A House Defiled: Excommunication

All one needs to do to read up on the recent court summons of two of the most well-known progressive voices in the Mormon Church is to google search the names of Kate Kelly, founder of Ordain Women, and John Dehlin, founder of Mormon Stories. The story has received national coverage and has blown up online. What first began as a collective outcry at the possible threat of excommunication of voices that advocate for greater transparency, acceptance, equality, and big-tent Mormonism which would make all feel welcome, has become a war of words and rhetoric within the church. Every day there are more blog posts and editorials pushing back on more progressive members of the Church saying, in effect, "step in line or get out." This is my attempt at a rebuttal to all those who agree with threatening these individuals and those like them with disciplinary action and possible excommunication.

First, I think it is important to mention that, although both Kate and John have been grouped together in this story, they don't necessarily share the same positions on everything. But nonetheless, they are progressive voices in a rigidly conservative Church who are asking for greater openness, inclusion, and equality.

The argument I hear over and over against women and the priesthood is that women are not any more or less valued in the church. That they are given "different, but equal roles." It shocks me to read the words of women promoting this idea of "different but equal." One would have thought we already learned from history that "separate but equal" turns out not to be so equal after all. 

One of the many problems with this idea that the roles are equal is this:

Women's roles are always connected to men. Men, or should I say boys, get the priesthood at age 12, regardless of their affiliation with women. Even I, a gay man who will never be married to a woman, received the priesthood at age 12 because, well, "that's just how it works."

Women are told in the church that their greatest role is that of a mother. The immediate problem with this is that not all women get to be mothers. When they are able to be mothers, it is required by the church that they marry a man. They must also be fertile and have no health issues related to child bearing or else have the resources and time to go through adoption agencies.

On the one hand you have boys who really just need to show up to church after the age of 12 to receive their role. In the other, women must find a man, marry him, grow a child for nine months, and then give birth to receive their's. But that won't change the fact that they will be defined by their husbands position in the church. Always the bishop's wife, never the bishop. As if they were somehow Ill-equipped to handle such a role.

In the recent KUER interview, PR representative of the church was asked, "Where in Mormon doctrine does it state that women cannot hold the priesthood?" After all, there are many accounts in the early church of women "exercising the priesthood" by laying on hands on the sick (and oxen), conducted washing and annointings in the upper room of Joseph's Nauvoo store, the Nauvoo temple, and all subsequent temples, and passed on the priesthood to their sons when their husbands had died.

After the PR representative tried to avoid answering the question for awhile and after the interviewer pressed her for an answer to the simple question, she finally obliged.

Her answer was, "it doesn't."

So, if it is not doctrine, and if there are women across the world in the church that truly feel that they have been moved upon by the spirit to talk about this issue, as many of them have stated- even going as far as citing their patriarchal blessing, why is Kate Kelly being punished for asking leaders to hear their plea? And if it is not doctrine, where has she "led people astray" in asking to be included in the priesthood?

There is a huge problem in the church right now. As Paul Toscano puts it in his book, The Sanctity of Dissent, "...the modern LDS church has become crushingly legalistic. It emphasizes strict adherence to rules. It sees righteousness and spirituality in terms of church membership. It teaches that one's standing before God depends on one's loyalty and obedience to the men in charge. In practice, it contradicts Jesus' teachings that we should have no masters."

"The ecclesiastical bureaucracy doubts the power of God to spiritually transform the rank and file members of the world-wide church. It sees itself as a spiritual elite whose primary duty is to reinforce true worship. So it makes additions to the gospel message. It makes up rules. It promises those who obey them that they will become citadels of rectitude safe from the vicissitudes of life. For this reason, in the modern church to avoid sin is a more certain course than to repent, to judge rightly more serviceable than to forgive, and to follow the Brethren more reliable than to follow the spirit."

In other words, the church today has become as guilty of the Pharisees of old, measuring the limits of their garment lines, the modesty of the outfits of their 6 year olds, pointing out at the sinners of the world from inside their bunker of belief, drawing black and white lines through the grey of real life, all the while shunning the lepers of our day and ensuring that anyone who dares to question their ridged set of policies and teachings and beliefs is labeled the enemy while they build multi-billion dollar malls and invest in for-profit endeavors across the world. You are looking at the modern day appearance of the Pharisees of old- the ones Christ called hypocrites and liars. They profess the name of Christ and teach of his power but don't actually believe God might work in ways other than through their ridged bureaucracy of public relations committees, legal entities, and multi-million dollar advertising agencies. 

John and Kate and others like them are members of the church that are trying to get people to wake up and realize that the church has become co-opted by corporate white male America and has wandered quite a distance from the true message of Christ who called ALL unto him and who spent his time, not with the religious leaders and the self-proclaimed "righteous" of the day, but with the lepers and the adulterers and the outcasts and the poor. They are trying to get people to see how they have become a church that excludes anyone that would dare be different. That Christ might not be pleased with an isolationist "peculiar people" who are overwhelmingly republican, insist on American culture and ideals the world over, refuse to let their children play at non-mormon houses, file legal briefs against the validity of loving, committed relationships, discourage anyone from reading anything about the church that is not published by it, and label any piece of literature that shed less than positive light on the church as "anti-mormon." These are the people are trying to pop the bubble that is preventing the real message of Christ to permeate the world and cross the boundaries of differences and the concept of "the other," and the leadership is threatened by potential loss of control- so they label them apostates. 

As long as this is the method of the church bureaucracy- a constant flow of carefully constructed PR statements and risk-management, the silencing and banishing of differing opinions, ideas and legitimate criticism, it will never "fill the earth." The earth is made up of very different individuals with very different experiences, talents, cultural backgrounds, and ideas. If one of us is god's child, we all are, and each of our voices are important. If anything, these progressive voices are the only hope in taking the message of the church to the world. The numbers are showing that the Church's current methods simply are not working and it is because they have insisted on creating small little boxes that everyone must fit into to be welcome.

The defenders of these excommunications often argue, "this isn't a democracy." But no one is asking this to be put to vote. You're right, it isn't a democracy, but the leaders do proclaim the power of the spirit to work in each of us. The leadership has effectively high-jacked the power of the spirit by saying, "you can be moved or taught by the spirit, but only if the spirit confirms what we say." It isn't a democracy, but it isn't a dictatorship either. It claims to be Christ's church, yet denies the power Christ has to work in the lives of every individual no matter what they look like, how differently from you they sin, who they love, where they live, or how educated they are. 

The Word of Wisdom was born out of constant complaints from Emma about the mess she had to clean up after the men. The Relief Society was a born out of a group of women who organized independently and wrote up a constitution which they later brought before Joseph Smith who adopted it into the church. The program known as "mutual" was created by members in one stake which got the attention of church leaders who adopted it into the church. One cannot say there is no precedence for independently inspired members to organize and start something new.

The leadership of the church is necessarily limited by their own life experiences which filter their understanding of the world, just like we are all limited by our own unique experience. Isn't it interesting that arguably the most beloved current leader is the only one not from white Mormon America- he's from Germany. Why does he seem so refreshing? Most of them come from a homogeneous background where the church has always been at the center of life. Do people from other walks of life not have anything to offer? A different experience or life-lesson learned that would help them see things that others might not? Might the businessmen and lawyers and doctors who make up the leadership be influenced by their elite status in society? Might not people from other walks of life be able to see things in a way that would allude the leadership?

