This interview on the Church web site is extraordinary. Church public affairs interviewed Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church, and Elder Lance B. Wickman, a member of the Seventy, at length and asked just about every imaginable question on the issue of same-gender attraction. This interview is extraordinary because of the timing and the repeated statements from the Church making absolutely crystal clear its position on this issue.
Some highlights:
This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic.†In at least one country where homosexual activists have won major concessions, we have even seen a church pastor threatened with prison for preaching from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful. Given these trends, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle. This is more than a social issue — ultimately it may be a test of our most basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach.
The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.
The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.â€
One of the great sophistries of our age, I think, is that merely because one has an inclination to do something, that therefore acting in accordance with that inclination is inevitable. That’s contrary to our very nature as the Lord has revealed to us. We do have the power to control our behavior.
Yes, homosexual feelings are controllable. Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. But out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings, they increase the power of the temptation. If we yield to the temptation, we have committed sinful behavior. That pattern is the same for a person that covets someone else’s property and has a strong temptation to steal. It’s the same for a person that develops a taste for alcohol. It’s the same for a person that is born with a ‘short fuse,’ as we would say of a susceptibility to anger. If they let that susceptibility remain uncontrolled, it becomes a feeling of anger, and a feeling of anger can yield to behavior that is sinful and illegal.
One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?â€
Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.
I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. There are also people who consider the defining fact of their existence that they are from Texas or that they were in the United States Marines. Or they are red-headed, or they are the best basketball player that ever played for such-and-such a high school. People can adopt a characteristic as the defining example of their existence and often those characteristics are physical.
We have the agency to choose which characteristics will define us; those choices are not thrust upon us.
The ultimate defining fact for all of us is that we are children of Heavenly Parents, born on this earth for a purpose, and born with a divine destiny. Whenever any of those other notions, whatever they may be, gets in the way of that ultimate defining fact, then it is destructive and it leads us down the wrong path.
For openers, marriage is neither a matter of politics, nor is it a matter of social policy. Marriage is defined by the Lord Himself. It’s the one institution that is ceremoniously performed by priesthood authority in the temple [and] transcends this world. It is of such profound importance… such a core doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the very purpose of the creation of this earth. One hardly can get past the first page of Genesis without seeing that very clearly. It is not an institution to be tampered with by mankind, and certainly not to be tampered with by those who are doing so simply for their own purposes. There is no such thing in the Lord’s eyes as something called same-gender marriage. Homosexual behavior is and will always remain before the Lord an abominable sin. Calling it something else by virtue of some political definition does not change that reality.
In fact, the Savior did make a declaration about marriage, albeit in a somewhat different context. Jesus said that “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and they twain shall be one flesh. What God has joined together let no man put asunder.â€
We usually think of that expression in the context of two people, a man and a woman, being married and the inappropriateness of someone trying to separate them. I think it may have a broader meaning in a doctrinal sense. Marriage of a man and a woman is clear in Biblical teaching in the Old Testament as well as in the New [Testament] teaching. Anyone who seeks to put that notion asunder is likewise running counter to what Jesus Himself said. It’s important to keep in mind the difference between Jesus’ love and His definition of doctrine, and the definition of doctrine that has come from apostles and prophets of the Lord Jesus Christ, both anciently and in modern times.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Would you extend the same argument against same-gender marriage to civil unions or some kind of benefits short of marriage?
ELDER WICKMAN: One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.â€
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: On the issue of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting same-gender marriage, there are some Latter-day Saints who are opposed to same-gender marriage, but who are not in favor of addressing this through a Constitutional amendment. Why did the Church feel that it had to step in that direction?
ELDER OAKS: Law has at least two roles: one is to define and regulate the limits of acceptable behavior. The other is to teach principles for individuals to make individual choices. The law declares unacceptable some things that are simply not enforceable, and there’s no prosecutor who tries to enforce them. We refer to that as the teaching function of the law. The time has come in our society when I see great wisdom and purpose in a United States Constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is nothing in that proposed amendment that requires a criminal prosecution or that directs the attorneys general to go out and round people up, but it declares a principle and it also creates a defensive barrier against those who would alter that traditional definition of marriage.
There are people who oppose a federal Constitutional amendment because they think that the law of family should be made by the states. I can see a legitimate argument there. I think it’s mistaken, however, because the federal government, through the decisions of life-tenured federal judges, has already taken over that area. This Constitutional amendment is a defensive measure against those who would ignore the will of the states appropriately expressed and require, as a matter of federal law, the recognition of same-gender marriages — or the invalidation of state laws that require that marriage be between a man and a woman. In summary, the First Presidency has come out for an amendment (which may or may not be adopted) in support of the teaching function of the law. Such an amendment would be a very important expression of public policy, which would feed into or should feed into the decisions of judges across the length and breadth of the land.
There is definitely a lot to digest here. Anybody interested in this issue should read this interview carefully.
Steve:
I’m struggling with your comment 382. If John were still a member and he returned to activity under the present circumstances, he might well be sitting in meeting next to a member who cannot pray, speak or take the sacrament as a result of heterosexual transgression. A bishop couldn’t possibly impose these restraints on the heterosexual transgressor without treating the homosexual transgressor similarly. We want to be sinner-friendly so as many people as possible enjoy the spiritual benefits that John enjoys from Church participation. However, I don’t see how the Church can treat straights and gays differently in this regard. The result may be decreased participation from both.
John:
After posting 381, I read your Sunstone piece, which answered my questions. It was eloquent. While as an orthodox Latter-day Saint I can’t agree with you in every respect, I did comply with your request in the final paragraph. I wish you the best and hope others similarly situated will follow your example.
Mike:
I recall a bloggernacle offer to accompany you to meeting from someone in your ward not long ago. You should accept.
bbell: thanks. It is nice to be part of a conversation, rather than have a conversation carried on about us.
Grant:
Thanks for the feedback. There’s actually been some evolution in my views since I wrote the Sunstone article. I wrote that article last January-February (even though it didn’t go into print until May or June!). At the time I wrote that article, I had only been attending church regularly for a few months.
