hairs and interpret situational application of his examples and suggestions. but the bottom line is simple, at least to me, his words drive a HUGE wedge into families where a child or parent are lesbian. HUGE. again, we dont all agree, but that is a perception. in this case, its my perception. so, in a church that has been singing love at home and chanting that home is where the heart is and quoting/misquoting the success/failure in the home stuff, the words seem to endorse the harsher comments seen on this thread, including the holy order of things suggestions. what i mean by that is, if a lesbian son or child is not to be fully welcomed in a parents home, why should the church be any more inviting? after all, home is the higher standard, right? i dont expect the church to change their position. i fully expect the church will continue on its current course with respect to lesbians for the remainder of my lifetime. what i would like though, is for the tolerance of others to improve. specifically, i hope that parents of gay children and children of lesbian parents will live, love and worship as they see fit, without feeling that they have been caught in a trap, or feeling that their parental instincts to love and defend family have not and will not betray them.

     if jordan et al have read my damu comments you obviously know that i have a peeve with the explanation/rationalization of “he was speaking as a man, not a prophet.” at the very least, i hope we someday come back to this topic and acknowledge, that that very thing may have happened again. and i dont think its disrpespectful to consider that this may be the case, especially when there are percieved contradictions in the so-called inspirations.

115. For those of you who say the standard is the same for heterosexuals and homosexuals, try taking your logic a bit further. Suppose that tomorrow, civil same-sex marriage became legal. Suppose I marry a male partner. Would the church then take the position that my sexual activity with my partner was acceptable? I seriously doubt it.

     Therefore, there are two separate standards:
     Heterosexuals—Be celibate until you find someone to marry.
     Homosexuals—Be celibate throughout mortality, unless you decide to try to squelch your own nature by entering into a hetero marriage, whereby you can screw up not just your own life, but many others as well.

116. Homosexuals—Be celibate throughout mortality, unless you decide to try to squelch your own nature by entering into a hetero marriage, whereby you can screw up not just your own life, but many others as well.

     hey pal, um, i thought we addressed this. is this not the proper order of things?

     did you see this memo?

     Ms. Smith and Ms. Young have plenty of chances for affection, if done in the way which has been given to us by the Lord- in a hetersexual relationship.

     [this comment contains sarcasm and quotes from previous comments]

117. How about these two heterosexual thought experiments as potential analogies:

     Example 1.

     In South America, before the liberalization of divorce laws, Man A and Woman B are married. Man A abandons her. Divorce is illegal. Woman B can never marry legally as long as Man A is alive.

     Woman B meets meets and falls in love with Man C. They are unable to marry civilly. They move in together, living in a relationship as committed as possible under the law of land, have many children, and raise them in a loving, supportive environment.

     Questions: If Woman B and Man C are investigators, should they be baptized without first separating?

     If they are Church members, should they be excommunicated? To avoid excommunication, should they be required to separate until Man A (the man who abandoned Woman B) dies, and Woman B and Man C can be legally married?

     If they are no longer members of the Church, and refuse to abandon the relationship, should they be welcomed if they choose to attend church anyway?

     Should their attendance at church be conditioned on a figurative sign’s being raised outside the building: “Those living in an adulterous relationship under the law may attend church here, but please remember at all times that you are violating a very serious commandment, and if you do not repent, you are going to hell”?

     Example 2.

     In a country in which polygamy is legal, Man A marries Woman B and Woman C.
     Under current Church policy, Man A cannot be baptized unless he divorces one or the other, and only lives and has sexual relations with one of them. After reading the history of the our church, Man A decides to follow the example of our polygamist ancestors–no new wives, but he will not abandon those he has already married.

     Questions:

     Is it reasonable to demand that Man A divorce one of his wives to join the Church?

     Should he be condemned if, instead of being baptized, he decides to keep the commitments he previously made to her?

     In that case, should unbaptized Man A, Woman B, and Woman C be welcomed at church?

     Should their welcome be conditioned on a figurative sign’s being placed on the building: “Polygamists welcome, but please be aware at all times that if Man A does not divorce one of his wives, somebody is going to hell, even though, theoretically, in the hereafter, Man A could be sealed to Woman B and Woman C.”

118. Back to the theoretical couple:

     I’m pretty sure it’s a lot less theoretical than the average member knows. I’ve posed this very scenario to a few bishops none of whom have a problem with a committed couple…as long as they are celibate then they are living up to their covenants.

     Any degree of discomfort caused to the general membership by this male or female couple is the general memberships fault. It is not the general memberships business to speculate about their chastity or reasons for being together or anything else. The ward family is not a democracy in determining the couple’s worthiness at church.

119. DavidH, my ex-wife served a mission in Ireland, 1986-87. At that time, she encountered situations like your example #1. The cohabitating couples were allowed to be baptized, since their marital status was a matter of civil prohibitions on divorce and remarriage, and no fault of their own.

120. re: 95
     I would say no, not automatically. The Catholics and many other conservative churches teach exactly the same thing about SSM as the Mormons, but do not attempt to enforce it the way the LDS church does. You can be an openly-non-celibate gay and remain Catholic. You cannot be be in a leadership or teaching position and oppose the church’s rules. It’s understood that a gay Catholic’s dissonance between lifestyle and teaching is an issue between him and the Lord, not between him and his fellow Catholics or the church itself.

     Rome realizes the impossibility and foolishness of trying to enforce its moral law into the pew, and the harm that would result if it did. Guess that’s what 1800 or so more years of maturity brings.

121. (oops, make that re: 96)

122. Mike, some might not see that as maturity but something else. I’m not sure most Mormons would view that the way you do.

     David, obviously all these cases actually do happen. One can but say that sometimes the Lord requires sacrifice. I read the journals of my ancestors and what they went through and gave up to be members of the Church. They faced grave persecution and suffering. I look at my own life and how easy I have it and it’s almost impossible for me to even relate to what they did. Those early Saints were often giants. I look to one of my personal heros, Zina Hunington, and ask myself if I could be as true to the Lord as what she did.

     I think those are good analogies though David. Sometimes the Lord demands a lot of us and clearly many won’t be able to fulfill those personal sacrifices. I think that ultimately though we have to be willing to put the Lord first. It is very easy for current members who typically aren’t asked to sacrifice much to take things for granted. Yet how many of them would have stayed faithful through Kirtland or the persecutions of Missouri or the trip to Utah? And how many of them would remain faithful if they were asked to do what homosexuals are asked? I don’t know. I hope I would. But can I say I would? I don’t know.

     I will say that while it is understandable that many homosexuals will leave over these issues, just as the many periods of apostasy in the early church were understandable, the blessings for remaining faithful are great.

123. clark,

     do you agree that the price for remaining faithful is also great?

     i met the former student leader of a glbt group at a university. her stories of students that had transfered from byu to this university were hair-raising. in these cases, the price was unimaginable and life-threatening.

     are the blessings worth this mortal life, on the extreme? are they worth a mortal life of self-loathing? are they worth the loss of a common community for one that mainains a proper order as has been proposed? maybe so. depends on ones faith eh?

     what is the price paid by parents and children of lesbians? is there anything that can or should be done to reduce that price?

124. DavidH:

     I like your analogies a lot better… They appropriately address complex issues of sexual morality, church policy and law without some of the judgmental connotations of some of the other more typical analogies that get dragged in.

125. Clark,

     I would be curious how you would answer my questions in 119, in particular, how we should treat those individuals–how conditional should our “welcome” be? (Also, what do you think of the Church’s practice in the late 20th century of baptizing individuals under example 1, without requiring a separation?)

126. Clark, that was a good response to David, thanks. One quibble I have with your reasoning is it’s simply a matter of politics preventing the good people in David’s first example from becoming members of the Lord’s Church. Why would the Lord allow politics (i.e., the vagaries of the divorce laws in a particular country) to deny the blessings of belonging to His Church to His children?

     Seems to me that we should be working around these kinds of political, man-made restrictions rather than accepting them as inevitable sacrifices and sufferings the Lord wants people to endure in this life.

127. (I posted this already, but it appears not to have worked.)

     David,
     Your example #1 was encountered repeatedly by missionaries in Ireland, when my ex-wife served there (86-87). Divorce was illegal, and the missionaries would find committed couples who had been together ten years or more, but who were unmarried because they could not legally divorce earlier spouses. Because of the legal situation these people faced, the church did not consider this their fault, and these couples were allowed to be baptized.