But no. The leadership denies that the spirit could possibly move upon the membership of the church if it would say anything different from them. Well, perhaps this growing movement is exactly that- the spirit working in the church to correct the course of a house defiled.

George Albert Smith

"If a faith will not bear to be investigated; if its preachers and professors are afraid to have it examined, their foundation must be very weak." 

-Journal of Discourses, Volume 14, Page 216

Joseph Smith 

"I did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." 

-History of the Church, 5:340

Brigham Young 

“I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self security. Let every man and woman know, by the whispering of the Spirit of God to themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not." 

-Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe [1954], 135

Further Reading:

I borrowed some vivid imagery painted by another blogger who wrote an awesome essay called, "The Uncomfortable God." Read it when you have the chance and be amazed.

ARG: A Vote to Ban the Book of Mormon

I was having a discussion the other day with a good friend about the gay marriage issue. If you haven't already, you should definitely read this amazing article written by a straight, married, active LDS man. We started talking about the basis for the argument in favor of banning gay marriage. Much of the argument lies on the idea that marriage was around before any government, law, etc. Basically that society has no right to touch the issue.

Well lets think about our religion. Mormonism. We will always claim to be Christian, because we believe that we are, yet most of the world would disagree. There are some points of our doctrine that just rub a lot of people the wrong way. The idea of a Godhead rather than a single being who is God (this is a doctrine that still confuses me). And then there is this belief in another book- the Book of Mormon. One we believe to be the "most correct book." This book means a lot to a lot of people. It gives them direction, brings them understanding, teaches them lessons on life and living, it is a book many have grown to love and value above many other things. It is something people pray about and ponder and try and make decisions based on what they know from what this book teaches.

What if the rest of the Christian world (which far outnumbers us Mormons) decided to get together and vote to ban this book. The bases of the argument was that the bible has been around since the very beginning of Christianity. It is tradition and it is widely accepted by all Christians to be the word of God. It existed long before the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints did. Many of the writings found in it's pages even predate Christ. For the rest of the world, the bible IS Christianity. So would you be okay if the world banned the Book of Mormon due to our claim to be Christians? In their mind, it is false advertising. How does that sit with you? The printing presses that continue to print the book are destroyed. If you are caught in possession of the book, it is taken and destroyed and you are banished from society into some prison of shame.

Well having the freedom to have a husband in the future is like having the the freedom to read and believe in the Book of Mormon. Having a husband, a legitimate partner, means a lot to me. He would be someone that would provide me with direction, stability, a foundation. I would learn important lessons on life in my relationship with him. I would make my decisions together with him. I would love him and he will help me understand God in ways I couldn't do otherwise. We would pray and ponder things together. Decide together what the best way is to raise a family. He would mean the world to me. Yes, perhaps marriages like ours haven't ever been the "norm." Perhaps it breaks tradition. But it gives MY life meaning. It brings ME happiness. Do I not have a right to happiness? Are you not in favor of MY freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness? Or am I only free in so far as you agree that it is what happiness is to you?

The only reason why your heterosexual marriage is affecting me at all is that you use it to claim that I am wrong when I say that happiness, for me, is a life with another man. I am only asking for the freedom to seek happiness. I am not threatening YOUR marriage. I am not seeking to ban heterosexual marriage. Your marriage doesn't affect the marriage I wish to have. It doesn't make mine any more or less important. We are equal. Please treat me that way and stop voting to ban me from happiness.

ARG: Elder Oaks & Elder Wickman on SGA - Part 10

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Elder Wickman, when you referred earlier to missionary service, you held that out as a possibility for someone who felt same-gender attraction but didn’t act on it. President Hinckley has said that if people are faithful, they can essentially go forward as anyone else in the Church and have full fellowship. What does that really mean? Does it mean missionary service? Does it mean that someone can go to the temple, at least for those sacraments that don’t involve marriage? Does it really mean that someone with same-gender attraction so long as they’re faithful, has every opportunity to participate, to be called to service, to do all those kinds of things that anyone else can?

ELDER WICKMAN: I think the short answer to that is yes! I’d look to Elder Oaks to elaborate on that.

ELDER OAKS: President Hinckley has helped us on that subject with a clear statement that answers all questions of that nature. He said, “We love them (referring to people who have same-sex attractions) as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church.”

To me that means that a person with these inclinations, where they’re kept under control, or, if yielded to are appropriately repented of, is eligible to do anything in the Church that can be done by any member of the Church who is single. Occasionally, there’s an office, like the office of bishop, where a person must be married. But that’s rather the exception in the Church. Every teaching position, every missionary position can be held by single people. We welcome to that kind of service people who are struggling with any kind of temptation when the struggle is a good struggle and they are living so as to be appropriate teachers, or missionaries, or whatever the calling may be.

ELDER WICKMAN: Isn’t it really the significance of the Atonement in a person’s life? Doesn’t the Atonement really begin to mean something to a person when he or she is trying to face down the challenges of living, whether they be temptations or limitations? The willingness to turn to the Savior, the opportunity of going to sacrament service on a Sunday, and really participating in the ordinance of the sacrament… listening to the prayers, partaking of those sacred emblems. Those are opportunities that really help us to come within the ambit of the Savior’s Atonement. Viewed that way, then any opportunity to serve in the Church is a blessing. As has been mentioned, there is a relatively tiny handful of callings within the Church that require marriage.

ELDER OAKS: There is another point to add here, and this comes from a recent statement of the First Presidency, which is a wonderful description of our attitude in this matter: “We of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints reach out with understanding and respect for individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender. We realize there may be great loneliness in their lives, but there must also be recognition of what is right before the Lord.”

-------------------------------

ME: I've already discussed the inconsistencies that I have found within the church regarding this claim. I have several gay friends who have wanted to serve missions. If they bring up their attraction to the same sex in interviews, they are subjected to an intense investigation. They are required to have special interviews, special permission from the first presidency, and often counseling. Counselors can suggest to bishops that their missions be postponed. This happens whether or not they have acted on their feelings. Even if everything has been repented of, they must go through this long process. They are treated completely different than their straight counterparts. Does a straight 19 year old have to discuss his attractions for the opposite gender? If he has those attractions, is he subjected to special interviews and required to gain special approval and participate in counseling? No.

These kids are ready and willing to dedicate 2 years of their lives. But instead this turns into 2 and a half or even three years as they await the approval they need. They don't know how soon it will come. They don't know if they should start school, or if it would be best to just work while they wait to hear back. This is setting them back. They are put at a disadvantage. It isn't right, and it isn't equal treatment. If you are going to say they are just as worthy to serve, they should not be treated any differently in the process to be called. By making that process more strenuous and by requiring more steps, those actions effectively void the claim that they are looked upon as being equally worthy.

While there are few callings in the church that require marriage... those are the callings where decisions are made on behalf of others. Bishops, Stake Presidents, General Authorities, anyone in the position to cast judgment or disciplinary action toward others must be married. So while single people can serve in many capacities, they are always under the direction of married men. I wonder when this became a requirement for God to call someone. It seems to me the scriptures are full of examples of men (and even women) called by God who were not necessarily married.