On August 13, I presented a paper at the Sunstone Symposium on two scriptural models of faithfulness that might helpful to gay and lesbian Latter-day Saints. I publicly revised some of the views expressed in the Sunstone article. My contributions to this blog are more consonant with the views expressed in that paper. I may try to get that paper published eventually, but right now I’m working on a history of LDS attitudes toward homosexuality from the 1960s to the present that I’d eventually like to submit to Dialogue or Sunstone.
Grant,
To clarify, I’m saying gay and straight singles should be treated alike in the church and we need to be adult about this and not pry into things that aren’t our business. Two hetero singles holding hands would be fine in church, but John and his lover do it, and the merde hits the fan? Joe and Molly Mormon need to grow up and welcome gay and straight sinners, and stuff like what happened to John and his lover needs to stop.
Nick,
I don’t agree with everything you said, particularly regarding periodically updating temple procedures for the times to convey the information effectively to each new generation. I have to say, as open minded as I’m trying to be on this issue, a homosexual administering some aspects of temple worship sure does bring out the homophobe in me. Good reason for some changes, n’est-ce pas? Everyone should be comfortable in the Temple, so it makes sense the procedures reflect modern sensibilities.
John, is there an online link to your Sunstone article?
Grant, you’re right, Brian G did invite me to visit the Westwood ward. He’s been awol around here lately online. I have every intention of just showing up there some Sunday in the near future. Maybe I’ll blog about the experience later. The delay has been a. I’m chicken, b. my partner and I travel a LOT, and c. I like leisurely Sundays with him and our daughter.
MikeInWeHo:
There is a link to my Sunstone article. If you go to the Sunstone blog and do a search on my name, you should be able to find the blog associated with the article and with a podcast interview I did with Dan Wotherspoon. Somewhere in the thread is a comment from Dan Wotherspoon, with a link to the article itself.
391 Sinner friendly
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the only sinner friendly church anywhere. It has the keys of salvation and exaltation. It holds the keys of the atonement.
390 howller Do I ignore the voice of God to me personally to align with the view of The Apostles,
You can’t possibly be hearing the voice of the Lord and receiving the direction of the Spirit if you are behaving contrary to the united voice of the apostles. You may be participating socially and temporally in the church but you have effectively excommunicated yourself from the church. No unity with the apostles means that you are not a part of the church. You ought to quit listening to your loins.
Gosh, Steve, do you really think every homosexual man is going to find you attractive, and want to illicitly grope you? You must have more confidence than I do.
George,
That is the most inane and anti-LDS doctrinal statement you’ve made yet. If it is true that a person “cannot possibly” be receiving direction from the Holy Ghost if they are behaving “contrary to the united voice of the apostles,” then NOBODY can ever receive direction from the Holy Ghost, unless they NEVER act against that direction—i.e. unless they are “sinless” from an LDS perspective.
Surely you wouldn’t dare tell us that you never act “contrary to the united voice of the apostles?” Shall we assume, then, that it is impossible for you to be receiving direction from the Holy Ghost?
For that matter, what about all those people who are taught by the missionaries, who happen to be acting “contrary to the united voice of the apostles,” be it smoking, drinking, or fornicating? By your logic, it is impossible for them to receive the very witness that LDS teachings promise. I guess you’ve just invalidated “Moroni’s promise.”
Nick,
I wouldn’t have to be groped to be homophobic about it. I know, it’s my hang-up, but I can’t be the only one and maybe that was part of the rationale for the change. BTW, if the GA’s said pouring babtism was ok, I’d have no issue with it, as I think they have full authority to make such changes. Likewise if we moved from Gs to a necklace or they made the church more sinner friendly, etc. My two cents.
409 Nick, When is the last time you were in Church to know any LDS doctrine? When is the last time you read the scriptures? When is the last time you heard the questions in a temple recommend interview? I am in the mainstream of LDS thought and practice. There is nothing inane about what I said. There is much inane about the way you twisted what I said and made it something else. No one is perfect but if we are actively in opposition the the apostles we are not really members of the church.
Nick –
your cirticism of George’s words only works if you feel that people investigating the church who smoke, drink, or fornicate can recieve a spiritual witness that church is true AND it’s okay for them to keep on smoking, drinking and fornicating AND that they should be baptized and welcomed into full fellowship despite their refusal to give up those behaviors.
Isntead, if a person were to insist on such an arrangement, it would be (correctly) regarded that they weren’t really recievine inspiration from the Holy Ghost, but fooling themselves (at the very least).
George’s comments are a bit too strident, but he’s not as far off base as you paint him to be. No one is perfect – but there’s a BIG difference between those who realize that when they act against “the united voice of the Apostles” they need to repent and those who spend time claiming the Holy Ghost has told them the Apostles are wrong.
#369 – Nick, Nick, Nick…ok, now you are acting all funny and that suggesting that I keep an open mind to see if God will reform his doctrines for the sake of a few people that cannot live up to his standards. Now, that is funny. It is however common for the lesser part of the people to chose that which is not right, is it not?? What i could see God doing is to allow you all to come to church each week, attend all three hours of the block program as his children, and choose for yourself if you are going to live his standards or not by your willingness to witness through the partaking of the Sacrament, and then go home, but then again He has done that already. what is he going to do? Alter his doctrines to make doctrines of convenience because a few are asking for this? It has never been thus. His laws are eternal, his principles are everlasting and to change that would, not because I know the mind of God, alter his perfection and conistency regading eternal principles and He would cease to be God; that’s doctrine and it is just not happening.
As for leaving the door open for the “revelation that might come”, let me tell you a story of my own personal experience in this matter. I was at a Stake Conference and elder Maxwell was in attendance and I decided that I would write him a letter asking this very question if he ever thought that the church would change their policy on the gay agenda given their history of change with regards to the Blacks and the Priesthood and Polygamy, and his reply included a copy of the article ‘Same Gender Attraction’ written by elder Oaks for the October 1995 Ensign. I have read this article a number of times and everytime the following quote sticks out to me:
““… Beware the argument that because a person has strong drives toward a particular act, he has no power of choice and therefore no responsibility for his actions. This contention runs counter to the most fundamental premises of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
“Satan would like us to believe that we are not responsible in this life. That is the result he tried to achieve by his contest in the pre-existence. A person who insists that he is not responsible for the exercise of his free agency because he was ‘born that way’ is trying to ignore the outcome of the War in Heaven. We are responsible, and if we argue otherwise, our efforts become part of the propaganda effort of the Adversary.