     If heterosexual and homosexual couples were really treated the same, then a committed homosexual couple could be baptized, since their lack of a marriage ceremony is only due to legal restrictions.

128. This may be off topic, but SLT has an article on this finally, and quotes Rosylende’s comment from the blog. My question is did she or the blog give permission to do so? Is that even required or are blog statements public domain?

129. Do you have a link to the article in the SLT?

130. the trib article is here: http://www.sltrib.com/faith/ci_4268212

     very tame with very little content. i propose a toast to m* for being mentioned in “the news”

     if this is true:

     The two Mormon leaders – both lawyers – clearly represent the church’s perspective but make no claims to divine or institutional authority.

     then perhaps my previous post should be put back up where i suggest that oaks was not actually speaking with any authority on the subject. just a thought.

     wow, wouldnt that be a relief if this claim was actually attributable to oaks and wickman, then we really would know it was “the man not the prophet.”

131. Mayan Elephant–

     You have repeatedly implied that Elder Oaks encourages parents to shun their gay children. I find this to be a gross misreading of the interview. Elder Oaks repeatedly stresses that parents of a gay child must never cease “affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him,” even if the child makes choices the parents disapprove of. Elder Wickman says that we as parents must “continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children.” Even if parents disapprove of the path their child has chosen, they do not need to, and should not, “be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.” These statements appear, to me, inconsistent with your claims that the interview holds that a gay child “is not to be fully welcomed in a parents home,” and I fail to see any “instruction to parents to avoid public situations with their own children.”

     What you’re clearly referring to is Elder Oaks’ answer to the question of how parents should interact with the partner of a gay child. This may not be a meaningful distinction to you, and John G-W has thoughtfully opined that parents who do not fully welcome a child’s gay partner into their homes and hearts are essentially rejecting the gay child himself/herself. With all due respect, I see a difference. Lovers, partners, and spouses of any sex or orientation may come and go, but my child will always be my child. If I disapprove of my child’s choice of partner (gay or straight) and feel that that choice is harmful to my child, that partner will get a much cooler reception from me. But my child, my offspring, my little one who I held in my arms at birth, will never, ever, be greeted with anything less than joy and rejoicing. I think that was one of the purposes of the interview–to communicate to parents that it is never acceptable (or even possible) to “disown” or “divorce” a child from the family, regardless of what choices the child has made.

     In his response to the question of whether he, Elder Oaks, would allow a gay son and his partner to “come for holidays,” he began and ended by saying that there is no “one-size-fits-all” answer, and that such a decision would have to be made on a case-by-case basis. So he’s leaving it to the discretion of the parents. There is no instruction to shun the child or the partner. Elder Oaks “imagines” that some parents will be uncomfortable having the gay child and his partner sleep together in the family home, and that those parents may condition a visit on avoiding this situation. You may find such parents cruel or uncaring, but parents have a unique responsibility for their home. I suspect that virtually every parent who would disallow a child from sleeping with his gay partner in the family home would also disallow a child from sleeping with his straight (unmarried) partner in the family home. I also imagine that most gay kids would be willing to live with this sort of restriction, and would be able to write it off as part of the give and take of life, even if they didn’t like it. Certainly, some parents will allow the child and partner to spend the night. These parents are not acting in opposition to Elder Oaks’ counsel. Instead, they will have weighed the circumstances and made their choice, and nobody can second-guess them.

     What if, as Elder Oaks suggest, some parents are reluctant to introduce their gay child’s partner to their friends, or to deal with them in social situations that imply approval of the gay relationship? Must the gay partner be included in the reception line at the little sister’s wedding? Must the gay partner’s photo be displayed on the family photo wall? Must the parents send announcements of the gay child’s commitment ceremony to the whole ward? Is anything less sheer and utter bigotry? Maybe. In any family, though, there will be offenses, small and large. Nowhere, however, does anybody suggest that parents should avoid being seen with their children in public, as you claimed. And I guess that’s my point: contrary to your mischaracterization of the comments in the interview, Elders Oaks and Wickman acknowledged that parents will have to gauge their own limits when it comes to accepting and reconciling themselves to their child’s choice of partner and lifestyle. But they consistently hammered home the point that there can be no qualifications to acceptance of the child himself, no limits placed on the expression of love.

     Maybe John G-W is correct, that a child will feel entirely rejected if his parents are hesitant or unwilling to embrace his partner as a memebr of the family, and that this is functionally equivalent to disowning the child. I bet if you asked a gay Mormon who has been truly disowned by his family, though, I’d wager you’d find that the kind of parenthood espoused by Elder Oaks would come across as a welcome alternative.

132. Sorry to stir things up, which isn’t my way.

     I do think that there a difference between the treatment of older single men, and older single women (though it’s less clear how the perception of gay vs. non-gay plays into this). Women who didn’t marry are ennobled by their choice to remain in Church, raised up and blessed by the brethren and the congregation as choice spirits forced to sacrifice (Sherry Du being the best example). There’s still a little bit of pity (for these poor pathetic, ugly girls) but they are not considered potential giant sinners.

     Men, on the other hand, are automatically suspicious, for being (probably) gay or at least sexually deviant, perhaps pedophiles, and at worst, predatory animals. I’m exaggerating, but my experience is very close to this.

133. Dan:

     This has nothing to do with Elder Oaks’ and Elder Wickman’s advice, but my experience puts your discussion in an interesting light…

     One of the turning points for my parents in terms of coming to accept me as a gay son was when they got to know my partner. My partner is an extremely generous, considerate, caring person. When my parents got to know him as an individual, and when they saw how deep our commitment to each other was, a lot of their defenses went down about the whole thing.

     I think another factor that has helped is my partner and I have had a wedding ceremony to which we invited both our families (and which they both attended). Again this was a visible demonstration of our commitment to each other. I think my parents more or less understand that we would be legally married if we could, but we cannot, so they accept our commitment as the equivalent of marriage. In practice, by the way, this is how pretty much all of our close friends and family see us.

     Ironically (or maybe not ironically at all–to them and to me it is perfectly logical), my parents have had trouble accepting my sister’s unmarried boyfriend, but they have no trouble at all with us. Again, to my parents’ way of thinking, my partner and I have demonstrated a lasting, marriage-like commitment. My sister, who could get married to legitimize her relationship but who hasn’t yet does not get as much leeway from them–a source of some frustration to her.

134. re: 131
     “Must the gay partner be included in the reception line at the little sister’s wedding? Must the gay partner’s photo be displayed on the family photo wall? Must the parents send announcements of the gay child’s commitment ceremony to the whole ward? Is anything less sheer and utter bigotry?”

     No, but such actions WILL be experienced by the gay child as rejection, dis-affirming of love, and a closing of the family’s arms….regardless of the sincere motivation of the parents.

     This is where Oak’s logic derails, imo. He’s speaking out of both sides of his mouth, saying ‘don’t reject’ and then leaving open the option of behaving in ways which are unavoidably rejecting to the child.

     Many in here are presumably married heterosexuals. Ask yourselves, how would it FEEL to you if for whatever reason your family declared your marriage invalid and behaved in these ways toward your spouse? What would be your response?

135. Dan,
     Your lengthy post is a remarkable example of what experts call “cognitive dissonance reductionism.” This is what often happens when a person learns or observes something which is inconsistent with a principle of their faith. In this case, your sustaining of the church leaders in question includes the anticipation that their words and actions will be loving and “christlike.” You read the interview, which the vast majority of readers would find problematic. Faced with these two incompatible views, you have wrested the text of the interview in such a way as to force it to conform to your expectations of behavior among church leaders. It’s the same behavior that keeps believers in various other groups, despite clearly false “prophesies” and the like (the best study involved a group that was expecting to be picked up on a given night by aliens in spaceships—really).

     I’m sure your defense of Oaks and Wickman’s comments seems rational to you–it’s a psychological survival tool, after all. To most people, however, it comes across as remarkably strained. For example, you transform Oaks’ comments into a discussion of whether a gay son and his partner should “sleep together” in a parent’s home, when he said nothing of the kind. By doing this, you make his comments sound more reasonable to yourself and others. The reality, however, is that he said parents should tell their son and his partner that they should not expect to spend the night in the parents’ home. In other words, they are UNINVITED, not merely asked to sleep in separate rooms, as many parents might do with a heterosexual child and his/her amour.

