THT: Shame on Dallin Oaks

My last post received a lot of comments from both sides of the issue I talked about. I plan on responding to the comments and attention that the subject drew. I think there were good and bad arguments on both sides of the issue. But first- Oaks.

My first real impression of Oaks as a man was at BYU. I worked for the Office of Information Technology in the lighting branch of the Multimedia Events department. Our little team did the lighting for all sorts of events, from EFY dances to awards ceremonies to concerts to CES Firesides. (It is funny now to think that I ran the lighting for some of those firesides in the Marriot Center). Anyway, at one particularly high-end dinner/awards program, Oaks was one of several General Authorities in attendance. I remember watching him from the mezzanine. People were finding their seats as the program was about to start and his wife was still chatting it up with people by their table. Dallin Oaks (believing his wife to be behind him), pulled his wife's chair out and when he realized she was talking to people he just stood and waited patiently behind the chair. She was one of the last to wrap up conversation before sitting down and Oaks, of course, kindly scooted her chair in after she sat before taking his seat.

I share this story because I don't want people to think that I have completely vilified the leaders of the LDS Church in my mind. I know that many of them (maybe all?) are decent guys and if they were simply another person on the street, they would likely be likeable enough to just about anyone. However, they are not like a random person that you might happen to bump into. They proclaim themselves to be the voice of God. And people can say what they want about them being "imperfect men," but lets be honest with ourselves. We look into history at any mistake a past "prophet" made and we say, "he was only a man." Brigham Young for example. Mormons are quick to acknowledge that he was imperfect and made many mistakes and had questionable judgement. But if you even suggest that a current prophet is wrong, it is blasphemy. And not only are they treated like, as one facebook friend proclaimed during General Conference, "surrogates for the Lord," they are also treated like celebrities.

And as much a people would like to say that this is just a cultural issue, and not one that is perpetuated by the leaders themselves, it simply isn't true. You are not encouraged to question the teachings of President Monson. You are not told to read the ensign with a critical eye. What we are encouraged to do is "follow the prophet." So when someone in that position teaches false principles and ideas- it is dangerous. And as sweet as it was that Dallin Oaks pulled his wife's chair out for her, there is no excuse for an educated man who's words hundreds of thousands will interpret as scripture to say things of the nature that he did in General Conference. I don't know how his talk could be any more hypocritical.

He talks about the evils of victimizing children and selfish adult-interests while at the same time demonstrating that equation. How is re-enforcing the idea that single parents are less fit to raise children good for the children in single parent homes? How is making the already guilt-ridden woman haunted by her teenaged decision to abort her child feel evil make her feel valued and loved? And how the hell does telling people to "ASSUME" that same-sex couples with children are incapable, selfish, child-abusing parents do anything to help that child make friends in school and in their communities?

I'm sorry, are you telling us Mr. Oaks, that a child is better off in a foster home than being raised by two loving parents who spent the time in countless meetings and screenings and approvals to get the chance to provide a stable home to him or her? And sure, you were nice enough to pull that chair out for your wife, but isn't it a bit ungrateful to your mother who raised you alone in a world that can't have been very kind to her and her plight? Don't you think that if the toxic idea that she was ill-fit to raise a child wasn't so ingrained into our society that she might have had a better chance? Condemning single parents then didn't improve your situation, sir, so why do you feel it is your job to continue that poisonous teaching?

I have written much about Oaks and his discussion about what parents of gay children should do. I don't think I need to spend any more time showing how damaging his teachings about LGBT people are. But wake up people. THIS is the voice of God? How can people sit through that talk and come away feeling that it was uplifting and inspiring? I wish members were empowered to be able to stand up and say, "I'm sorry sir, but you are wrong- and there is no bell of truth that sounds when you speak."

THT: Am I My Brother's Keeper?

"And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper? And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me from the ground."

 Genesis 4:8-10

 

Responsibility. This is one of two posts I want to write on this issue. I am not going to mince words here. This first post is directed towards the leaders of this church. You are (speaking to the leaders), in many ways, guilty of the same crime as Cain. This is evident, most recently, by your complete disregard and negligence for the gay LDS people for whom you are responsible for. When you stand before God and he asks, "Where is thy brother Jonathan?" or "Where is thy brother Stuart Matis" or any number of men and women who have been kicked out of their homes, driven away, or simply forgotten and left alone, what will you say?

"Am I my brother's keeper?"

You have lost so many due to negligence and silence on the issue of homosexuality. If a celibacy or heterosexual marriage are not viable options for a person, they are dismissed. They are not invited to participate in your wards. They are not allowed to speak in church. You place a visible mark on them. Don't pretend that others will not notice a person in the ward who never has any calling and who never speaks in church, or who never goes on temple trips or takes the sacrament. There is no help for them from you unless it is on your terms. 