“Individual responsibility is a law of life. It applies in the law of man and the law of God. Society holds people responsible to control their impulses so we can live in a civilized society. God holds his children responsible to control their impulses in order that they can keep his commandments and realize their eternal destiny. The law does not excuse the short-tempered man who surrenders to his impulse to pull a trigger on his tormentor, or the greedy man who surrenders to his impulse to steal, or the pedophile who surrenders to his impulse to satisfy his sexual urges with children. …
“There is much we do not know about the extent of freedom we have in view of the various thorns in the flesh that afflict us in mortality. But this much we do know; we all have our free agency and God holds us accountable for the way we use it in thought and deed. That is fundamental.â€
Very fundamental indeed!! 10 years and counting and the article stands, the doctrines are very clear on this matter, you control your destiny and if your control is left to the “uncontrollable” nature associated with homosexuality, then clearly you have sold yourself short of a better life after death because you have lost all faith in the fact that the Atonement could have, and still could help you get through this, but instead you chose to follow after your own will and leave the church which then helped you to justify in your mind your descent into a life of second, third, and bottom of the barrel-rate morality.
Let me now draw your attention to a number of millenia ago to a place called Sodom. ’nuff said. God did not a any time reveal to Lot, a prophet even, that sodomy was going to be acceptable. No, he told Lot to leave, then destroyed the city and all it’s inhabitants. What makes anyone think that in the new century of “modern and progressive morality” that God is going to spiritually legalize this now? Because a few ‘hoped’ he would? C’mon, reason this out in your mind and ‘walk and talk’ with God, I dare you!
As for leaving the church if that nefarious hope of a revelation were to happen? I don’t think like that anyways. So, the Blacks got the Priesthood, polygamy was abolished in what seems to be a contradiction in terms, or that the Book of Mormon has gone through significant grammatical changes, to name a few, these things have never been the basis of my testimony of the truth anyways. If God chose to make that revelation, c’mon in and enjoy! I know I am enjoying my time in the church trying daily to live eternal principles founded on the atonement that covers all things even confused thinking that SSA is alright. It’s just complete sophistry to think that SSA is alright, it defies the very basic doctrines of happiness that God has promised us.
This is a fascinating thread. It reminds me quite vividly why I will never again be an active participant in the SLC-based Church. It makes me feel very badly for the D. Fletchers of the Church who stick with it and week after week sit next to people who say (or think) things like this. Of course, ultimately their choices are none of my business and I wish them well. I think that for the most part it’s healthier and saner for gay Mormons to stay outside the doors of the Church. Most of my counterparts have voted with their feet and agree with me. Nice to chat with y’all in this environment though.
Mike,
Religion is not necessarily about being loved or accepted by those around you. I would hope your religious experience includes those things, of course. But that’s not the only thing it’s about, or even the primary thing it’s about.
Fulfillment is not the same thing as comfort. Destiny is not the same thing as happiness.
Look at God. You think he’s happy? That’s what we’re aiming for and I’m worried that you are going to be constantly disappointed in life if you think that happiness and contentment are the end of our existence.
In the ook of Moses, Enoch was amazed that God weeped.
I think God may be “happy” – but not in the sense that we define it here on earth.
Other than that, I think #416 was a spot-on comment. God did not create the church so we could all feel good about our personal choices – on the contrary, one of its jons (it seems to me) is to make us constantly realize just how often our personal choices are wrong and out of tune with God’s will.
Oh no, here comes the old self salvation cultural Mormonism. We need a prophet to put the nails in that coffin the way GBH did for the KFD.
Wow, those are some astonishing assertions about the Gospel. “By this shall men know that ye are my disciples, that ye have love one for another.”
For me, the most striking thing in the interview was that it repeatedly rejected the practice of “disowning” a child in a gay relationship. In fact, Elder Wickman says we must “continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children.” I know there are active LDS parents who have disowned a child in this way, and I think this interview might cause them to reconsider. See also Elder Oaks’ address in Oct 05 Conference: “…parents cannot divorce a child whose life choices are offensive to them.” Elder Wickman further asserts that parents of children in gay relationships should not “be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.”
It seems that the most controverstial part of the interview has to do with the parents’ interactions with the child’s partner. It’s noteworthy that Elder Oaks began and concluded his answer to this question with a caveat that it would have to be an individual decision on the part of each parent, based on the specific circumstances. He indicated that some parents in some circumstances might decline to meet the partner, while others might invite the partner into the home, but draw the line at overnight visits. I see these remarks as a far cry from the “shunning” and “ostracizing” others have read into them. I think they instead reflect a real struggle on the part of the church and parents to fully and deeply love the child while maintaining an unequivocal stance on the inappropriateness of homosexual actions.
John,
I find that George D, Seth, Ivan, a farcical view etc are in harmony with LDS Scriptures and authorities as understood by the average TR holder. There comments in my EQ would be non controversial and nobody would remember them the next day. Yours would be very very controversial.
The only way for you to be correct in many of your assertions here in this thread is for you to have received more light and knowledge from God then the GA’s and the average faithful member.
Sorry this is the reality. All the hopes and dreams otherwise will not make it so. But keep posting cause I like reading your posts…..
There are too many comments.
Dan:
I agree with everything you’ve said. Though from the point of view of most committed gay couples, a refusal by parents to invite into their home or interact with a same-sex partner would be the same as rejecting the child.
If your parents told you that you were allowed to visit, but never your wife, how would you take that? For most folks, that would be the death knell of their relationship with their parents, until the parents had a change of heart. I can’t imagine it being any other way, if a child’s commitment to his or her partner has any meaning.