     Now, let’s suppose for just a moment, that you are right, and the interview only counsels to reject the gay son’s partner(!). Are you married, Dan? If your parents informed you that your wife was not welcome to spend the night in their home, how would you feel? Would YOU still truly feel welcome there? How do you think your wife would react, if you thought that was perfectly okay?

     Similarly, Oaks did not say that some parents might be uncomfortable, or “reluctant to deal with” a gay son’s partner in social situations. He provided an example–which most modern LDS will take as inspired, due to the office he holds—in which a parent should tell the gay son and his partner that they (the parents) should not expect them to ACKNOWLEDGE them in social settings. How much more blatantly can parents reject their son and his partner, than to not even *acknowledge* them? How welcome would YOU feel in your parents’ home, Dan, if the family portraits on the wall didn’t include your spouse?

     After all the twisting to make it sound smoother, Dan, the fact remains that this appears to be the first time general authorities have singled out a particular “sin,” which is so horrific that parents should ostracize their own children over it–or at least treat their children in such a way that the children feel ostracized.

     Somehow, I can imagine this “interview” being given 40 or 50 years ago, when instead of gay partners, the topic might have been interracial marriage. The church leaders could have reminded everyone of the dire consequences of “mixing with the seed of Cain,” and advised parents who were faced with a son who married an African American woman to “not acknowledge them in social situations,” or to tell them “not to expect to stay overnight in their home.” The amazing part, of course, is that many members of the LDS church would have defended those comments, just as strongly as you choose to defend the current embarassment.

136. wow nick.

     that was awesome. if today was my birthday and I was having a huge party, I would definitely invite you.

137. Well said, Nick. Some of our co-bloggers here are going to jump all over your second-to-last paragragh though. He did not say anyone “should” do anything. He simply left the door open to it (equally shameful) on a case-by-case basis, as I read the interview.

138. On the original topic of the thread, I suspect that those who are openly homosexual will never be generally respected in the mainstream of the church. I suspect the prophet’s call to reach out will only be answered by those who are truely Christlike and those that beleive in moral homosexual actions. The following is why:

     I am going to expose my ignorance here. I have never met a person who claimed to be gay. I suspect, the majority of the Latter-day saints are like me.

     Book of Mormon teaches the seriousness of sexual sin.

     The bible has Lev 18 and Lev 20 which, when read be the majority of the Latter-day Saints, classes homosexual actions somewhere between adultery and bestiality. I am not saying I whether this is right or wrong, just that most interpret it this way.

139. The bible has Lev 18 and Lev 20 which, when read be the majority of the Latter-day Saints, classes homosexual actions somewhere between adultery and bestiality.

     and your point is….. dont go to church? or just dont go to an LDS church? or is there something deeper than that?

140. I stated my point clearly. I will bold it for ya.

     I suspect the prophet’s call to reach out will only be answered by those who are truely Christlike and those that beleive in moral homosexual actions.

141. well, if we believe in god, and we believe in jesus christ, and we believe in the holy ghost, i guess it follows that if we believe *in* moral homosexual actions, then we *approve* of moral homosexual actions.

     whew, i was worried i wouldnt get that one typed up sans explicitness. i had type, edit, type, edit, type, edit many many times. that scoundrel the devil had me by the keyboard. but i overcame.

142. well, if we believe in god, and we believe in jesus christ, and we believe in the holy ghost, i guess it follows that if we believe *in* moral homosexual actions, then we *approve* of moral homosexual actions.

     Mayan Elephant,

     I don’t get it.

143. Dan Richards – 132

     i did a search on this thread and found only three cases where the word shun or shunned was used. tow of them were in your thread. the other was in post 16 where georgeD admits to having no problem with people shunning a homosexual who attends church defiantly. those are the only examples. clearly i did not use that word. i did not attribute shunning to any other poster or to the elders. i believe i have been very careful, though it is not my nature to be perfectly careful, in using “public situations” and the home.

     yes, you have done well to split hairs as to the meaning and directness of some of his answers, this was actually prophesied in post 117. congrats, you are a fulfiller.

     what is interesting to me dan, is that you would consider these acts a shun, regardless of to whom they are directed. imagine the irony, a leader of the church does a pr piece and points out who should be shunned. or at least, thats your perceptsion. and you are fine with that?

     i think the salt lake tribune really bailed these guys out by letting them attach the disclaimer/implication that the content is not inspired by god or inspired by “institutions”, which i take to mean it is not professionally qualified.

     oh, um the sl trib should get a “Post 117 on M*” award too, i predicted that we would be discussing whether this was the man or the prophet speaking, and the trib came through as the big fulfiller.

     where is jordan? i cant believe he hasnt come back to bust my chops…. er … propose a toast on this one. jordan……. where are you…….. jordan?

144. I’ll be just as strident as I can be and then I am bowing out of this silly pointless whiny fey thread.

     You cannot have sex outside of a heterosexual marriage and be a member in good standing in the church. This will never ever change. The brethren have spoken so conclusively on this issue that a change would be one step below denying the divinity of the Savior. Not going to happen.

     The homosexuals posting on this thread don’t get it. They whine and whine and whine and whine and whine. “Hostile environment”, “disrespectful”, “hateful” “non-inclusive”

     Get over it. It is the way it is. The church will never change to fit you. Ever. You must change to fit the church. Always.

145. Mayan, re: 132 and 143

     I don’t think Dan Richards was splitting hairs. I think he accurately characterized Oaks view that parents should be okay with hanging out with their gay kids, but not with their gay kids and partners together. I really think that’s what Oaks is saying, not that it makes it much better.

     Dan, here’s my response to you –

     By following Oaks’ line of thinking and refusing to acknowledge their kids’ partners, parents are showing that they are ashamed of their kids’ homosexuality, and that they are trying to deceive the public (and their other children) into thinking that their gay kids are really heterosexual, when clearly they aren’t.

146. Lunar,

     you make a great point. are you suggesting that we should rescind dan’s award? fine. consider it taken away, sorta like milli vanilli. dan, sorry, i thought you were fulfilling a prediction and it turns out i was wrong.

     i dont think i can respond any better than what was said by Nick in 136. I consider my own family, if someone were to invite me to visit, with the stipulation that A) my spouse was not invited and B)they refuse to acknowledge my spouse, i would consider that a symbolic invitation at best, and a go straight to…… oh, dang…. that was close…. almost slipped up and said a naughty word again. lets just say i would feel uninvited, not invited, and rejected, not welcome.

147. Mayan,

     And you would be very justified in feeling that way. In this light, the distinction that Oaks made, and that Dan (#132) reiterates, becomes irrelevant.

148. You must change to fit the church. Always.

     gD, the other option is to leave church and family, sometimes. again, you may not agree with that choice, but perhaps you may find empathy for those that make the decision. and further, you may find empathy for those that leave on behalf of homosexuals and others that are not welcome to join you. your faith encourages you to consider dark consequences for that choice, the choice of leaving the church. but for others, it is a painful hard decision and includes separation from family, and yet, it is worth it for them. if your child or parent were gay, they would likely face a separation from you. that is the nature of this beast. imagine how tough this must be, in leaving the church, one is forsaking family. that is tough, but its real.

149. gD, you are settling yourself up for apostasy. I’ve seen it over and over again, and take note that even some of the gay commenters left in part because of this bizarre dogma that the church never changes with the times.

150. If my parents refused to put my spouse’s photo on the wall next to the photos of my siblings’ spouses, I would be pissed off. Royally. But it would be a vastly different experience if they removed my photo from the wall. Is that difference lost on everybody else? Does anybody else see the distinction I’m trying to draw here? I have no doubt that it is deeply painful to have your parents refuse to accept the partner you have chosen and have given your love to. I fully accept MikeInWeHo’s assertion that gay kids will experience rejection and frustration if parents refuse to treat their partner as just another spouse. All this is indisputable, and my heart goes out to all those who have experienced it.