 

You have lost so many kids to risky behavior, abuse, a life of drugs and sex because you will not give them appropriate, helpful, and realistic counsel specific to their needs and because you have taught their parents that homosexuality is as evil as murder. You have failed to teach these kids that they are valuable and loved by God. That they are of great worth and are not broken or sick. That there are still ways for them to live respectable lives, ones in which they respect themselves and others even within a committed homosexual relationship. That their goal should be a long-term, committed and legitimate homosexual relationship and a family-oriented life if celibacy is not realistic. That they should be open and include their families in their lives.  

You have lost the lives of so many who believed that it would be better to die than to be gay due to careless remarks and comments on homosexuality. Because of the fear you have instilled in them. Because these people wanted to do what was right so bad, that they would rather take their own life than to sin. Because you have allowed an environment of fear, hate, ignorance, and prejudice to exist among your congregations regarding homosexuality. Good, bright, worthy, God-fearing men and women have been lost.

What will you say when God asks you where they are? Take responsibility. If you are what you claim, you are accountable and responsible for the thousands upon thousands that have been lost due to your actions (or non-action). 

"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."

-Elder Oaks

You have authorized and known of actions and orders that have been given to gay men and women to cure them of their homosexuality. This includes, but is not limited to, prescribing marriage as a fix, and endorsing shock-therapy at church-owned and church-run BYU. Whether you knew at the time that these prescriptions were harmful or not, you allowed them, and they indeed have proven to be extremely harmful. But rather than apologize and acknowledge this, you have responded, "Am I My Brother's Keeper?"

I am training as a manager at my workplace. In the process I have made many unintentional mistakes. I was unaware that I was doing something wrong. Regardless of that, however, I was still the person who made the mistake and it would never excuse me from apologizing for my error. You are no different. You are responsible for your actions. You ARE your brother's keeper.

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: Elder Oaks & Elder Wickman on SGA - Part 9

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: A little earlier, Elder Oaks, you talked about the same standard of morality for heterosexuals and homosexuals. How would you address someone who said to you, ‘I understand it’s the same standard, but aren’t we asking a little more of someone who has same-gender attraction?’ Obviously there are heterosexual people who won’t get married, but would you accept that they at least have hope that ‘tomorrow I could meet the person of my dreams.’ There’s always the hope that that could happen at any point in their life. Someone with same-gender attraction wouldn’t necessarily have that same hope.

ELDER OAKS: There are differences, of course, but the contrast is not unique. There are people with physical disabilities that prevent them from having any hope — in some cases any actual hope and in other cases any practical hope — of marriage. The circumstance of being currently unable to marry, while tragic, is not unique.

It is sometimes said that God could not discriminate against individuals in this circumstance. But life is full of physical infirmities that some might see as discriminations — total paralysis or serious mental impairment being two that are relevant to marriage. If we believe in God and believe in His mercy and His justice, it won’t do to say that these are discriminations because God wouldn’t discriminate. We are in no condition to judge what discrimination is. We rest on our faith in God and our utmost assurance of His mercy and His love for all of His children.

ELDER WICKMAN: There’s really no question that there is an anguish associated with the inability to marry in this life. We feel for someone that has that anguish. I feel for somebody that has that anguish. But it’s not limited to someone who has same-gender attraction.

We live in a very self-absorbed age. I guess it’s naturally human to think about my own problems as somehow greater than someone else’s. I think when any one of us begins to think that way, it might be well be to look beyond ourselves. Who am I to say that I am more handicapped, or suffering more, than someone else?

I happen to have a handicapped daughter. She’s a beautiful girl. She’ll be 27 next week. Her name is Courtney. Courtney will never marry in this life, yet she looks wistfully upon those who do. She will stand at the window of my office which overlooks the Salt Lake Temple and look at the brides and their new husbands as they’re having their pictures taken. She’s at once captivated by it and saddened because Courtney understands that will not be her experience here. Courtney didn’t ask for the circumstances into which she was born in this life, any more than somebody with same-gender attraction did. So there are lots of kinds of anguish people can have, even associated with just this matter of marriage. What we look forward to, and the great promise of the gospel, is that whatever our inclinations are here, whatever our shortcomings are here, whatever the hindrances to our enjoying a fullness of joy here, we have the Lord’s assurance for every one of us that those in due course will be removed. We just need to remain faithful.