Peter,
I think you have made some assumptions about my views. If you go back and read my earlier comments, you will see that I never lobbied for the church to change its doctrine on the matter. What I did say, was that given the principle of continuing revelation, you never know what might come down the road. Deity may be eternal and unchanging, but what he has chosen to reveal to mankind, according to LDS teachings, has varied considerably between different time periods.
For example, the Old Testament contains several adamant commandments in regard to diet, virtually none of which are considered binding on modern christians. In the New Testament, Paul said that women must be silent in church. Spencer W. Kimball changed that doctrine/policy, allowing women to speak in sacrament meetings. In our own dispensation, Brigham Young taught that persons of African descent would never receive the priesthood until the millenium, yet Spencer W. Kimball received a revelation which changed all that. (David O. McKay called it a “policy,” but I think it was pretty clearly “doctrine” to Brigham Young.) My point is simply that neither you nor I have any idea what may be revealed at any future time. As the Articles of Faith state, LDS believe that deity will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of god.
I’m frankly not interested in attempting to lobby LDS leaders to change their doctrine. Such would be pointless, and as you note, I have removed myself from their sphere of influence anyway. What I AM interested in, however, is the exercise of basic love and respect. It is not loving, respectful, or even “christlike” to advise parents to refuse to allow their gay son (no mention of lesbians, oddly enough) and his partner to stay in your home overnight. It is not loving, respectful, or even “christlike” to refuse to acknowledge your own son and his partner socially. The counsel that was given is not going to lead any gay man to “repent,” it will only divide and estrange families.
Likewise, it is not loving, respectful, or “christlike” to repeatedly and pointedly tell gay men that they are “gender confused,” a term which denotes that they are not fully male, or that they are confused about whether they are male or female. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am a gay man, and I am quite happy being a man. If anything, I tend to be a touch intolerant toward men who are effeminate, whether they are gay or not. Frankly, most gay men I know are much more masculine than your average LDS man who seems to think that being like Jesus equals being Mr. Milquetoast.
It is not respectful, loving, or “christlike” to compare gay men to those with anger control issues, or pedophiles, or thieves. It is not respectful, loving, or “christlike” to compare gay men to the physically or mentally handicapped.
You speak of choices. I am more than happy to acknowledge that I have a choice whether or not to engage in homosexual relations. I never claimed otherwise. I was married for eighteen years, and during that time, I chose to be monogamous, even when that meant being celibate because I could no longer feign interest. I have now made different choices, which have taken into consideration the reality of my life experience, which frankly did not coincide well with what LDS leaders told me reality was. My choices have been responsible ones for me, and I stand ready to be accountable for them. If I am judged by a deity in the way that LDS teachings suggest, then the full range of my life experience, and even my desires, will be taken into account—not just your list of commandments. I am comfortable, Peter, that such a deity will be slower to condemn me than you have been.
You point to the destruction of Sodom, as if it is axiomatic that the city was destroyed because there were homosexuals within its walls. That’s not what Joseph Smith taught. Joseph Smith was very specific as to the reason deity destroyed Sodom, and he didn’t say anything at all about sexual behavior. I’d invite you to research that one, Peter, perhaps starting with a wonderful volume called *The Words of Joseph Smith*, which contains the original notes taken by those who heard Joseph preach in Nauvoo.
Finally, Peter, you have found yourself worthy and competent to judge that I have descended “into a life of second, third, and bottom of the barrel-rate morality.” I am shocked at your presumption, Peter. I think you have made some assumptions about my behavior, my “morality,” with little or no actual information about how I live my life. For all YOU know, I could be entirely celibate. The only facts you have are that I am an openly gay man, and that I am no longer a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You don’t know if I have had sexual relations with zero men, one man, a hundred men, or five hundred men. Notwithstanding your almost complete lack of information, you actually feel that you can stand in judgment of me? Is that how you hope to be judged?
bbell:
What assertion of mine would be controversial? Surely you’re not referring to my recent post about love for one another being a sign that we are disciples of Jesus?
bbell:
To clarify what I was saying earlier: Seth R. and Ivan Wolfe told MikeInWeHo that he had no right to expect to be treated in a loving manner in the church, or to expect that the basic stance of the church in relation to him as a human being would be one of acceptance. I found this to be an astounding assertion.
I understand that the church needs to take a stand on moral issues. I’ve repeatedly stated that this is normal and that I accept this.
However, the stance of the church in relation to people should always be basic love and acceptance. If it is not, then we have no right to call ourselves disciples of Jesus.
We hear people say “Love the sinner and hate the sin.” But if gay folks almost universally feel driven from the church, then that is a pretty good sign that the love just ain’t there, and that the “love the sinner” part of that equation is purely rhetorical. Sinners flocked to Jesus, they loved to be around him.
Love needs to be concrete. It needs to be palpable. If it isn’t there is no love. And I find it astounding to assert that no one has a right to feel that the church ought to be a place where they experience love. Absolutely astounding!
I agree with bbell that most active LDS oppose SSM and believe homosexual relationships (as distinct from orientation) are sin.
I disagree that most active LDS would view the strident (almost hellfire and damnation) tones of georgeD and Farcical View as within any sort of gospel or scriptural mainstream, and in fact, I believe most LDS in practice are compassionate and even tolerant. See my post at 390.
DavidH:
I saw your post, even though it swam WAY upstream… Geoff B you might want to look at this again, the posts seem to be posting out of order again…
What you describe is what I’ve experienced, which is why I find it so extremely frustrating to see some of these extreme attitudes expressed here. It upsets me that someone like Mike who has expressed a desire to come back to church, but who is nervous about facing possible rejection, would immediately be lambasted by these kinds of mean-spirited, personal attacks. This is an LDS web-site, right? Y’all call yourselves Mormons, right? I don’t know about you all, but in the church I grew up in we ENCOURAGED people to come to church, we did everything we possibly could to make them feel welcome and that they belong, we tried to reassure folks who were afraid, sit next to them, hold their hand and love them.
Mike, for what it’s worth… I love my ward and the people in it, and I can tell they love me. I have never seen or heard any evidence that any of them would subscribe to the behavior I’ve seen on this thread. I am so sorry.