Finally, this comment by Elder Oaks seems backwards to me. "We realize there may be great loneliness in their lives, but there must also be recognition of what is right before the Lord." What is that scripture in Genesis? Oh yeah:

"And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone."

"Good" and "Right" are synonymous. So according to this scripture... what is right before the Lord is that man not be alone. So this sentence makes no sense to me. Loneliness was never something God wanted for his children.

ARG: Jonathan loved David- My name in the bible

This is extremely long, but it is well worth it, I promise. I owe this post to the labors of other scholars but have added my little bits. A few Sundays ago in Gospel Doctrine, we were reading in Samuel about Jonathan and David. If you aren't familiar with the story, I encourage you to reference it. Many scholars argue that the relationship between Jonathan and David was more than just a platonic relationship. "That's blasphemous!" you might think. Well, perhaps. I do not know what the correct answer is, but I thought I'd share reasons why many believe this was an intimate homosexual relationship. These scriptures go on and on about the love these two righteous men had for each other. You can decide for yourself of course.

Now, one reason I am so interested in this story is because of my name. Guess what my middle name is? David. Jonathan David Adamson (son of Adam). Don't worry... I'm not claiming that all this was written in the stars, I am just pointing out one reason it peaked my interest. Anyway, on to the scriptures:

"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul"

1 Sam. 18:1

In Genesis 2:7, as written in the original Hebrew,  it describes how God blew the spirit into the body of Adam that God had formed from earth, so that Adam became a living soul. This means that "soul", in the ancient Israelite times, represents a combination of body and spirit. Thus the the interpretation can be argued that the two men appear to have loved each other both physically and emotionally.

"And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house."

 1 Sam. 18:2

David left his parent's home and moved to Saul's where he would be with Jonathan. This is a strong indication that the relationship was extremely close. It echoes the passage marriage passage in Genesis 2:24: "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."

"Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle."

1 Sam. 18:3-4

Whoa there... so the made a covenant with each other because of their intense love for each other? And then Jonathan stripped?? Since people in those days did not wear underwear, Jonathan stripped himself naked in front of David. That would be considered extremely unusual behavior (then and now) unless their relationship was sexual in nature.

"And Michal Saul’s daughter loved David: and they told Saul, and the thing pleased him. And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may be a snare to him, and that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Wherefore Saul said to David, Thou shalt this day be my son in law in the one of the twain."

1 Sam. 18:20-21

Saul's belief was that David would be so distracted by a wife that he would not be an effective fighter and would be killed by the Philistines. He offered first his daughter Merab, but that was rejected, presumably by her. Then he offered Michal. There is an interesting phrase used at the end of verse 21. It would seem that David's first opportunity to be a son-in-law was with the older daughter Merab, and his second was with the younger daughter Michal. The KJV preserves the original text in its clearest form; it implies that David would become Saul's son-in-law through "one of the twain." "Twain" means "two", so the verse seems to refer to one of Saul's two daughters. Unfortunately, this is a mistranslation. The underlined phrase "the one of" does not exist in the Hebrew original. The words are shown in italics in the King James Version; this is an admission by the translators that they made the words up (that's what words in italics means in the KJV). Thus, if the KJV translators had been truly honest, they would have written:

"Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law, in the twain."

In modern English, this might be written: "Today, you are son-in-law with two of my children" That would refer to both his son Jonathan and his daughter Michal. Since the first daughter rejected the proposal, the Hebrew original would appear to recognize David and Jonathan's homosexual relationship as equivalent to David and Michal's heterosexual marriage. Saul may have approved or disapproved of the same-sex relationship; but at least he appears to have recognized it. Once again, the KJV (the translation the Mormon church believes is most correct) highlight their re-writing of the Hebrew original by placing the three words in italics.

"Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness? "

1 Sam 20:30

The "choosing" (bahar), in this case, may indicate a permanent choice and firm relationship, and the mention of "nakedness" (erwa) could be interpreted to convey a negative sexual nuance, giving the impression that Saul saw something indecent in Jonathan's and David's relationship. But if you know the story, Saul was the evil one and Jonathan and David were righteous.

"...David arose out of a place toward the south, and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times: and they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded."

1 Sam 20:41

Some translators could not handle the thought of two adult men kissing, so in other versions of the bible they mistranslated the passage by saying that the two men shook hands! This is somewhat less than honest. The original Hebrew text says that they kissed each other and wept together until David became great. The word which means "great" in this passage is "gadal" in the original Hebrew. The same word is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures to refer to King Solomon being greater than all other kings. Now, I am not saying I agree, but some theologians even interpret "gadal" in this verse as indicating that David had an erection. I am not enough of a linguist to really try that one on for size.

"I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."

2 Sam 1:26

Powerful stuff huh? Ask yourself, would a straight man ever think of his love for any man greater than that of a woman? No lets look at their society. In the society of ancient Israel, it was not considered proper for a man and woman to have a platonic relationship. Men and women rarely spoke to each other in public. Since David's only relationships with women would have been sexual in nature, then he must be referring to sexual love here. It would not make sense in this verse to compare platonic love for a man with sexual love for a woman; they are two completely different phenomena. It would appear that David is referring to his sexual love for Jonathan.

Some also point out that the relationship between the two men is addressed with the same words and emphasis as other love relationships in the Hebrew Testament, whether heterosexual or between God and people ('ahava').

Jonathan was willing to betray his father, family, wealth, and traditions for David. Is there any person you would be willing to do that for that is unrelated to you besides your romantic love interest?

This is one of three stories that scholars believe may reference homosexual relationships in the bible. The others are Daniel and Ashpenaz as well as Ruth and Naomi. Really quickly I want to just point out a couple things about this last relationship for my lesbian sisters:

Did you know that one vow commonly used at heterosexual marriages is one that was exchanged between these two women?

"And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me."

Ruth 1:16-17

Beautiful isn't it? I would love to meet Ruth. And ironic that this passage is used in so many heterosexual marriages of our day. Ruth 1:14, referring to the relationship between Ruth and Naomi, mentions that "Ruth clave onto her." The Hebrew word translated here as "clave" is identical to that used in the description of a heterosexual marriage in Genesis 2:24 referenced above.

Now, while it is obvious that this same-sex friendship was very deep, there is no language in the scriptures to suggest it may have been a sexually active relationship as there seems to be for the story of Jonathan and David, but nevertheless, I think the language is very strong indeed... especially in a volume that hardly references women.

Take from this post what you will. What do you feel/think when you read about these relationships? What does the language suggest to you? Perhaps all you can take from this is that there is just as much reason to believe that the bible speaks well of homosexual relationships as their is reason to believe it speaks against it. And I suppose that can only help us realize how ignorant we really are... and how little we understand. Thank the heavens that it is God's job to judge and not our own.

ARG: The Family- A Proclaimation to the World (Part 2)

Okay, this is the second installment of my thoughts on "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." I will discuss the first two paragraphs of this document:

We, the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, solemnly proclaim that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator's plan for the eternal destiny of His children.

All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.