     But I am also familiar with situations involving parents who have literally turned their children out of their homes. I’m talking about a silent treatment, “never darken our door again,” “you are no longer my son,” “you are dead to me now,” hang up the phone when hearing the kid’s voice on the other end of the line kind of rejection. It is sickening. And Oaks rejects it decisively. See also his address from October 2005: “parents cannot divorce a child whose life choices are offensive to them.” Mayan Elephant, I thought, interpreted the interview to advocate this sort of explicit, across-the-board rejection (OK, so he didn’t use the word “shun”). For example, in (#69) he implies that Oaks and Wickman suggested that parents not allow their gay kids to visit, or that they refuse to be seen in public with their gay kids. In (#73) he implies that parents were told not to join their children at church, or visit them in their homes. And in (#92) he claims that the interview instructs that “parents should not invite homosexual children home without stipulation and … that parents should avoid public situations with gay children.” Again, maybe the distinction between the kids and their partners is splitting hairs, but one man’s hair-splitting is another man’s close reading.

     If I understand John G-W correctly, his family’s acceptance of his partner was a gradual process. I think this is exactly the reason why Oaks stipulates that it is “a decision that needs to be made individually by the [parent], calling upon the Lord for inspiration” in balancing acceptance of the partner without compromising certain moral boundaries. Contra Nick (#136), Mayan Elephant (#143) and Lunar Quaker (#145), Oaks never says that parents “should” reject the partner or refuse to hang out with them. The word “should” (as long as we’re doing word counts) does not appear in the operative portion of the interview. At best (worst?) Oaks “leaves open the option” that parents reject the partner, as MikeInWeHo aptly observes. In fact, I think I’ll cut and paste the operative paragraph into a comment following this one, so that we can focus better on what was actually said, rather than how we perceived it.

     Nick correctly called me on a sloppy reading conflating “sleeping together” with “stay[ing] overnight.” I honestly had not thought that any parent would rationally approve of having the gay child and partner together at the Thanksgiving table, but object to them sleeping in the house in different rooms. In my mind, the issue was one of maintaining the moral boundaries one has taught (and may be trying to continue to teach) to one’s children. There’s a certain dissonance that would come if I were trying to instill the law of chastity to my children, but then turned around and consented to their older brother sharing the guest room with his partner (or girlfriend). But I admit that Nick’s reading of the text is equally plausible.

     I’ve got to admit that, although I like Nick and the way he usually argues his points, the bulk of his response came across as patronizing and thoughtless. Are religious believers the *only* ones who suffer from cognitive dissonace reduction? Is it at all possible, Nick, that you too have “wrested the text of the interview in such a way as to force it to conform to your expectations of behavior among church leaders”? I don’t need you to pat me on the head and assure me that my “psychological survival tool” is a common delusion, and that it’s only to be expected that I find my pathetic interpretation rational. C’mon man, let’s look at the text, that’s all I’m saying! Sure, I was sloppy with the whole “sleeping together” bit. But you were equally so in claiming that parents were told they “should” not “acknowledge” their children in social settings. Those words in quotes are yours, not Elder Oaks’. Maybe I am subconsciously “twisting” the text to give it the most positive spin. But Mayan Elephant, in my opinion, was likewise twisting the text to give it the worst possible spin. And you seem to have adopted the same tack in claiming that “general authorities have singled out a particular ‘sin,’ which is so horrific that parents should ostracize their own children over it.” I don’t think the text supports your interpretation, and I’ve cited the interview in support. If you disagree, do the same. In raising my own kids (and yes, I’m married and have 3 little ones), I’ll stick with Elder Wickman’s advice to “at all times mak[e] sure they know that over all things you’ll love them.”

     Maybe you’re right, and in 50 years this interview will appear embarrassing and dated. Maybe we’ll get that same sick feeling in our stomachs that we now get when somebody quotes those ugly racial bits of the Journal of Discourses. Time will tell. But your prediction will only come to pass if the premise of the interview–that homosexual relations are sinful–is overturned. Reread the interview and explain how you think Elders Oaks and Wickman could have been more compassionate without rejecting that premise. Clearly, Nick and many others reject the premise, and therefore find the interview disturbing (although Nick’s claim that “the vast majority of readers would find it problematic” seems a bit of a stretch). I accept the premise, with some reservations, and was struck by how frequently in the interview parents were admonished to *not* reject their children, to love them deeply and to “reach out in love and understanding” to all our gay brothers and sisters. I think many others who accept the premise (or at least those who accept that the premise isn’t going to vanish anytime soon) read the interview this way, and were surprised by the negative spin it got from some quarters.

151. Here’s the operative language:

     PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?

     ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.

     I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”

     There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all.

     ELDER WICKMAN: It’s hard to imagine a more difficult circumstance for a parent to face than that one. It is a case by case determination. The only thing that I would add to what Elder Oaks has just said is that I think it’s important as a parent to avoid a potential trap arising out of one’s anguish over this situation.

     I refer to a shift from defending the Lord’s way to defending the errant child’s lifestyle, both with him and with others. It really is true the Lord’s way is to love the sinner while condemning the sin. That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate. An even bigger error is now to become defensive of the child, because that neither helps the child nor helps the parent. That course of action, which experience teaches, is almost certainly to lead both away from the Lord’s way.

152. I just realized that I have assumed Mayan Elephant is male. I have no basis for this assumption–apologies if I was mistaken.

153. Dan,
     The Q&A is already embarrassing and dated by about a generation. I was one of the straights that couldn’t read the whole thing. 50 years from now it will make people cringe. I can handle some of Oak’s more innocuous retro stuff like concerns about English speaking saints praying in their own language (modern English). But this is hurtful to gays/lesbians and harmful to the church. Moreover, if his real goal is legal enshrinement of anti-polygamy, which I believe it is, he set back his own objective.

154. Dan,

     I am a dude. No worries mate. I do try and type somewhat androgenously, i didnt realize i was that good. thanks for the compliment. I am married with three kids as well, damn good lookin little monkeys if i dont mind sayin so myself. we probably share a lot of those other acronyms too… you know, the mormon acronym list….. byu, mit, bic, rm, yadayadayada, i cant even keep track of it all.

155. 149 SteveEM. I don’t think you read very well. Some may be set up for apostasy but a whole lot of others are already in it. Some people are living in a fantasy that says that someday we’ll all get it and decide that homosexual marriage is okay. These people don’t read and don’t listen. The brethren have never changed a doctrine of the church. They have changed many practices but name one doctrine that they have changed.

     Blacks and the priesthood doesn’t qualify. It was always assumed that it could and would change. In fact it was acknowledged that there was no clear doctrine on the matter years and years before it ever changed. Don’t say plural marriage. The doctrine has not changed. The practice has been eliminated in mortality. Women get a sealing cancellation and men get a sealing clearance. From the very beginning of plural marriage this was seen as a doctrine that is permitted or prohibited based on the times and necessity.

     That marriage is between a man and a woman is declared as doctrine in the Proclamation on the Family. I acknowledge that the prophet has power to receive new revelation for the church. That is paramount in my belief about the restoration. But people who sit around challenging current teachings, doctrines and practices that have been clearly articulated by the brethren are already in apostasy Steve EM. They are not just susceptible they are in full blown APOSTASY.

156. For what’s it’s worth, Dan, I’m not sure I understand why folks were jumping all over you… I understood perfectly what you said, and I agree with you…

     I’ve seen how this stuff operates in reality with my own parents. My parents love me deeply. I know my parents pretty well, and I think my parents would read Oaks’ and Wickman’s statement, and find in it total justification for the very affirming and supportive ways they have interacted with both me and my partner.

     Both I and my parents have seen cases where the parents abjectly reject the child. My mom told me about a sister who came to her expressing extreme disgust about her gay son, implying that he should be completely cut off from the family. Mom strongly urged her not to do this. I suspect if this were to happen again, my mom could actually use some ammunition to back up her admonition not to reject a child, to continue to invite them into the home and nurture a loving relationship with them.

     Personally, I find a great deal of comfort in Oaks’ and Wickman’s emphasis on being guided by the Spirit. That is the Mormonism I know and love.

157. Mayan Elephant: I not only thought you were a girl, I thought you were a lesbian! Yikes!

158. Addrax:

     I liked what you said up in 138. I’d like to point out that being truly Christ-like would mean accepting people regardless of whether they are sinners or not. In other words, whether one practices “moral homosexuality” or not shouldn’t matter.

     I’ll take this a step further… The frequent admonitions in scripture never to judge, but to leave judgment entirely to God suggests an even more radical concept: it is not even our place to be concerned about whether a person is a sinner or not. It is not our place to look at anyone else’s behavior and make any sort of determination about how that person is situated with God. The reason? Because the darn beam in our own eyes makes it pretty much impossible to see clearly.