John,
Re-read my actual statement. Think about it for more than 10 seconds. Then get back to me.
You’re equating “how you must treat others” with “how you should expect to be treated.” Unwarranted assumption.
Whether I feel loved by my fellow worshipers at Church is a nice bonus for my own personal worship and what I take from my religion.
But it’s really just a bonus door-prize. That’s not primarily why I go to Church. Sacrament Meeting isn’t just another exercise in self-affirmation. I go to Church for a higher purpose in life. Not to “feel the love.”
That said, again, I hope you are feeling the love and I would take any members to task who were failing to exhibit Christlike love.
But as for me personally, I have some fundamental expectations of communal worship and “being loved” is really quite a few steps down the list.
I have read the interview completely along with several dozen posts on this site. I really think it can be boiled down to one word. Chastity. Whether you have heterosexual or homosexual leanings, the Lord expects us to be chaste. He has made that very clear through out our scriptures and modern day revelation.
The complaint about this quote:
I have no problem with this. I would expect to have the same reaction to my children if they were living in sin with the opposite gender.
“You may come to my home, but you will be kept to the standards of my home while you are here”. In other words, separate bedrooms etc. etc.
California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has tossed out all sexual moral conduct codes at colleges, private and Christian schools, daycare centers and other facilities throughout his state, if the institutions have any students who get state assistance.
The governor yesterday signed a bill that would require all businesses and groups receiving state funding — even if it’s a state grant for a student — to condone homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality.
There is no exception for faith-based organizations or business owners with sincerely held religious convictions.
But it was supported by Democrats in the state legislature and specifically requires “any program or activity that receives any financial assistance from the state” to support the alternative sexual lifestyle choices.
This bill also will affect any program or activity at the local level that gets any state funding from programs including Medi-Cal, State Disability Insurance, CalWORKS, food stamps, Unemployment Insurance, Workers’ Compensation, child support services, veterans services, home loan assistance programs and others.
And as bad as the single bill is, several other “sexual indoctrination bills” are heading to the governor. One would prohibit textbooks or school-sponsored activities from “reflecting adversely” on a certain list of sexual choices.
Another would allow the California superintendent of public instruction to arbitrarily withhold state funds from any district that does not adequately promote the State Department of Education’s “model policy” promoting transsexuality, bisexuality or homosexuality in its school policies.
Still another would spend state money promoting transsexual, bisexual and homosexual lifestyles.
So much for religious freedom for people of good moral character. Does anyone deny we’re defining deviancy down?
Watch out, Utah, you’ll see an influx of church members who want to flee “Sodom on the Pacific”.
Gordon, they didn’t say “separate bedrooms,” did they?
No, they said “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.'”
On the bright side, they said “Yes come.” The welcome is pretty overwhelmed, however, by all the “buts” involved.
I am aware of an opposite situation, recently faced by two partnered friends of mine. One partner had been raised in Catholicism, and his mother was still a strong Catholic. She announced that she would be coming to their home (from out of town) for a visit, and that she expected her son and his partner to “respect her” by not sharing a bedroom during her stay. Yes–you read that right—she actually invited herself, and then insisted that these two men sleep in separate parts of the house during her visit to their home. In an act which strongly tested his partner’s patience, the son agreed to his mother’s terms. While mother visited, son slept in the partners’ bedroom, while son’s partner slept on the couch. Personally, I found it shocking that this woman would impose herself in such a way. Her demands went beyond “honor they father and thy mother,” and were highly insulting.
Of course, during her visit she also complained that her son was wearing a red shirt to the dinner table (yes, they were feeding her as a guest), because “we don’t do that.” She made such an issue over it that the son actually went to his bedroom and changed his shirt.
The Gaza terrorists only forced two Christians to convert to Islam. Gov. Schwarzenegger is forcing millions of Californians to convert to paganism. I believe there is some case law which defines paganism as a religion. When will Christians wake up and “smell the coffee”?
Nick,
And after the cease fire you had to push the one button that will drag me back into the fray.
“It is not respectful, loving, or “christlike” to compare gay men to those with anger control issues, or pedophiles, or thieves. It is not respectful, loving, or “christlike” to compare gay men to the physically or mentally handicapped.”
I’ll tell you what is not Christlike, assuming said comparisons are an insult. First of all you are twisting words, a short fuse is a tendency. Anger control issues are giving in to a tendency. In fact all three were referring merely to tendencies, not people who give in to said tendencies. You are ignoring the point to make your case stronger. Twisting the words of others is not Christlike.
However, the real offense comes with the comparison of the disabled to your natural tendencies being an insult. Here you have people that are what God made them. They have no reason to be ashamed. They have no reason to hide their heads. They often can not have every thing in life that you or I have but they gain a perspective on life in a way that neither you nor I will ever be able to. You reveal your bigotry when you assume that a comparison to disability is an insult. There is a movement fighting just as hard for the right of independance and to overcome stigma as any gay or lesbian. The Savior can see them as not Handicaps but as people. Why Can’t you.
Oh, the irony!
Doc, a person with a “short fuse” has “anger control issues” by definition. If I had said a “violent” person, then yes, *that* would be “giving in to a tendency.” Your distinction, however, is almost meaningless. According to Oaks and Wickman, homosexual feelings are like having a short fuse, having sexual desire for children, or desiring to steal another’s property. This ignores the complex nature of sexual orientation, Doc. As a heterosexual man, your attraction toward women is not just about the physical act of sexual union. It includes emotional and spiritual aspects, does it not? So why on earth do so many, Oaks and Wickman included, want to compare homosexual orientation to various other temptations, many of which are far simpler issues? My desire to join with another man is in no way comparable to a temptation to steal someone’s wallet, or to lose my temper, or heaven forbid, to exploit an innocent child. Oaks and Wickman don’t have to lump homosexuality in with these other “tendencies,” as you call them, in order to maintain their position against homosexuality. By doing so, they demean the very real, very complex feelings experienced by gay men and lesbians.