Remembering that this whole statement is considered a "guide" and not a "revelation" by modern-day prophets, I will still approach this document as if it held weight as for reasons people believe homosexuality is bad.

In the first paragraph, it says nothing about homosexuality. It does say that marriage between man and woman is ordained of God, but it doesn't say that marriage between man and man or woman and woman is evil. It also says that the family is ordained of God, but does not specify what that family looks like. So I would have to say I agree full heartedly with those two statements.

Having said that, consider this: Say a woman was deceiving her husband during their time dating. Lets say that she led him to believe that she was a committed member of the church and believer in Christ. In fact, however, she never intended to stay in the church or raise a family in it. He, on the other hand, believed that she was on the same page and, like himself, was fully committed to the gospel. They get married in the Temple. A few short weeks later, the wife informs her husband she is leaving the church and doesn't want her family to be raised in it. They divorce. Now this was a man and a woman, married in the temple. Was it ordained of God? This is a true story. It is the story of one of my mission companions.

Another short story: A child grows up in an abusive home. His parents are a danger to his life. In order to survive, he literally has to run away. But his mother and father were his biological parents.  Do you think that kid will smile at the news that he can be with his family forever?? No. Not a chance. That would be his hell.  Was this family ordained of God?

My point here is that just because it states that marriage between man and woman is ordained of God and family is ordained of God doesn't mean that EVERY marriage and EVERY family is ordained by him. With the same reasoning, I would argue that just because it says that these two institutions are ordained of God, it doesn't mean that others are not.

Okay, now the second paragraph. First of all, I think that the wording is interesting. All humans- BOTH MALE AND FEMALE- are created in the image of God. Does anyone else find that interesting? How can both be in the image of God? I mean, we obviously have different parts right? Hmm... just something to think about, but I have no argument with it. Nor do i have a problem with the idea that God loves all of us.

One argument that is used against homosexuals that bothers me A LOT is a phrase within this paragraph. That phrase is "Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose." Okay. That is fine. Being gay doesn't mean that I want to be a girl. I recognize and accept that I am a man and that it is part of my identity. I am in no way trying to reject that. So I have no argument with this either (when it comes to myself).

But now lets consider some people that don't fit inside this box we've so easily divided in half, females on one side, males on the other. What about those individuals with nondescript genitalia? What about those with both? How do you determine their gender? Does it need to be determined? Can you imagine being one of those individuals and reading this statement? Where do they fit in? What do you tell these people? In this document we are saying that gender is an essential characteristic, yet there are many who cannot be classified into male or female.

So my point is, first this idea of gender being an essential characteristic isn't any reason to justify the idea that homosexuality is inherently wrong. Second, obviously this document isn't all-inclusive and leaves out some individuals who God loves just as much as the next person.

ARG: Elder Oaks & Elder Wickman on SGA - Part 8

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is heterosexual marriage ever an option for those with homosexual feelings?

ELDER OAKS: We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: “Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.” To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.

On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.
President Hinckley said that marriage is not a therapeutic step to solve problems.

ELDER WICKMAN: 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?”

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.
The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities.
-------------------------------------

ME: Why is this response so long? Yikes. The first difficulty I have is again with leaders not taking any responsibility for what has happened. "..apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage." Why does Elder Oaks talk about this as if this might have happened unknown to the leadership of the church? It most definitely happened, and it happened a lot. Leaders are all instructed by the Handbook of Instructions in very specific ways in how to deal with every issue imaginable. There is an army of men that were counseled by stake presidents and bishops across the country to marry a woman to cure their homosexuality. There is no room for anyone to speak of it as if it may or may not have happened or that it is just some rumor.

Then the second remark Elder Oaks makes about the exception makes it sound like any truly valiant and faithful person would marry a woman. "persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate." Blessing of eternity certainly can't be enjoyed without marriage to a woman right? And what about the many many gay members who have nothing to be cleansed of? Who have never acted on their homosexuality (like me up until the last few months)? Would I have been considered to be appropriately "dealing" with my feelings? How do you measure that? How does one "deal" with these feelings? Is it simply by "putting them in the background?" Never knowing when they might surface? To me, it sounds like Elder Oaks is saying, "no, marriage is not a cure for homosexuality, but faithful members with these feelings should get married." Which is it??

Oh Elder Wickman... has your life felt like a "nano-second," really? Of course we can say that in the perspective of eternity this is a short time, but that is not what our current perspective is. We have no concept of eternity. We cannot imagine it. We can however wonder how 10 minutes can seem to last for weeks. What? you have to pee? Just hold it. This life is just a nano-second. It isn't that much to ask is it?

Also.... WHOA! Wow... when was THAT doctrine revealed? I must have been asleep during THAT Sunday School lesson. Homosexuality did not exist and will not exist beyond this life? What about heterosexuality? I don't recall any scriptures or prophets speaking on the matter. I've already spoken my feelings about this subject in this post.

Finally, I agree Elder Oaks. Men are that they might have joy. And in my experience (which I cannot deny), same-gender activity has not brought me sorrow and grief or the loss of eternal opportunities. But guess what did? Those years of repression and denial of who I was. Instead, my dating experience has brought me more joy than I ever thought I'd experience. I'm pretty sure that things that bring true happiness in this life will be still bring true happiness in the next life because it is TRUE.

I feel bad. I would never speak this way in person to a General Authority. But these are my thoughts, unedited and plain as day. In person, or in a formal letter, I would of course word all of this more respectfully, but I'd still address the same points. Unfortunately, there is no way they would grant me an audience or even take the time to read, consider, and respond to a letter. So sorry if my tone offends you. It is only because of the deep emotions that are attached to statements like these.

ARG: Elder Oaks & Elder Wickman on SGA - Part 7

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is therapy of any kind a legitimate course of action if we’re talking about controlling behavior? If a young man says, “Look, I really want these feelings to go away… I would do anything for these feelings to go away,” is it legitimate to look at clinical therapy of some sort that would address those issues?

ELDER WICKMAN: Well, it may be appropriate for that person to seek therapy. Certainly the Church doesn’t counsel against that kind of therapy. But from the standpoint of a parent counseling a person, or a Church leader counseling a person, or a person looking at his or her same-gender attraction from the standpoint of ‘What can I do about it here that’s in keeping with gospel teachings?’ the clinical side of it is not what matters most. What matters most is recognition that ‘I have my own will. I have my own agency. I have the power within myself to control what I do.’

Now, that’s not to say it’s not appropriate for somebody with that affliction to seek appropriate clinical help to examine whether in his or her case there’s something that can be done about it. This is an issue that those in psychiatry, in the psychology professions have debated. Case studies I believe have shown that in some cases there has been progress made in helping someone to change that orientation; in other cases not. From the Church’s standpoint, from our standpoint of concern for people, that’s not where we place our principal focus. It’s on these other matters.

ELDER OAKS: Amen to that. Let me just add one more thought. The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on.

The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used.

----------------------------------

ME: The clinical side matters a lot. It is because of studies and science that the church has changed its position so much on homosexuality over the last 20 years. Back in Galileo's time the church taught that the earth was the center of the universe. The church (and I don't mean the LDS church) attacked him and demonized him for his "hearsay" when he claimed to know that the sun, not the earth was the center. If they didn't demonize this man, the believers would begin to question the church since the stance they took was on this geocentric universe. But that didn't change the impact of Galileo's findings. It may have slowed it. But today, we all know and recognize that the sun is the center of our solar system and nothing that any prophet or church would say would make us believe otherwise.