     In the church, this means that the only person who has a right to be concerned about our sin is those who stand in the proper priesthood authority relationship with us. That would be our bishop. Everyone else in the ward has one obligation and one only: Love, love, love, and, did I mention it? Love.

159. here comes a diversion, i am not going to say its a threadjack at all, as it pertains EXACTLY to the title and original topic but takes into consideratioin some new information that was not available until this thread was already over 100 comments long.

     i will contact clark directly via email with a copy of this and allow him to respond/reprimand privately if that is appropriate. in the meantime i will throw it out there and accept that it may get deleted. i do however think that these points are very valid, given recently available information.

     knowing now that the oaks was speaking without any inspiration or education on the topic, and that he is prepared to admit to that, leads one to question logic and motives.

     why, for example, did they not get a qualified psychologist, sociologist, social worker or marriage and family therapist to respond?

     why did they not get secular respondants or advice?

     what was critical about having the public relations response offered by lawyers?

     if this is neither doctrine nor inspiration, and lacks any qualified basis, why is it on the lds.org website?

     would the church be willing to reprint the response in the ensign? read it in conference?

     would the church be willing to add a disclaimer to bishops, stake presidents and mission presidents that the comments are neither inspired or qualified and should not be used as a basis for counseling?

     does oaks owe and apology or explanation to those parents that have already read this, or who will read this, and feel some remorse for having defended their children, putting themselves in a “trap” that only the lord can repair? would any or all of those parents benefit directly or indirectly from a response that was divinely inspired or institutionally inspired? (whatever insititutionally inspired means)

160. Mayan Elephant: Can you clarify exactly what you are talking about and where this quote comes from?

161. John G-W et al:

     please accept my most sincere apologies for making anyone think i am anything but an evil evil evil rotten rotten criminal-minded satan-inspired foul-mouthed man with an insatiable appetite for mating. 😛 🙂 😉

     have i mentioned anywhere on here that my kids are better looking and cooler than all y’alls kids? its true. i have to be able to brag on that since i most certainly cant beat up the dads of their friends and my dad probably wouldnt beat up any of y’alls dads.

     sorry folks. i will reread this and see where i went astray. i had no intention whatsoever of misleading anyone. though, i think it is quite interesting that some folks assumed, by my comments, that they were not coming from a guy. i have a really cool and beautiful and wise wife. while i would never speak for her, because it would be like mike tyson speaking for Mensa, i try to communicate in a way that at least wouldnt embarrass myself at home. so, i do word-dance at little bit.

162. Sure,

     Sorry john.

     from the story linked above:

     Instead, they were quietly posted two weeks ago in the “newsroom” of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Web site, http://www.lds.org, in the form of an interview between an anonymous public affairs official and Elder Dallin H. Oaks, of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles and Elder Lance Wickman, a member of the First Quorum of Seventy. The questions are wide-ranging and thorough; the answers complex and personal. The lengthy interview is, well, conversational. The two Mormon leaders – both lawyers – clearly represent the church’s perspective but make no claims to divine or institutional authority.

     this is the quote. the questions i posted were mine.

163. oops, i misquoted and used ‘inspired’ instead of ‘authority’ in my post. feel free to host a misquoting court o’ love.

164. OK, I get it, thanks! I’ve read the whole thread, I just thought you were referring to some other “new information” in 159.

165. I guess I wouldn’t go overboard about the significance of that quote. The SLT has a history of enjoying stirring the LDS controversy pot. Personally, I think the focus should be on the interview itself, which makes no pretense to be anything but what it is: an interview with two ranking authorities in the LDS Church on a controversial topic. How authoritative this interview is or will become, only time will tell.

166. fair enough john.

     seems like there is a lot of cake being eaten and had.

167. Re 98

     Folks are asking us to give up the one thing that everyone in the church cherishes the most: love and family.

     Um, I think you are confusing ideal with reality. I’m a convert, and before baptism I had no intention of marrying. It was a difficult challenge to give up so much for marriage. I would have been very relieved if I couldn’t marry or couldn’t have children. And I know other members who feel that way.

     There are all kinds of sacrifices that we make, with different challenges for different people.

     We are told that in order to “come unto Christ” we must be prepared to live the remainder of our lives in heart-break and loneliness.

     And so do people who fall in love with someone who is already married, someone who they meet after marrying someone else, etc. I guess both Sense and Sensibility and Jane Eyre are chick books, but that is the key theme. Lots of people do that, for various permutations of situations.

     When we point this out, many on this thread–instead of acknowledging the enormity of what they are asking us to sacrifice–launch into denigrating lectures about how the love we feel and the relationships we form aren’t “real” love or “real” relationships, but more like alcoholism or stealing.

     Why is that denigrating? IT IS REALLY REALLY HARD FOR ALCOHOLICS. If you tell me that it is hard for you as for an alcoholic, then I am truly impressed at the “enormity.”

     Why do you keep insisting that it is harder for you to live the Gospel than for anyone else?

168. naismith,

     because it is the moral equivalent of telling a left handed person they must BE right handed in order to live the gospel. and as has been suggested, there is a moral equivalence to telling a black person, in 1977, that they must BE white in order to live the gospel.

     one really can cease to be an alcoholic, though that too is debatable, but it really isnt possible to cease being a homosexual any more than it is possible to cease being left-handed.

     this doesnt at all take acts and morality into consideration.

169. Re: 168

     The color of one’s skin cannot be seen as a biological defect.

     Same sex attraction can easiliy be seen as a biological defect.

170. addrax,

     that was despicable.

     I suspect depriving anyone and everyone with a “biological defect” of equal rights is the higher moral ground, in your eyes.

     That god of yours, in his omnipotence, appears to be have failed a lot of people.

     is being a woman also a biological defect? you do realize that not being caucasion is considered by some jerks to also be a biological defect. being a slow runner, is that a bioligical defect? if so, you better hope you aren’t defective when you are running from a raging mayan elephant that wants to do circus acts on your defective corps physique.

171. addy baby,

     the good news is that you acknowlwdge that homosexuality is biological. nature not nurture. that is progress.

     for some folks, equal rights are merited to all whether they have been born in or with a condition or nurtured to a condition.

     for example. if a girl is born deaf she is afforded rights and accomodations are made to provide her a happy joyful life. in the lds church there is hope that she will be resurected and have all the senses of her god. imagine a world where a healthy child, who loses her hearing due to neglect, accident or illness, and is equally handicapped, is told, “too bad, so sad. your defect is not biological, its a product of your choices or circumstance. so poor jane, survive your misery, if you can make it through this life you can be a servant in a nice heaven. but for now, accept misery”

     again, well done addy, you are on the right track. at least oaks was careful enough to not make the claim you made, even if he does agree.

172. Re 168

     because it is the moral equivalent of telling a left handed person they must BE right handed in order to live the gospel.

     ROTFL! As it happens, my left-handed husband served a mission in a country where the left hand is used for bodily functions and the right for eating. He had to eat right-handed whenever locals were around.

     and as has been suggested, there is a moral equivalence to telling a black person, in 1977, that they must BE white in order to live the gospel.

     I’ve read Elder Martins’ biography, met one of his sons, and spent time in Brasil, which was a big catalyst for President Kimball’s prayers regarding that issue, because of the impending dedication of the Sao Paulo temple and their polyglot population. I can’t find anywhere and have never suggested that black people were told they must BE white.

     Rather, they were told to trust the Lord.

     one really can cease to be an alcoholic

     They can? Please share the secret. You could make millions. I’ve been sober for 30 years, but that is not the same thing as not being an alcoholic. I still have “inclinations,” and have to be very careful about use of prescription drugs. Recently I chose to have a colonoscopy without sedation because dealing with that pain was easier than dealing with the weeks of craving that usually follow such exposures.

     but it really isnt possible to cease being a homosexual any more than it is possible to cease being left-handed.

     First, I am not sure that science has established that one way or another. And even if it did, what is your point?

173. mayan elephant,

     I suspect depriving anyone and everyone with a “biological defect” of equal rights is the higher moral ground, in your eyes.

     no

     That god of yours, in his omnipotence, appears to be have failed a lot of people.

     In my mind it would imply God’s atonement will be applied more liberally in these cases.

     is being a woman also a biological defect?

     no

     you do realize that not being caucasion is considered by some jerks to also be a biological defect. being a slow runner, is that a bioligical defect?