Now, I can’t help but laugh at your indignance over comparing homosexuality with physical and emotional disabilities. Oaks and Wickman do that very thing. They give token acknowledgement that homosexuality may have a genetic component. They acknowledge (thank goodness) that heterosexual marriage is NOT a therapeutic, or even laudable option for homosexuals. They even go so far as to claim (without a single doctrinal revelation to back them up) that homosexuality is a purely mortal condition which will be “cured” in the ressurection–just like physical and mental disabilities.
Suddenly, when I point out that Oaks and Wickman are insulting gays and lesbians by making a comparison that suggests that homosexuality is a physical or mental disability, you blow your stack at me for insulting the physically and mentally disabled? You tell me that the physically and mentally handicapped are “what God made them,” that they have “no reason to be ashamed” or to “hide their heads.” When did I say otherwise? You, on the other hand, are rathe clearly implying that I, as a gay man, am NOT “what God made me,” that I DO have “reason to be ashamed” and to “hide my head.”
The irony is that you can’t seem to see that Oaks and Wickman brought up that comparison in the first place. They say I am somehow “broken” or “deficient,” and that my only acceptable choice in life is to wistfully stare out the window at the happy couples, as Wickman describes his daughter’s plight. I DO see the disabled as people—but Oaks, and particularly Wickman, evidently see the disabled as poor, pathetic, broken victims of some terrible condition. It is THAT image of the physically and mentally disabled, to which they are comparing homosexuality, and then they have the compassion to say “so if this is the way you are, then you need to just sit back and SUFFER, because that’s what God intends for you!” With a god like that, who needs devils?
Bot,
That’s a total misrepresentation of the bill that our Republican governor signed. He’s “forcing millions of Californians to convert to paganism” ??? Oy. (Eyes rolling skyward….) I’m gonna open a chain of paganism supply shops asap.
The law in CA says that institutions receiving public support cannot discriminate (including against gays). Private groups can continue to do whatever they want, without tax dollars. That is the will of the people here, overwhelmingly. Social conservatives are a distinct political minority in CA.
Enjoy Utah. Maybe you’ll like it better there.
re: 431 Great story, Nick. Sure hope that dude has a good therapist! She demanded he change his shirt???
Nick,
I still say the bottom line is Chastity. If a person has, thru nature or nurture, those tendancies, they are still accepted as worthy and should have no problems in the church whatsoever provided they remain Chaste. Period. Regardless of sexual orientation.
I think heterosexual “Mormons” that are immoral probably have similar feelings, that they are not accepted or welcomed. That is their perception because of the guilt that they feel.
Jesus said, “Go your way and sin no more”. That is how he loved the sinner and hated the sin.
Doc,
Nick is right, if a bit unhinged at the moment.
Alcoholism, pedophilia, and various other problematic tendencies diminish a person’s life, ability to follow society’s rules, or to succeed and thrive in various other ways. All imply damage. Likewise the comparison to disabled people.
To quote John Shelby Spong:
“But homosexuality is in a very different category.
We don’t choose to be white or black, male or female, left-handed or right-handed, gay or straight. We awaken in each instance to the reality of what we are. Nothing external to our humanity activates our self-understanding. It simply is. Alcohol distorts life for the alcoholic. Homosexuality does not distort the life of the gay person.” Doc’s “understanding is simply one more version of the idea that homosexuality is a sickness or addiction that needs to be cured if possible and if not possible, it needs to be suppressed. Wholeness never came to anyone who tried to suppress his or her deepest identity.”
Your comparisons are highly insulting to gays, who are not intrinsically damaged or in need of alteration any more than left-handers or racial minorities.
I realize that last sentence clashes with the current position of the Church, but it doesn’t change reality: Gay people are just fine. One gets the feeling that many Bloggernaclites don’t personally know any self-affirmed, ‘out’ gay people, couples, or families. Bummer.
Doc,
Nick is right, if a bit unhinged at the moment.
Alcoholism, pedophilia, and various other problematic tendencies diminish a person’s life, ability to follow society’s rules, or to succeed and thrive in various other ways. All imply damage. Likewise the comparison to disabled people.
To quote John Shelby Spong:
“But homosexuality is in a very different category.
We don’t choose to be white or black, male or female, left-handed or right-handed, gay or straight. We awaken in each instance to the reality of what we are. Nothing external to our humanity activates our self-understanding. It simply is. Alcohol distorts life for the alcoholic. Homosexuality does not distort the life of the gay person.” Doc’s “understanding is simply one more version of the idea that homosexuality is a sickness or addiction that needs to be cured if possible and if not possible, it needs to be suppressed. Wholeness never came to anyone who tried to suppress his or her deepest identity.”
Your comparisons are highly insulting to gays, who are not intrinsically damaged or in need of alteration any more than left-handers or racial minorities.
I realize that last sentence clashes with the current position of the Church, but it doesn’t change reality: Gay people are just fine. One gets the feeling that many Bloggernaclites don’t personally know any self-affirmed, ‘out’ gay people, couples, or families. Bummer.
Gordon,
Okay, let’s look at being “chaste.” If a cohabitating hetero couple are engaging in sexual activity sans marriage, they are considered “unchaste.” I know from more than one case in the church, that such unchastity can be instantly remedied (at least for purposes of baptism) by a civil marriage. In one case, an excommunicated woman had been living with a non-LDS man. The two married in the afternoon, and that evening, both were baptized (re-baptized for her, of course.)
The church currently teaches that the “wrong” in homosexual relations consists of a person having ANY sexual relations outside marriage. So far so good, right? So…if I happened to live three hours to the north, in Vancouver B.C. and legally married a male partner, would we not be “chaste” under the teachings as given? Would you be willing to admit that we had met the conditions of the church teachings?
Mike,
I don’t care what the “ranking” of sin is really. I’m really not interested in determining whether homosexual practice makes God’s “top ten” list or whatever.
I can easily contemplate my own deficiencies in daily scripture study as being more serious a sin than that committed by an upright and devoted homosexual couple. Depends on context, depends on my attitude, depends on the history.
But I’m not going to budge on the deficiency stance. Not reading the scriptures is a deficiency. So is homosexual practice. Deficiency. Yup. Absolutely.