Elder Wickman is trying to take away the significance of science and intellect so that we don't pay attention to the findings. He says, don't look at that stuff, it isn't important. The important thing is that we have our own will. It's true. We have our own will. We can believe that the earth is the center of this solar system if we want to- it is within our power. But does it make it any more right? What I would like to see is the reasons why gay people are wrong. What is this idea being based off of? What teachings of Christ? To me THAT is the most important question.

As far as Elder Oaks' comments go, well I guess I shouldn't be surprised that the church will take no responsibility for abusive therapies even though they did endorse them in the past. At BYU, they used to give gay students a choice between being kicked out or doing shock therapy. These students wanted more than anything to change, so they often agreed to the therapy. This reportedly happened on campus even as late as the 1990s. They would connect electrodes to places on their body (including their genitals) and show them erotic images of men. When they got aroused, they would shock them. Then they would show them erotic images of women and soothe them with music or other calming treatments. Some of these men have burn scars on their bodies from this treatment. Some of them committed suicide after realizing it wasn't working, that they weren't able to change. The church is very careful to make sure that BYU doesn't do anything that the church doesn't endorse. How is it then, that Elder Oaks can say that they refuse to take responsibility for abusive therapies. These therapies were advised by church leaders. They were required of gay individuals if they wished to stay a part of the community of "saints." It is true that the church no longer endorses this type of therapy, but come on. Take some responsibility for the past for once.

Sorry that this response of mine was more heated and attacking than others. But I have heard accounts and seen the scars of individuals who have gone through that therapy at BYU and it is really hard not to get angry. It is infuriating to me that our leaders would have us turn a blind eye on the scientific studies and findings and then refuse to take responsibility for being wrong in the past and for the harm they have inflicted due to their ignorance, biases, and prejudice.

See these links for more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aversion_therapy#In_homosexuality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#BYU

ARG: The Family- A Proclaimation to the World (Part 1)

And so begins my commentary on The Family: A Proclamation to the World. Why do I want to discuss this? Because it is often used to denounce homosexuality. If people are going to use it against me, I want to know the validity of their argument. Before I begin, I want to say I love my family. I think families are so important. They really are the most important unit on the face of the earth in my opinion. I am very close to my family and even much of my extended family and never plan on distancing myself from them. There are a lot of truths in this document.

The first thing I want to talk about is the nature of this proclamation. Many members consider it scripture or revelation. This, however, is not the case. The most recent evidence of this can be found in the changes made to Elder Packer's recent controversial talk in General Conference. I am not going to go into that talk, enough has already been said about it, but there is one sentence that is very important in putting forth this point. Speaking of the proclamation mentioned above, Packer's original talk read:

"It qualifies according to the definition as a revelation and would do well that members of the church to read and follow it."

After the changes, that same sentence now reads:

"It is a guide that members of the Church would do well to read and to follow."

Not such a minor change is it? Downgraded from revelation to guide. Well, you don't need that talk to prove that it isn't scripture, it is built into the doctrine of the church. As outlined in the Doctrine and Covenants, a decision does not become established doctrine or scripture in the LDS Church until submitted to the "common consent" of church members. This hasn't happened.

So while the proclamation can be a helpful guide and good advice, it is not a blanket statement that can be draped around everyone. While no one should be judging another person anyway, they definitely shouldn't be judging someone using a statement as scripture when even the leaders who wrote it clearly teach that it is not scripture.

So. Before we go on this journey into the document, let's be clear that this is not a revelation, nor is it scripture. So we shouldn't be giving it that kind of weight.

ARG: Will Gays Turn Straight in the Afterlife?

As of recently, church leaders have started to suggest that gayness, like a handicap, will be "fixed" in the next life, and that we should await for that time in faith and righteousness. I'm not sure I believe this. My first argument is against the idea that anyone should be waiting or longing for death to experience love and intimacy. We should strive for those things in our lives here and now. But my other argument is that this idea doesn't seem to me to be inline with our doctrine. In Alma, it states that we are

"raised to happiness according to his desires of happiness, or good according to his desires of good; and the other to evil according to his desires of evil."

Alma 41:5

When I read that, regardless of whether my desires to live as a gay man are desires of true happiness or true evil, I will retain those same desires in the next life. My desire to be with a man, that pull, will still be there. Later, in the same chapter (verses 12-13) it reads:

"And now behold, is the meaning of the word restoration to take a thing of a natural state and place it in an unnatural state, or to place it in a state opposite to its nature?     UAdd a Note  O, my son, this is not the case; but the meaning of the word restoration is to bring back again evil for evil, or carnal for carnal, or devilish for devilish—good for that which is good; righteous for that which is righteous; just for that which is just; merciful for that which is merciful."

 Once again, I feel like these scriptures clearly state that my orientation, which, as Elder Wickman states, is a core characteristic, will not change in the next life. This is regardless of if the reader feels that I am evil in my desires or if they are righteous because either way, righteousness is restored to righteousness and that which is evil is restored to evil.

Furthermore, in D&C 130:2 it states:

"And that same sociality which exists among us here will exist among us there."

What does this mean for our romantic interests? Say I am romantically involved with another man for 40 years until the day I die. If I were turned straight, how could the "same sociality" exist between us in the next life? And even if I never acted on my feelings, say I had a friendship with another gay man where even though we both longed to build a life together, we never did so that we could keep in line with what the church presently teaches. Would that longing to be together in that same way disappear? I think this scripture would argue against that.

Now, there is one question to consider. Say I died before I decided to accept my sexuality (which nearly happened) back when I would have gone to any length to rid myself of my homosexuality. Would God have changed me then? I don't know. If I hated my skin color or my eye color or the language I spoke or that fact that I was left handed (I'm not), would God change me? Ok, granted we don't consider these other things to be sins... anymore. Left-handed people used to be punished and forced to use their right hand in school as children. The prophets of our church used to teach that Blacks were cursed and that it was punishment. But maybe we should look at this another way...

What were the reasons I wanted to become straight? So people wouldn't think I was disgusting. So I wouldn't go to hell. So I could actually want a relationship with a girl. So I could be "normal." So I didn't have to feel ashamed anymore. Are these "desires of happiness, or good?" Or are these "desires of evil?" I guess it depends on if the reader believes there was something wrong in me in the first place. If it is wrong (even though it was by no choice or fault of my own), then maybe they were good desires, but they sure didn't bring any gleam or hint of happiness or hope. Instead those thoughts only led to depression and self-hate which I would argue are far from good, righteous desires. If there is nothing wrong with having these desires, if they are God-given, then it would be evil to seek to reject them. Given my experience in trying to reject it and the resulting thoughts and feelings that came from that, I would say that this fits. Trying to reject it was like slowly killing myself. The longer I forced it away, the more dead I became inside.

So in my opinion, based on the scriptures that I know and read and based on my own experiences with the subject matter, I would argue that no- I will not be turned straight after I am resurrected.

ARG: Do the Scriptures Condemn Gays?