     Sadly, it is true some people still believe this.

     if so, you better hope you aren’t defective when you are running from a raging mayan elephant that wants to do circus acts on your defective corps physique.

     Sorry to incite so much violence.

     In my mind, sexual preference being genetic does not equate to being on the same level as being black or white, male or female. It can be seen as something went wrong. Can you provide some evidence on how sexual preference is like being male or female or black or white as opposed to something went wrong?

     I suspect nothing short of a revelation on the nature of gender and marriage will change the current stance of the church, assuming it is different than the current stance.

174. There’s no evidence that “something went wrong.” I would say the VAST majority of secular biologists, psychologists, physicians, etc, view homosexuality as a normal biological variation similar to left-handedness. “Variation” is the key word. You cannot believe in any form of evolution and see it any other way. Homosexuality has to serve some evolutionary purpose or it would not have persisted in virtually all higher species (documented in 300+ vertebrates so far).

175. Re 174:

     Can we say the same thing about diabetes, trisomy 18, schizophrenia, hemophilia, cancer, etc.?

     Same-sex attraction can reasonably be viewed as “something went wrong”.

176. addrax #138,
     Do you really want to quote from Leviticus 18 and 20 to support a modern position? If so, logic demands that you ALSO preach the following, from the surrounding passages:

     If a man marries a woman and her daughter, all three of them must be burned to death. (18:17, 20:14) Joseph Smith did this, by the way.

     If a man marries two sisters, it is wicked. (18:18) Joseph Smith did this, too.

     If a man “lies with” his wife while she is menstruating, he must be excommunicated. (18:19, 20:18)

     Now, I’m not seriously casting aspersions on anyone, least of all Joseph Smith, but if you want to quote Leviticus in support of *current* teachings, you’d better adopt the surrounding verses too! 🙂

177. Nick,

     My point was I suspect the prophet’s call to reach out will only be answered by those who are truely Christlike and those that beleive in moral homosexual actions.

     for the following reasons:

     I am going to expose my ignorance here. I have never met a person who claimed to be gay. I suspect, the majority of the Latter-day saints are like me.

     Book of Mormon teaches the seriousness of sexual sin.

     The bible has Lev 18 and Lev 20 which, when read be the majority of the Latter-day Saints, classes homosexual actions somewhere between adultery and bestiality. I am not saying I whether this is right or wrong, just that most interpret it this way.

     I did not bring out Lev 18 and Lev 20 to support the modern position as you seem to claim. I thought I was fairly clear.

178. Dan, I appreciate your thoughtful response, whether I agree with you or not. I would like to point out three things:

     (1) You are correct that Elder Oaks did not say parents “should” do anything at all. However, I believe it is fair to consider modern LDS culture, and how that culture generally responds to the words of a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. I believe it is fair to say that a substantial number of LDS will read Elder Oaks’ comments as at least implying “the Lord’s way” of dealing with the situation. The modern emphasis on “follow the Brethren” quite naturally leads many LDS, who are acting with the best of intentions, to do just that, whether “the Brethren” are giving clear “shoulds,” or just “I can imagine that so-and-so would be done in this case.” Do you disagree?

     (2) I understand the distinction you draw between rejecting a gay son’s partner, vs. rejecting the gay son, himself. You admit that not having your wife’s photo remaining on your parents’ “family picture wall” would anger you, but then you seem to suggest that it would be okay in the end, as long as they didn’t remove yours as well. Would your wife respond well to this sort of attitude? I have always been taught, and I believe Mormonism supports, that the “spousal” relationship is the most important earthly relationship we enter into—more important than our relationship with our family of origin, or even than our relationship with our own children. Your spouse/partner/whatever comes FIRST. If my parents were to reject my partner, I believe I would OWE it to my partner to consider that a rejection of me as well. If my partner was “uninvited” to a family function, I would feel that my only proper response would be not to attend, myself. Surely you can understand and sympathize with that.

     (3) If my parents preferred that my partner and I sleep in different rooms while spending the night in their home, I would actually be understanding and respectful of this. Oaks’ comments don’t seem to consider this option, nor did yours, so far as I could tell.

179. georgeD #155,
     I’m sorry, but it is entirely incorrect to suggest that “the Brethren have never changed the doctrine of the church.” I realize that you called for a specific example, and I would cite the 1890s re-definition of “Jehovah,” along with related points on the Godhead. Your best reference on this topic (at least so far as the many, sweeping 1890s changes are concerned) would be *Mormonism in Transition* by Thomas Alexander, a very careful BYU history professor.

180. You know,

     While I don’t really wish to question whether the commenters on this thread are “legit” or not …

     It also has to be realized that there is a high likelihood that “homosexual behavior” for some is more of a fad than an identity thing.

     In some circles, it is actually “fashionable” to be gay. And I can easily see some teenagers (or adolescent-minded) “acting gay” simply to get attention or win cachet in certain societal quarters (the pathetic demonstrations of the “girls gone wild crowd” comes to mind). No doubt they would wish to lay claim to all the moral high ground claimed by gay advocates on this thread, when, in reality, they don’t deserve one iota of it.

     And it should also be noted that a significant portion of the gay population are what one San Franciscan of my acquaintance referred to as “switch-hitters.” I.e. someone who is equally willing to have sex with a guy or a girl and is sexually attracted by either proposition.

     Again, my point is not to cast doubt on the creds of genuine homosexuals, but to point out that the gay movement is hardly as homogenous or ideologically pure as this discussion has so far implied.

     Throw in emotional instability into the mix, and you have a situation that’s a bit hard to sort out. Some of these people probably are “emotionally defective” human beings, whether by their own fault or society’s.

     Spiritual discernment on a case-by-case basis is probably warranted.

181. Mayan Elephant: I not only thought you were a girl, I thought you were a lesbian! Yikes!

     I can’t imagine a woman, lesbian or not, describing themselves as an elephant.

     There’s no evidence that “something went wrong.” I would say the VAST majority of secular biologists, psychologists, physicians, etc, view homosexuality as a normal biological variation similar to left-handedness. “Variation” is the key word. You cannot believe in any form of evolution and see it any other way. Homosexuality has to serve some evolutionary purpose or it would not have persisted in virtually all higher species (documented in 300+ vertebrates so far).

     Mike, I’m making assumptions here, but I’m willing to bet that the same people that believe “something went wrong” are people that probably don’t believe in some form of evolution.

182. Because evolution always and only provides advantageous changes? That makes no sense.

183. Ivan,
     See my #23.

184. Because evolution always and only provides advantageous changes? That makes no sense.

     It has nothing to do with that, but everything to do with basing their views on what church leaders may have mentioned in the past, even if not doctrine, rather than science. Like I said, I’m making assumptions. But the people I know in my life that think homosexuality is a problem similar to mental retardation(something went wrong) are also the people that don’t believe in evolution and also believe the Earth is 6,000-years-old.

185. 179 Did the change the doctrine that had been clearly taught as a doctrine or did the establish what the church’s doctrine really is? In the early years of the church there were many things that needed to be clarified. Members used to be rebaptized as a renewal of the baptismal covenant. I consider the termination thereof to be a change in practice. I do believe that the doictrine of a adoption was clarified over time and that there were many such doctrines that became clarified. Have you any case of a doctrine that became clearly established being subsequently changed? I doubt it.

     Is anything clearer than the Proclamation on the Family? If we don’t think it is clear do we get any brownie points for being disobedient until it gets clarified to be the way we want it?

     Some homosexuals are living a huge fantasy in some vain expectation that God will get enlightened by modern “science”.

186. georgeD, I have already given you an excellent resource, readily available, from a very trusted, faithful LDS historian, which discusses a variety of changes in both “practice” AND doctrine, centered on the period of the late 19th century. If you choose to ignore that resource and conclude that you “doubt it,” feel free. I will not post lengthy extracts from the book here.

     The Proclamation on the Family, last I checked, has never been canonized. It has never been accepted by a sustaining vote of the membership of the church—a necessary step in any document being added to the canon OR being binding on the LDS. Both Official Declarations were canonized by means of a sustaining vote of the membership of the church. The vision of Joseph F. Smith concerning the redemption of the dead was on record for decades, but never canonized (and thus accepted as binding doctrine) until approximately 1980, when it was subjected to a sustaining vote of the membership of the church. The Proclamation on the Family has never been presented for a sustaining vote by the membership of the church. It was read over the pulpit at a general Relief Society meeting, without being subjected to any opportunity for a sustaining vote. As such, it would be entirely contrary to LDS doctrine and practice, for LDS to argue that The Proclamation on the Family is binding upon the LDS. The LDS are, in fact, quite free to agree or disagree with that document. It’s ONLY claim to authority are its authorship, and the fact that it has been heavily emphasized by church leadership. Neither of those make it “scripture.” Neither of those make it a revelation binding upon the LDS.