I’m not interested in rubbing anyone’s nose in it. But we keep confusing the issue. It seems to me that the advocates of homosexuality have a hard time distinguishing between the intellectual and theological idea of homosexuality as “sin” and the ostracization that homosexuals experience over that sin. They aren’t the same thing. Pointing to intolerance has ZERO convincing power for me in determining whether gay sex is a sin or not.
Nick. How do you know she didn’t have Alzheimer’s or something. If you think this kind of eccentricity is odd, you haven’t been around many old people. It’s a little unfair to make some obscure grandma, whom you don’t even know, bear the cross of all our societal ills. You’re also only getting his side of the story. Family is always incredibly complex. I have never met a son or daughter anywhere who completely understood their own family.
But yes, as a general matter, that behavior was rude and inconsiderate.
You make a fair enough point, Seth. I suppose it’s possible that she wasn’t playing with a full deck. I actually received two versions of the story. The son’s version was actually quite defensive of the mother, and justfied his cooperation as “bridge building” of sorts. (Oh, and he didn’t admit that he actually changed his shirt–heh.) The partner’s version was a little different, as you might imagine. To be honest, I’d have reacted rather badly if I’d been the partner in this situation. Chalk it up to my LDS background, which tells me that the “spousal” relationship is more important than that with in-laws, or ultimately, even with children.
Mike,
We don’t choose to be disabled. We don’t choose to have short tempers, we don’t choose to have the rabid male sex drive. You guys are the ones reading judgement into these things, Not me. I personally find nothing less human, less noble in the disabled. They are people too. Many are proud of what separates them from others and may feel similarly about trying to cure autism or deafness. They may have a point. Their disability only “distorts” their life from your point of view. You can’t tell me that your life experience has had absolutely no mark left on it by your homosexuality. All of us have a mark left by our desires, wants, and needs. Whether it is positive or negative is completely in the eye of the beholder. All I’m asking is that you please, PLEASE give the disabled the same respect you ask for yourself.
But putting aside the question of what needs to be “cured”, the entire point of the Q&A is that having same sex attraction, a short temper, a hyperactive heterosexual libido, deafness, blond hair, black skin, or kleptomaniac tendencies, etc. al etc. do not make anyone evil, or good either, for that matter. They are not sins, shortcomings, or anything like that. They simply are. This is what makes the interview so noteworthy. You want to conflate SSA with homosexual acts, they are insisting there is a difference. This is a point where the two sides are at loggerheads. I’m afraid we will have to agree to disagree. But I have a very hard time seeing this as a personal attack and resent the aspersions cast on well intentioned and good hearted individuals.
My former wife served a mission in Ireland. At the time, divorce was not legal in Ireland. The missionaries would often find men and women who were living together in what would be considered a common law marriage, yet one or both were still married to an earlier spouse.
This presented a dillema. Here they found couples who had been together many years, raising children, living as families. However, these couples were not only unmarried, but blatantly living in adultery, since they were still married to others. How do you suppose the church treated this? They let these couples get baptized, since it was no fault of theirs that they couldn’t legally get divorced and remarried.
See the parallel here? If a hetero couple living in adultery can be excused due to legal issues, why is it not the same for a gay couple? The church says it’s sex outside marriage that’s wrong, not other issues.
Well said, Doc. Oddly, I think we see many things eye-to-eye. I work with severely disabled people every day and see how brave and remarkable they often are. If any of my comments came across as disrespectful, I seriously mis-represented where my heart is. The notion that these were the noble ones in the pre-existance resonates with me.
The case of deaf people often saying they would not choose hearing (even if they could) intrigues me. I wonder if my situation is analogous to them, or to left-handed people who are forced to write with their right hand for no good reason. Mostly I lean toward the latter, because I see nothing limiting in my gayness. It’s just a biological variation of indeterminate origin. As you correctly pointed out, my life-experience has been profoundly marked by my homosexuality, in ways which make me deeply grateful.
The GAs are simply wrong when they insist upon separating SSA from same-sex relationships. It’s like saying it’s OK to be a leftie but sinful to write with your left hand. The Catholic leadership understands this and has taken a much more logical position. Rome asserts that SSA is an “intrinsic moral disorder” separate from specific sinful acts. That’s also more consistent with Matthew 5:28 et. al. The Mormons and Evangelicals can huff and puff all they want, but this ‘love the sinner, hate the sin’ rhetoric is gaining no traction because people who really know gay people realize it makes no sense. Honestly, I think the culture war is over even though the political insurgency continues. Of course, things look differently sitting here in West Hollywood!!
The whole debate bugs me because it seems stuck on superficialities.
I think that SSA, abortion, all those other “moral issues” are simply symptoms of something more problematic in society. But everyone is determined that this debate remain stuck on the superficial level of “is gay sex bad?”
Conceptually, of course it is. But so what?
There’s something else going on here that the debate over human sexuality is completely missing. Something about our society is fundamentally wrong. And I think it lies just as much with the heterosexuals as it does with the homosexuals. I think it lies just as much in “Kansas City” as it does in “West Hollywood.”
Homosexuality is merely one of the signs of the times. But I think both “believers” and “non-believers” are misreading the signs. Just a gut instinct here. I’m not sure what it means yet.
Nick, your arguement seems very “Zeezrom” to me.
My presumption is that you understand what chastity and marriage are.
Chastity: “No sexual activity outside the bonds of marriage”.
The First presidency have been very clear on what the term Marriage means. From “The Family, A Proclamation to the World”:
So it doesn’t matter if Canada, Zimbabwe, Mars, or the USA decide that marriage is something different, followers of Jesus Christ in His Church have been told what marriage is. Therefore, it is impossible to be chaste and participate in homosexual activity.
The bottom line is all unmarried people, regardless of their sexuality, are required by the Lord to remain chaste. As long as they remain Chaste, they can remain in the good graces of the Church and God.