Simple answer? No. But let me explain. First of all, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine of Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price, and the Gospels in the New Testament are completely silent on the issue of homosexuality. We claim the Book of Mormon to be the most correct book. That it was written for us and our time and the volumes of scripture I mention above are the most valued in Mormonism. Why then, are they silent on this issue if indeed homosexuality is the "downfall of society," or the "destruction of the family?" If homosexuality is the reason for the destruction of mankind, why is Christ, why is the Book of Mormon, why is the D&C SILENT about it? Food for thought.

Now, there are a few scriptures that are not in the volumes I addressed above that people take to mean that homosexuality is evil and condemnable. Let's examine them. The bulk of the argument Christians make against gays rests on two basic old testament references. The first is that of Sodom and Gomorrah. The second is the Levitical Code.

Sodom and Gomorrah

The scriptures are not explicit in stating the reason why God destroyed these cities by fire. Many Christians blame the homosexuals (just as they blame gay people today for the reason why society is crumbling and families are being weakened). But what do the scriptures really say? The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were many. They include rape, bestiality, adultery, idol worshiping, and neglecting the needy. In fact, in Ezekiel, Christ compares Jerusalem to Sodom & Gomorrah, calling it her "younger sister." He then condemns Jerusalem over Sodom and Gomorrah:

"As I live, saith the Lord God, Sodom thy sister hath not done, she nor her daughters, as thou hast done, thou and thy daughters. Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good…  but thou hast multiplied thine abominations more than they, and hast justified thy sisters in all thine abominations which thou hast done. Thou also, which hast judged thy sisters, bear thine own shame for thy sins that thou hast committed more abominable than they: they are more righteous than thou: yea, be thou confounded also, and bear thy shame, in that thou hast justified thy sisters." 

Ezekiel 16:48-52

So here, the Lord not only doesn't mention homosexuality (and he never explicitly does), but he is condemning Jerusalem for judging the people of Sodom and Gomorrah. Christ is basically saying that Jerusalem has no place to judge when they have a beam in their own eye that is greater than the mote in the eye of their "sister" city. And what explicit sins are stated by the Lord himself that condemn Sodom and Gomorrah? Haughtiness, neglect of the poor and needy, pride, gluttony, idleness. Hmm… could these things be said about the "righteous" members of the church today? Are members today not pointing their fingers at gay people and making them the scapegoat for the downfall of society?

In the New Testament when Christ is instructing his apostles, he says,

"And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city."

Matthew 10:14-15

Once again, Christ is condemning other cities above Sodom and Gomorrah if they reject his apostles. Why does Christ even reference these cities of the old testament? It sounds to me that he references Sodom and Gomorrah because so many people know the story of its destruction and point to that city as being so wicked. So because of this horrible judgement people cast on Sodom and Gomorrah, the Lord gets his message across to the self-appointed "righteous" people by saying, "YOU ARE WORSE! So stop pointing out the sins of those people as if you are better!"

Okay, so lets return to the question of homosexuality and Sodom and Gomorrah. This verse is often referenced to show that it was homosexuality that was the reason for destruction by fire:

For those of you not familiar with this story, angels were sent as men to the city and Lot housed them for the night. When the men of the city saw there were strangers in town, they surrounded Lot's house

"And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them."

Genesis 5:19

So it is clear that homosexual acts must have been present in the city, but it that the sin? It seems clear that these men were there in lust. The old and young came for "fresh meat." It is also obvious that this was in no way going to be consensual. They intended to rape these strangers… possibly even gang rape them. Also, were these men even gay? Committing a homosexual act and being gay are two very different things. If a heterosexual person commits a homosexual act, it is purely out of lust- for the sexual pleasure. If a homosexual person commits a homosexual act, it is possible for it to be an expression of real love. This is because a homosexual person is interested in a fulfilling relationship with another of the same sex just as a heterosexual person seeks a fulfilling relationship with the opposite sex. Once again, the ACT doesn't determine your ORIENTATION.

Okay, enough about Sodom and Gomorrah. You can look into it more for yourself and see if the scriptures ever state that homosexuality was the reason for the city's downfall. It is my belief that that is a false interpretation and that it was made the scapegoat so that we can justify our sins of haughtiness, neglect of the poor and needy, pride, gluttony, and idleness which are sins explicitly stated by the Lord for the reason why the city was destroyed.

The Levitical Code

First off, lets remember that this code was part of the Law of Moses and has been fulfilled and replaced with the higher law. But, if you or others insist on using it for a bases for the idea that homosexuality is condemnable, lets examine it. The scripture referenced to condemn gay people is this:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 18:22

What else is an abomination according to the same code? Well, it spends about 15 verses of the same chapter talking about how seeing certain members of your family/extended family naked is an abomination. It also states that the penalty for a child cursing or disobeying his parents is death and the penalty for the daughter of a priest sleeping around is being "burnt with fire." It also states that no man with a blemish (ie "blind, lame, flat nose, broken footed, dwarf, scabbed, etc) will be allowed to offer sacrifice to the Lord. The penalty for blasphemy is being stoned to death.

I could go on, but I wont. My conclusion here is if you are going to use the Levitical code from the Law of Moses to condemn me, you better be killing your child next time he/she disobeys and prevent anyone who has a physical flaw from serving in any callings or capacity that would allow him to sacrifice his time or means for the Lord. You can't extract one verse and apply it and leave the rest as "in the past" and "done away with."

Conclusion

There is no bases for condemning gay people and telling them that if they act on their natural, fundamental, core desires for fulfillment and happiness in this life that they are in any way evil or condemnable before the Lord except for prejudice and ignorance. Even the scriptures that one might use to argue against gays are few and rely on sketchy interpretation of vague language. The tradition that society has built up that gays are in some way disgusting, perverted, or evil is a false one. It is simply because gay people are a minority, they are different from the mainstream, and people don't understand them.

Lastly, did you know that there is a story in the Bible that many scholars believe references a gay man who was called of God, even as he continued in his same-sex relationship?? I will present that story in a later post.

ARG: Elder Oaks & Elder Wickman on SGA - Part 6

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or nature’

ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.

ELDER WICKMAN: Whether it is nature or nurture really begs the important question, and a preoccupation with nature or nurture can, it seems to me, lead someone astray from the principles that Elder Oaks has been describing here. Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say? But what matters is the fact that we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior which is important.

-----------------------------

ME: First, it would be more accurate to say that the Church no longer has a position. Church Leaders and Church Handbooks of Instruction and several texts and talks written and given by prophets of the past were clear that homosexuality was caused. Due to the irrefutable claims by hundreds of studies that have been conducted since then, however, the Church can no longer say that it is caused by one thing or another. I think this is an important thing to remember. To remember that science and secular knowledge can and does inform church decisions and that the church's stance on homosexuality has indeed changed drastically over the last couple decades. Many members seem to think that scientific discussion and intellectual arguments don't matter in the church. This is not true. While the gospel will never change, the culture in which the gospel is practiced will, and does. So that fact that stance on homosexuality has changed (even within our lifetime) should indicate that this issue is not a part of the unchanging, true doctrine of Christ. It is not an eternal truth like repentance.