     Now, you will naturally point out that anything given under inspiration is “scripture, and the word of the Lord.” This formula is generally applied, for example, to the general conference talks published in the Ensign. I believe you would agree, however, that this is a lesser status than actual canonization.

     I would even suggest to you, that the current leadership of the church has had approximately a decade in which to present the Proclamation on the Family for a sustaining vote of the membership of the church. Since they have not done so, it would seem to me that they don’t want, or intend, the Proclamation to have the status of scripture. Applying the logic of a true believer, this would suggest that deity himself does not want the Proclamation on the Family to have the status of scripture—unless you wish to conclude that the leadership is being disobedient to deity by not presenting the document for sustaining vote.

187. Saying LDS doctrine has never changed is a topic for another thread. It’s probably already been done somewhere.

     And yes, I agree with jjohnsen’s last sentence in #181. When you think about it, this entire argument hinges on deeper disagreements about overall worldview. Might be interesting to explore those in a separate thread: What are the underlying differences in perspective between the two sides of the SSM debate? Sure you would all agree that georgeD and I see the world very differently. What are those differences? I have some ideas, but don’t want to be snarky today….

188. 187

     1. Your worldview–You, like every other practicing homosexual I have ever met, think that you are the smartest thing in the room and that all your urges should be satisfied.

     2. My worldview — God is a lot smarter than me and, though I may want to have more hedonistic pleasure, he asks me to bend my will to his and give up what I want for what he knows will give me eternal life.

     Through the course of this thread homosexuals continue to demonstrate that our stereotypes of homosexual whining, self-absorption and self-justification are well founded in fact and our disgust with these behaviors is well founded.

189. I agree, I think it would be a fascinating thread.

190. First, let me note that there are over 100(!!) posts since I last checked the comments here! I just can’t keep up with that so these will be some thoughts after skimming most of the posts. My apologies if I miss something someone wants addressed. I was just going to not bother answering since I was so far behind, but got an emailing asking me to.

     MikeInWeHo (#91). While I think some don’t exactly put things diplomatically I think it undeniable that many homosexuals will see the rhetoric within the Church as hostile. I don’t mean that in the sense some raise it. i.e. as intentionally mean. Just that if the Church’s theology entails no legitimate sexual expression by a person strong on the homosexual side of the sexual curve then probably there isn’t much Mormons can do beyond rejecting our theology. Believing Mormons just aren’t going to do that. We can be as polite and loving as we can be. (And I’d agree we need to do that better) But at a certain point we can’t provide what some demand.

     I think we all recognize that there is a point in which some people simply won’t be able to find common ground.

     Steve (#95) You must realize LDS leaders rarely comment on bigotry in the church, so we shouldn’t expect them to address bigotry against a celibate gay couple in the temple

     I don’t think this true unless you mean at the local level. Pres. Hinkley in particular has made very forceful comments on this.

     John (#97) If gay folks did start to attend in any significant numbers (not very likely right now), we would be crazy to expect that at least some members might not react in a rude, hostile, or demeaning way. So if the question is “how do we welcome?” I’d be interested to hear how we handle the potential hostility in a Christ-like way.

     What a fantastic question. There’s a lot about many wards I’ve been in that I don’t like, typically due to a small minority of people. I think we just have to recognize that we’re all sinners and perhaps these people’s impoliteness or even hostility is their burden to bear. I earnestly think we have to turn the other cheek. However I’d be the first to admit that I don’t always do it. When I was single I’d typically just start going to a different ward. Now, it’s a tad harder. I don’t have any good answers. I think it an issue many, many people struggle with.

     John (#97) But all you heterosexuals out there who are happily married, I’d just like you to deeply contemplate what it might mean to you if the church required you to divorce and never marry again in order to keep your membership in the church.

     In terms of the personal experience (rather than the theology) I think this the best analogy. And I’d hope that those most critical of homosexuals and perhaps individual failings to live the law of chastity keep the above in mind. I know many, many heterosexual single members who have struggled with doubts and fears simply because they couldn’t find someone to marry. I’ve seen many temporarily fall at times because eventually the burden was too heavy to bear.

     It’s very easy to look at someone’s burden without charity. We all have our burdens but I think many who perhaps are having an easier time of it at a moment look at others and judge them as if their burdens were also as easy. The fact is God demands a lot of some people. My personal feeling is that they will likewise be rewarded greater than the rest of us.

     Mayan Elephant (#124) are the blessings worth this mortal life, on the extreme? are they worth a mortal life of self-loathing? are they worth the loss of a common community for one that mainains a proper order as has been proposed? maybe so. depends on ones faith eh?

     That’s a rather personal decision. I can but once again think of my ancestors and what they sacrificed, including sometimes life or limbs, for the gospel. I’d suggest that as hard as the sacrifice some homosexuals face it is hardly the hardest that Saints have faced in the past.

     Now can I judge? Hardly. I have my own struggles in which I don’t always succeed. Are they akin to what others face? No. And I’d be the first to admit that a homosexual person faces a far more difficult choice than I’ve ever faced. I’d be a hypocrite to judge them. However, the doctrine is clear and I think the spirit testifies accordingly. Why does God not put us all in equivalent situations? I don’t know. Why was I born in a middle class safe Canadian family instead of say a dysfunctional or abusive family? Why now rather than in Yugoslavia during the racial cleansing? Why now instead of the horrible conditions most humans on the earth have faced in the past? I don’t know. I can but struggle with my own sins and growth.

     However while I can’t judge individuals for the struggles they face, not knowing how God will judge, I can still judge what the standards are. God is, we are told, merciful. Yet I also think it clear he demands that we follow in his footsteps. Often he makes that following hard. We can but look to Jesus in his own life and see that often much is required.

     Melanie (#127) One quibble I have with your reasoning is it’s simply a matter of politics preventing the good people in David’s first example from becoming members of the Lord’s Church. Why would the Lord allow politics (i.e., the vagaries of the divorce laws in a particular country) to deny the blessings of belonging to His Church to His children?

     Pretty much the same as above. I think politics of humans has consistently affected how God can react to people. Just look at the history of Israel. We can but have faith that there is some purpose to why and when God intervenes in history.

     Might I add that the ultimate example of this principle of politics is the political war against the Saints in 19th Century Utah. God clearly does make decisions based upon what is politically possible. One could multiply examples from the scriptures.

     D. Fletcher (#133) Men, on the other hand, are automatically suspicious, for being (probably) gay or at least sexually deviant, perhaps pedophiles, and at worst, predatory animals. I’m exaggerating, but my experience is very close to this.

     This has been my experience as well and I think the body of the Church could definitely improve here. I married late (at 35) and there definitely were many insinuations that I was gay. I found it extremely hurtful. Older single men definitely are put out into a limbo where there is often no place for them. (IMO) (And when “older” is 30 something weird is definitely going on) I’d suggest that while heterosexual single men clearly don’t have to face the same degree of experiences that homosexual men do, they too are often put into situations with very, very difficult choices.

     D. Fletcher (#135) Many in here are presumably married heterosexuals. Ask yourselves, how would it FEEL to you if for whatever reason your family declared your marriage invalid and behaved in these ways toward your spouse? What would be your response?

     Obviously to a degree it would feel awful. However I think you are mistaken if you don’t think this (relatively) common. I’ve definitely been fortunate but tensions with family and in-laws is rather ubiquitous in many marriages.

     Nick (#136) Your lengthy post is a remarkable example of what experts call “cognitive dissonance reductionism.”

     Not to go down a tangent but to me cries of “cognitive dissonance” are usually BS. It ends up being someone’s own dissonance that they can’t reconcile how an other can rationally come to a different conclusion. i.e. rather than engage in rational debate it’s just a polite way of saying to the other that they are irrational or crazy.

     No offense Nick as I’ve enjoyed reading your posts but I truly expected better.