I live with and care for 2 disabled women who have been diagnosed with Mental Retardation. One of them was born that way, the other had a bad reaction to her immunizations as a child. They are both incredible amazing women whose struggles in life seem unfair and unjust. When I go shopping with them, go out to eat at a restaurant, or go to the movies w/ them, many people stare at them, children hide behind their parents, and some people are rude to them. The reactions of other people to them does not diminish who they are or what they can become. These women do not view themselves as disabled, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are. I can understand that people who struggle with SSA would not like to be identified as having a disability because of the way our society views people with disabilities. The fact remains, however, that there is nothing insensitive or bigoted about admitting that we all have our own individual inadequacies and the purpose of this life is to overcome the world. We would all like to be categorized in a way that makes us feel better than everyone else, that is pride. The church teaches us to look past the outward appearance and cherish people for who they really are.
The problem comes when you lump homosexuality in with (your words) “individual inadequacies.” You essentially compare homosexuality to mental retardation. The more apt comparison would be to people who are left-handed. There was a time, of course, when being left-handed was considered a sign of evil. Children who were left-handed were forced, until fairly recently, to ACT LIKE they were right-handed in writing, etc. In reality, being left-handed is not better or worse—just different. The same goes for homosexuality.
Yeah, that’s probably the most accurate metaphor. As a leftie and a homo, guess I’m two-for-one.
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! 🙂
Nick,
You’re just proving my point. Mentally retarded people are no better nor worse, just different. Your problem with the comparison comes from your view that mentally retarded people are worse than those who are not.
I accept and rejoice in the fact that every single person on this earth is born with inadequacies (when one compares themselves to the Supreme Being) and we can all overcome those inadequacies through Christ.
Re: 450
Nick,
Wow, you posted your response in both threads. At first glance, I assumed you goofed. But here is the post you where refering to:
At first, I thought you simply misread my post, but with the disclaimer right next to the scripture references, I am not so sure. Are you claiming ignorance in not understanding my post or do you enjoy scuttlebutt on the Prophet Joseph Smith? I would like an explanation.
I had a glitch posting, addrax, and when I tried to repost, I accidentally posted to the wrong thread (this one). When I realized the error, I posted to the proper thread (the other one).
If you think I am making up rumors about Joseph Smith (“scuttlebutt,” as you call it), by all means, please consult a legitimate history book that discusses Joseph’s marriages. I don’t condemn him for these actions in any way. My post stated such.
You stated in your post that many LDS would consider Leviticus 18 and 20 as evidence that deity forbids homosexual activity. You didn’t say that YOU took that interpretation, but that many LDS would. I responded to that interpretation, showing that it is faulty to isolate only two or three verses out of those chapters as currently valid, all the while ignoring the others.
I hope it makes more sense to you now.
IMO, people who have never known a gay person as a friend cannot morally make the kind of judgements and rank condemnations that I’m reading in here. There’s somehing deeply un-Christlike about that, and it’s really kind of disturbing. GBH referred to gays as “good people” on TV right?? There has been one fact repeatedly documented in studies of changing attitudes toward SSM and related issues: People who personally know a gay person are much more likely to support laws which protect them from discrimination in housing, employment, etc. They still tend to oppose SSM, but at a much lower rate. They also overwhelmingly support domestic-partnerhsip rights.
454 “un-christlike” is the latest unctuous accusation that ranks with “hateful”, “disrespectful”, etc. as a mindless putdown of people who disagree with an inherently sinful and reprehensible lifestyle.
I posted 454 after I read 455. There is someting weird about numbering here. Did my use of the number in the beginning of the comment force a renumbering?
#425 –
“What I AM interested in, however, is the exercise of basic love and respect. It is not loving, respectful, or even “christlike” to advise parents to refuse to allow their gay son (no mention of lesbians, oddly enough) and his partner to stay in your home overnight. It is not loving, respectful, or even “christlike” to refuse to acknowledge your own son and his partner socially. The counsel that was given is not going to lead any gay man to “repent,” it will only divide and estrange families.”
Personally, it isn’t Christ-like to force your parents to have to deal with you and your partner sleeping in their home if it makes them feel uncomfortable!! In other words, I would do exactly what they are saying and not allow my children to stay in my home if they stay with their partner and that wouldn’t be very un-Christ-like!!
“Finally, Peter, you have found yourself worthy and competent to judge that I have descended “into a life of second, third, and bottom of the barrel-rate morality.” I am shocked at your presumption, Peter. I think you have made some assumptions about my behavior, my “morality,” with little or no actual information about how I live my life. For all YOU know, I could be entirely celibate. The only facts you have are that I am an openly gay man, and that I am no longer a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You don’t know if I have had sexual relations with zero men, one man, a hundred men, or five hundred men. Notwithstanding your almost complete lack of information, you actually feel that you can stand in judgment of me? Is that how you hope to be judged?”
I never made any comments about how many men you have shared soap with, not even interested in the number, 0 or otherwise. Your simple statement that you are an openly gay male was enough for me, in my mind, to make that statement that you have descended into a life of second, third, and bottom of barrel-rate morality! You seem to still be there, go figure! Hopefully, if you are staying all gay, girlfriend, then keep the celibacy thing alive and well!
There you go again, Peter, making assumptions. Personally, if I thought for a moment that my parents would be uncomfortable with my partner (hypothetical, at this point) and I spending the night in their home, I would graciously book a nearby hotel. It’s called basic manners. Unfortunately, Oaks isn’t content with that—he has provided, by his apostolic example, effective direction for LDS parents to pre-empt the situation entirely, by issuing a blunt un-invitation.
As for your final paragraph, Peter, perhaps you’d like to tell us all what you mean by “sharing soap.” If you’re going to make bigoted remarks that inhrently reject the very apostolic and prophetic counsel you claim to defend, perhaps you should define your terms. The tone of your message would seem to indicate that you are using “sharing soap” as some sort of odd euphamism, but how can we be sure? Personally, I can’t think of any time I’ve “shared soap” with anyone, that didn’t involve basic personal hygiene. In that sense, most families “share soap” not only between spouses, but with their children, and even with houseguests! Yet unless I am mistaken, you seem to have an issue with people “sharing soap.” How very, very odd….
I would suggest to the Admin that it’s time to close this one too.
Admin says: “Agreed.” Thanks for all of your interesting comments. It appears we have exhausted every possible discussion point on this subject.