Also, I disagree with Wickman that we shouldn't look into what we can find about nature vs. nurture simply because it is too difficult to say at the present. If every person in the history of the world simply refused to look into something because they didn't understand, we'd still be living like cavemen. Nature vs. Nurture wouldn't be relevant at all if the Church didn't claim that God isn't the author of such "confusion." The stance that homosexuality is innately evil starts to fall apart once the possibility that it is in-born comes into play. Therefore, the Church is very smart in claiming a "no stance" policy on the question. That way they aren't attacked by the solid conclusions made by professional studies across the world, but they also don't have to admit that God has made some of his children this way.

Furthermore, I think that this whole question is irrelevant except in the case where someone or some institution is claiming that the reason why it is evil, as they say, is because God doesn't make people who are born as homosexuals. If if it is upon this that their whole argument rests, then yes, it becomes important to prove that it is not learned, but inborn. Since science has been good at proving that, the Church has had to shift the reasoning why homosexuality is evil so that this argument wouldn't fall apart. The new basis for their reasoning, in my opinion, has lots of holes. In fact, I'm not sure where the support for this idea comes from.

Lastly, I STRONGLY disagree with Wickman that "what matters is the fact that we know we can control how we behave." No one is questioning this fact. Of course we control our behavior (except in some few cases). What matters, I would argue, is if living as a gay person, pursuing a relationship with another person of the same sex, is indeed evil. Why should anyone not act on innate feelings if it isn't wrong? Let me explain. It isn't wrong for heterosexuals to pursue the opposite sex, so they don't need to control that behavior. They only need to control behavior when it comes to immoral activities. They don't need to refrain from kissing, holding hands with, or being close to a person of the opposite sex. And once they marry, they don't need to refrain from sexual relations either. Can they control it? YES. Do they need to? NO. So, can gay people control their behavior? YES. Do they need to? And if so, why? On what grounds?

ARG: Family- I Can Have One Too

I want to write something concerning a lie that I believed for a long time before and during the process of coming to terms with my sexuality when I was determining what that was going to mean for me and my life. It is the notion that being gay means you will never have a family of your own. I hear this being the reason why so many gay LDS young men want to marry a woman despite the fact that they are gay. When a friend of mine told her mom that I was gay, she said, "the saddest thing is he will never get to have a family." I believed this once. I couldn't imagine being completely fulfilled living as a gay guy because having kids is something I really want. So I figured I should meet some woman who is just unbelievably awesome and would marry me even though I couldn't love her like she deserved to be loved by a man. And then I thought- how selfish of me. For me to have a happy, fulfilled life, kids are in the picture, but the woman isn't. It would basically be like using her for her ability to bare children. If the girl happened to be sterile, I'm not sure I would ever consider marrying her because the marriage part isn't the thing I see as giving me real happiness and fulfillment. That is selfish. I can't believe I thought like that.

Ok, so lets start with the definition of family (in the dictionary). I'm not going to bore you with what we already know about families. But here are some things to keep in mind:

In most societies it is the principal institution for the socialization of children. One of the primary functions of the family is to produce and reproduce persons, biologically and socially. Think about families of today. Is it really based on physical reproduction? Would you not call a husband and wife who both got remarried to each other after their spouses died, and brought in children from their previous relationships a family? What if they never actually reproduced together? Would they still be a family? Yes. How many moms would the kids have? Two. Dads? Two.

What about parents who are sterile? What if they adopt. They definitely didn't physically reproduce. But they are involved in social reproduction. Are they not a family? What about kids who for one reason or another live with relatives. Their grandparents raise them. Are they not a family? Family takes so many different forms. Why is it that we exclude the type of family I can have?

In all honesty, I don't think God is impressed with the ability of a man and woman to physically reproduce. Any guy and girl could hook up in a drunken daze and do it. The physical part doesn't prove anything about your character or learning and progress about life. I think God is impressed with the way some people choose to go about raising those kids, teaching them, being examples to them, socializing them. This concept of social reproduction is interesting: Social reproduction is a sociological term referring to processes which sustain or perpetuate characteristics of a given social structure or tradition over a period of time.

This brings me to the charge to "multiply and replenish the earth." Could it be that we have misinterpreted what this means? I wonder if God is up there shaking his head- "these kids... all they think about is sex." What if what is meant by multiplying and replenishing the earth is that we are to teach our children and help them to become productive, contributing members of society and of Christ's church? Are we not replenishing the earth with individuals who can act on their own and not be commanded in all things to go forth and be a source of goodness and light to the world? Furthermore, what would you say of the abusive drug attics who had sex during one of their crazy highs and had a kid who they ignored and abused as he/she grew instead of teach and guide? These two people certainly physically reproduced and replenished the earth... so does that mean they fulfilled God's commandment? I don't think so. What have they replenished the earth with? What have they reproduced? Another troubled kid who feels unloved and uncared for? Someone who doesn't have the tools to go forth and make positive contributions?

Obviously physical reproduction is necessary and important. But it isn't everything. There are plenty of cases where that is not possible due to infertility, disabilities, health, etc, etc. So can we say that those couples are not fulfilling the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth? I may not be able to physically reproduce with a male partner, but we can adopt or opt for a surrogate mother. We can also be just as effective as (and most likely more effective than) many heterosexual parents in socially reproducing our children.  Which brings me to an argument against the church's charge against gay marriage, etc.

The church would have me live a celibate life without a partner. It would have me refrain from even dating. They would have me live alone. For the rest of my life. Now, if this life is all about learning and progression, to what extent would I be able to learn and progress living a life like that? On the other hand, say I got married to a man. We adopted children. We raised them and taught them the best we could. We experienced trials together as a family, etc, etc. Now wouldn't that experience be far more beneficial to learning and progression? To learn compromise and loyalty withing a valid, loving relationship? To experience the challenge and joys of raising children? I believe I would be much more likely to learn more of what it must be like to be God in that kind of life than it would a celibate, lonely one.

Many would argue with me citing "The Family: A Proclamation to the World." I ask you to withhold those arguments. I want to address that document in the same kind of fashion I have been addressing the interview with Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman.

Could it be that one of the reasons God saw it fit to allow the existence of gay individuals was to give loving homes to the thousands of kids without homes? To give those kids a chance at life? I don't know. Maybe.

ARG: Elder Oaks & Elder Wickman on SGA - Part 5

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If we were to look back at someone who had a ‘short fuse,’ and we were to look at their parents who might have had a short fuse, some might identify a genetic influence in that.

ELDER OAKS: No, we do not accept the fact that conditions that prevent people from attaining their eternal destiny were born into them without any ability to control. That is contrary to the Plan of Salvation, and it is contrary to the justice and mercy of God. It’s contrary to the whole teaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which expresses the truth that by or through the power and mercy of Jesus Christ we will have the strength to do all things. That includes resisting temptation. That includes dealing with things that we’re born with, including disfigurements, or mental or physical incapacities. None of these stand in the way of our attaining our eternal destiny. The same may be said of a susceptibility or inclination to one behavior or another which if yielded to would prevent us from achieving our eternal destiny.