     Lunar Quaker (#145) By following Oaks’ line of thinking and refusing to acknowledge their kids’ partners, parents are showing that they are ashamed of their kids’ homosexuality, and that they are trying to deceive the public (and their other children) into thinking that their gay kids are really heterosexual, when clearly they aren’t.

     I don’t think that is so. One can express disapproval and not embrace a situation without having ones intent to lie about it. I think you’re setting up a false dichotomy.

     I think one can love ones children without accepting certain choices of the children. I could give some parallels, but since the key to the analogy is prohibited activities it’s probably kind of pointless. All I can say is can’t you think of prohibited activities a parent wouldn’t be willing to be involved with in public? Now you may feel it entirely unfair to class homosexuality into that category of prohibition. But that, ultimately, is the real issue and not this issue of public behavior.

     (More later)

191. Just a note that the out of order bug may be back. I just posted a few thoughts and it showed up as #184 rather than #190. So my apologies if numbers are off. Here are a few other responses. (In reverse order this time so I don’t repeat what someone else has said)

     Nick (#189) I think it undeniable that doctrine changes. Clearly we are a church that believes in continuing revelation and that we see through a glass darkly. We reject inerrancy. So doctrine can change. I think though that it is unwise to point to doctrines we disagree with and say, “this will change.” Rather we have to do the best we can with what we have and I think it undeniable that everything points to the doctrines expressed in the proclamation in the family.

     Certainly people are free to agree or disagree with anything including scripture. Just look at the debates about Adam, Noah, Jonah, or Job. So while I agree with your point, I simultaneously think that this fact doesn’t neglect the fact that there are degrees of support textually. I’d also say that we can’t infer what God wants just based upon what happens. That sounds a tad too Calvinistic for me. For all I know, for example, God wanted blacks to receive the Priesthood back in 1840.

     Seth (#181) It also has to be realized that there is a high likelihood that “homosexual behavior” for some is more of a fad than an identity thing. In some circles, it is actually “fashionable” to be gay

     I personally think it undeniable that this is true for some. One need only think of women who choose to engage in lesbian activities to turn guys on. But even if there is even a significant number who have more control over their attractions or act for reasons other than attraction that says nothing about those who can’t control in any straightforward way their attraction.

     I think we avoid the central issues Elder Oaks is getting at when we bring in what might better be termed bi-sexuality.

     MikeInWeHo (#174) Homosexuality has to serve some evolutionary purpose or it would not have persisted in virtually all higher species (documented in 300+ vertebrates so far).
     

     That’s simply not true. One can’t look to any manifestation and assume that it has an evolutionary purpose. It may simply be the manifestation of individuals genes each that have evolutionary benefits. There simply isn’t a one to one relation between manifestations of any phenomena and particular genes. Most genes are involved in a lot of things. So they may simultaneously give both benefits and costs. Further some costs may only occur when separate genes that primarily have benefits combine in a particular individual.

     I’m not saying anything vis a vis homosexuality here. Clearly it is natural given its prevalence in the animal kingdom. Just that your claim about evolution is wrong.

     I’d add that “something goes wrong” as typically used in public discourse assumes moral aims that simply aren’t part of biology. Thus it is entirely appropriate that biologists and perhaps psychologists not comment on it. What makes something “wrong” is entirely a social decision by the society individuals find themselves in. And that will vary from society to society. For instance is Asperger’s Syndrome something “wrong?” What about deafness? All involve judgments that many disagree vehemently with. (Indeed the issue of deafness has been a big debate of late and debate over autism has started to with people with those conditions demanding that society not judge it as something wrong given how essential they see these conditions to who they are)

     Mayan Elephant (#168) Left handedness is a bad analogy. For one it is ambiguous over whether one instinctively uses ones left hand dominantly or whether there was a genetic inclination to a particular instinct. This isn’t a small thing. Early in the 19th century left handedness was considered a flaw and so children were forced (often with violence given corporal punishment of the era) to use their right. My grandmother was born left handed but was forced to use her right for everything. By the time she was an adult she was instinctively right handed and she can no longer use her left hand in a “dominate” way. Now is she left handed or right handed? Depends upon what one means.

     Mayan Elephant (#159) I don’t know whether Elder Oaks was speaking with the spirit or not. (Which is the ultimate decision) Each individual will have to decide that for themselves which is the typical Mormon way. I will say that from what I’ve read it seems like wise council to me. But almost certainly not without flaws. But then I don’t even think explicit revelations come inerrant. God always deals with us as humans.

     As to why they didn’t get a therapist or psychologist. I think it was because people wanted to hear what a general authority thought. Clearly Elder Oaks speaking will (and ought) carry more theological weight.

     As to what Elder Oaks did as he arrived at his conclusions. I don’t know but I’m reasonably confident he did consult such people and probably did a lot of reading and prayer.

     Will Elder Oaks comments end up in the Ensign? I don’t know. Will they take on more significance if they do? Probably as a practical matter although I don’t think they would as a theoretical matter.

     Does Elder Oaks owe parents an apology? Not from anything I can see. I recognize some disagree with Elder Oaks. I personally don’t see anything problematic and I see a lot of wise counsel. I tend to see those raising the biggest problems as perhaps reading too much into Elder Oaks’ comments.

192. The Proclamation on the Family was used by Dr. Richard Wilkins of BYU in addressing a UN Conference on the Family in Istanbul over six years ago. He was spat upon by radical feminists and homosexuals who represented the United States and European Union countries, because it was anathema to their agendas.

     The Islamic countries (and a few Latin American countries) came and congratulated him saying, they didn’t know the United States had people who agreed so completely with their views on families.

     I fully expect the Proclamation will become canonized in the near future.

     p.s. The United States is presently represented in U.N. Family conferences by people more in agreement with the LDS Church’s teachings.

193. Clark #184,
     I said rarely, not never or never forcefully. The fact is there is much judgmental bigotry in cultural Mormonism, and it is rarely addressed by the GA’s. An example is the assumption that a gay or lesbian couple holding hands or kissing are sexually active when most don’t make the same assumption for straight singles; that’s bigotry. I’ve never heard the subject addressed by a GA, and given their traditions in such matters, I don’t expect to.

194. georgeD, you have said some very hurtful things throughout this thread, especially #188. You may think that you are standing up for truth and righteousness, but I just spent the last three days trying to talk a dear friend out of committing suicide. You see, he is a closeted gay man married to a straight woman, they have two kids and live in a predominantly LDS community. You do the math.

195. I meant to reference post 185, rather than 188. Perhaps the order IS changing.

196. 194 and 195 No apologies. Thanks for adding “hurtful” to the list of homosexual whines.

197. gD, give it a break. Many of us straights have found your comments hateful and hurtful too. I believe you’re having fun with some here, but your comments are harmful.

198. re 197

     Maybe not “hateful and hurtful,” but I am starting find it irritating and tiresome. The comments are starting to become little more than a method of assuring the other side: “I still haven’t changed my mind, no matter what you say.”

     I think we all understand that, and I’m not sure that it needs to be said again.

199. Clark #191,
     To clarify, I did not argue that because doctrine changes, any particular doctrine will change. I was responding to georgeD, who insisted that LDS doctrine has never changed (and used that to support an argument that church doctrine regarding homosexuality will never change. I simply think, given history, that it is short-sighted to predict what will change or never will change.

     Further, I did not take the position that “the way things are” is evidence of the will of deity. I was being just a bit sarcastic, in reference to those who, in a practical sense at least, believe that the general authorities are inerrant. If a person believes that the general authorities always act according to the will of deity in church administration (and yes, there are some in this blog who clearly do), then the lack of canonization for The Proclamation on the Family must logically be taken as the will of deity.

     In any case, the important thing was that the Proclamation on the Family is not the binding doctrine of the church.

200. Personally, I’m quite delighted to see georgeD’s comments in #185. They illustrate quite completely that georgeD’s position on the matter is not simply a matter of current church teachings, but rather is motivated (at least in part) by some rather extreme personal animus (or “well-founded disgust,” as georgeD so eloquently put it).

     Now, if prior behavior is any indication, georgeD will attempt to dismiss my comments based on the fact that I am a gay man, rather than with any actual treatment of content. In anticipation, I would say this: Adultery and murder would seem to “outrank” homosexuality in the LDS view of serious sins. Do you demonstrate such “disgust” and sweeping “justified stereotypes” in regard to those who commit those more serious sins? I thought not.

Comments are closed.