---------------------

ME: “Dealing with the things we are born with” is very different from “controlling” the things we were born with. If I was born unable to walk, I could not control that. Nothing I could do, no matter how faithful I was would change the fact that I could not walk naturally like everyone else. I could, however, choose to deal with it through the use of other, less conventional, less acceptable methods of getting around to make up for the fact that I cannot walk, such as using a wheelchair.

But not even that is a fair example. One that would be more accurate is the following: Say I was born much like a dolphin. I physically cannot walk (just like the previous example), but more than that, I was born to swim. It is a core characteristic that determines that my life will be lived in the water no matter how badly I wish to live on the land. Yet I am being asked to control my urges to want to be in the water, and to do the best I can to live on land.

Dealing with it would be another thing. The way I might choose to deal with it is to live in the water despite the fact that I come from a society that lives on land. Of course I can choose how to deal with it... but my choices are limited. It’s as if I am a starving child with one apple in front of me labeled “poison”. I can choose to not take the apple, and die slowly from starvation. Or I can choose to eat it, enjoy the taste and texture and die quickly. It isn’t as if there is a healthy apple next to the poison one- not for me.

I cannot have the type of companionship people seek for in this life with a woman. It isn’t possible for me. It is the healthy apple that is presented to most people, but that is absent in my situation. But more than that, I am fully able, and fully equipped to desire and have that type of companionship with another man. The “poison” apple. So rather than my other choice of waiting to die of starvation, I am choosing that apple. And guess what? It turns out that label was just that- a label. This apple was’t poison after all. It has enabled me not only to live, but to live happy and satisfied.

The problem with Elder Oaks’ argument mostly rests on the notion that being gay is a condition that prevents me “from attaining [my] eternal destiny.” I don’t believe that. I don’t believe anyone but God knows what my eternal destiny is. Elder Oaks can’t assume that my eternal destiny is the same as his. What if I am not destined to walk like him? What if I am created to swim or to fly? This is what Elder Oaks bases his whole argument on and I don’t see how it is a sufficiently strong foundation to validate the conclusions he presents.

It is not meet that man should be alone and the church-endorsed celibacy isn't just a call to restrain from sex. It is a call to deny yourself companionship. The church presents one choice for me- the choice to be alone the rest of my life. Adam had that choice too after Eve partook of the fruit didn't he? But he decided to eat that which was forbidden him in order that he could stay with Eve. If my choice is between being alone without love, and the poison apple- pass the apple over here please.

ARG: Don't Catch the Homo!!

I must first start by saying that this is a joke that my friend began in reference to the idea that homosexuality is in someway contagious. Whenever we offer her a taste of our food or drink, she exclaims, "No! I don't wanna catch the homo! I don't wanna catch the homo!" It is interesting how we embrace the words that are meant to harm us. Mormons did it. Blacks did it. And gays do it. It is so much easier to laugh about it and turn it into a word that doesn't hurt so much.

Anyway, I must say, I'm surprised many of you haven't turned gay by reading my "gay activist propaganda." Congratulations. That is a feat worth celebrating.

Ok, in all seriousness guys- you can't CATCH homosexuality. One of the arguments that people have against gay rights is that granting them those freedoms would mean the conversion of their children to homosexuality.

Let me tell you a little about my growing up. I grew up in a family, religion, and society that not only highly values heterosexuality, but condemns homosexuality. My parents were my examples of what marriage was supposed to look like. My whole (extended) family was clear on how they viewed gay people.  My religion taught me that my salvation depended on this "normal" union of man and woman. My society's view of "happily ever after" always revolved around boy meets girl in television, film, music, and every other form of mass media you can think of. I listened to the same songs about love you did. I was familiar with all the same romantic comedies you watched. I wasn't listening and watching happily-ever-afters that included two boys or two girls. The plan for happiness in this life and the life to come has always been taught to me in terms of a traditional family. Yet here I am. A full blown gay guy even though no word had been spoken of about my happily-ever-after.

Oh how I used to wish I could "catch" heterosexuality. If only it was as simple as sharing a drink or watching a movie. But it isn't. In studies conducted on families where the parents of the children are gay (two lesbians, for example), guess what they have found? Their kids turn out as straight as they come in the proportions that hold true for all populations. Not only that, but they perform higher in school and get into less trouble and unfavorable circumstances (like sexual abuse) than their straight counterparts. Yet here we are, using their hypothetical kids to argue against the union of these two women and their ability to raise a family. You don't "catch" orientation and more than you catch eye color.

But hey, I'd still recommend washing you hands after shaking the hand of a gay person. Almost 1 out of 5 people fail to wash their hands after using the restroom. That's just gross. But don't worry. You're not gonna catch the homo.

ARG: Homosexuality- The Defining Issue for the LDS Church?

I've been doing a bit of thinking lately (I know, sorry- I try not to. Really) about why it is so difficult for members to understand homosexuality and begin to build bridges over the gaps of their ignorance on the issue. Honestly, I am baffled sometimes when people don't realize what is happening. I feel certain if others knew what I knew, if they have seen the things I've seen surrounding this issue, they simply could not make changes in their thinking and still claim to be a compassionate, loving human being. Yet, no matter what kind of friendship we've had or what experiences or true stories I tell, the majority of people refuse to look anywhere but through the tunnel approved to them by the church. Then I realized that by asking them to understand, I ask so much more than that. It is really asking them to question everything they believe.

Lets say that I am completely 100% right in my thoughts/feelings/understanding of homosexuality (I would never make such a claim by the way). If that were so, and a typical, faithful member of the church came to that same conclusion, their world is likely to fall apart. If leaders are wrong about this, how do we know they aren't wrong about A or B or C... etc. By asking them to understand, I am asking them to question everything they believe. It is much more simple to say- "I follow the prophets, everything they say is true, and you are an apostate," and cast all of the word vomit away as if it were a devil. To open it up for real discussion and debate in one's mind would be to risk falling into a black hole where certainty is non-existent.

For this reason, I really feel as though homosexuality will be the defining issue for the church. The fallout from the churches stance and political involvement has already been too great to know. It won't be long before gay marriage is legalized. Once that happens, it won't be long until public opinion changes as people begin to realize they work with, learn with, live with, play with, and depend on people in their lives who are gay. And then the church will have to really think about its stance. You may say, well- "this has already happened with polygamy and blacks and the priesthood, those things didn't really become 'defining moments.'" Let me tell you how this issue is different.

The internet. The accessibility of information. The world-wide church. We aren't talking about a small organization with little influence and publicity anymore. The world won't accept a 30-year lag after society has made up their minds about what is right and civil about marriage like they did after deciding what was right and civil about the color of skin. The church is still suffering repercussions on the issue of blacks on the priesthood, but it will be nothing like the issue of homosexuality/gay marriage.

In my eyes, the church has two options, both having complex consequences:

1. The church maintains its stance on homosexuality and its in-hospitality toward those who choose to embrace their orientation (as the "core characteristic" that Elder Oaks says it is) and move forward with their life. The consequences of this, as society continues to realize the prejudice and bias that is the root of the unjust treatment of homosexuals, will be more broken families, wards, and testimonies.  It will mean less converts, more members leaving, and poorer world image. Mormons will become even more isolated and "elite." The church will loose many ward organists, choir members, performers, and other talented members who serve the church in ways that touch people who otherwise would not be touched by the spirit of their message.