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

ME: I absolutely hate that being gay is compared to someone who is physically or mentally handicapped. Why is this always the comparison made be leaders? The only answer could be that they view being gay as some "glitch." It is some sort of handicap. Let me just say, loud and clear, THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ME. I am not paralyzed... I am not physically or mentally unable to seek a companion and then build a complete and loving relationship with him. Let me make an analogy with what Elder Oaks said:

People who are born left-handed are not in any unique position. They can't write with their right hand... that is their lot in life. But think of the people that were born without right hands.... or whose right hand has been permanently injured! They have no hope of using their right hand in this life. Of course using your left hand is wrong, and is not acceptable. If you are left-handed, you will simply have to make do with your right hand until you are made whole in the resurrection.

This is exactly like what Elder Oaks is saying. Of course it seems absurd because we all know that being right-handed is perfectly fine. You can be left-handed or even ambidextrous and that is perfectly acceptable. But wait... was it always this way? No. Words associated with the word "left" in different languages are/were: evil, unlucky, awkward, sinister, clumsy, adultery, infidelity, wrong, illegal, bad. Words associated with right: correct, proper, better, legal, righteous. Think about the associations made in the scriptures... if you are righteous, which side do you stand on? "The right hand of God."

Needless to say, with society and language attaching such negative meaning to "left," being left-handed wasn't always acceptable. Not long ago, children were punished for using their left hand. They were forced to use their right hand. Taiwan, until very recently, continued this practice. There are obvious disadvantages to being left-handed. There are less tools made for the left hand. Desks are made with right-handed people in mind. But does this mean that left-handed people shouldn't or can't write? No. They are just as capable of writing something profound as their right-handed friend. Their writing is just as legible. Ideas are just as expressible.

There are obvious disadvantages to being gay. There is a significantly smaller pool of people from which you can find a companion. You cannot reproduce naturally. Most the stories and songs and art out there are about heterosexual life and love. But does this mean that gay people are unable to love? Does it mean that they are any less capable of raising children? Does it mean that they are unable to build significant meaningful relationships? Does it mean they cannot have families of their own or experience happiness? NO. Gay people are just as capable (physically, mentally emotionally, and spiritually) of finding and loving a companion in this life as any physically and mentally healthy heterosexual person! I have no handicap preventing me from being with someone!

We can't judge when something should be called discrimination Elder Oaks?? Should we have never granted blacks freedom then? Should we have never decided that we were discriminating against them? We are all given the light of Christ to help us know right from wrong. I would argue that we are very capable of knowing when we are discriminating against someone. You are right, God is no respecter of persons and he does not discriminate. Why then do you?

As for Elder Wickman's statement, well this isn't about whose cross is heavier to bare. I am not claiming that being gay is the most difficult thing a person could possibly have to deal with. I am by no means trying to argue that my trials are greater than anyone else's. Is this what you would say to Martin Luther King Jr.? "Stop your complaining! Stop being so self-absorbed! Stop thinking that your problems are any greater than other people's problems! Think about other people for once! Think about my handicapped daughter!"

Being gay may not be the most difficult trial in the world, but it has definitely been my most difficult trial. Am I not entitled to speak up when I feel that the trials I experience because of my sexuality could be resolved? Being gay doesn't have to be a trial at all. Just like having dark skin doesn't (and shouldn't) have to be a trial. But if no one speaks up about it, it will continue being the cursed thing that society and religion have made it and I WILL NOT STAY SILENT.

Finally, being gay is not an "inclination" or a "hindrance" or a "short-coming." Just as you have said, Elder Wickman, orientation is indeed a "core characteristic." And according to the scriptures we both believe (Alma 41):

"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."

So it sounds to me that whether or not being gay is evil or good, it will be restored to me. Now if God is no respecter of persons and he does not discriminate and being gay isn't a choice... but is in-born, does it sound correct that it is evil, and therefore evil will be restored to me?

Elder Oaks apparently didn't want to live the last part of his life alone after his first wife died. Why? Why did he choose to remarry? I'm sorry if I don't believe that these married leaders really, truly understand what they are asking of me.

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: 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: 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: Elder Oaks & Elder Wickman on SGA - Part 4

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: So you are saying that homosexual feelings are controllable?

ELDER OAKS: 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.

We’re not talking about a unique challenge here. We’re talking about a common condition of mortality. We don’t understand exactly the ‘why,’ or the extent to which there are inclinations or susceptibilities and so on. But what we do know is that feelings can be controlled and behavior can be controlled. The line of sin is between the feelings and the behavior. The line of prudence is between the susceptibility and the feelings. We need to lay hold on the feelings and try to control them to keep us from getting into a circumstance that leads to sinful behavior.

ELDER WICKMAN: 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.



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

ME: I guess I fundamentally disagree here with Elder Oaks when he says that feelings are controllable. In fact, I feel like the church itself disagrees with this idea. When we are taught about how the spirit (the holy ghost) speaks to us, are we not told by modern-day prophets that he speaks through our thoughts and feelings? If thoughts and feelings are controllable, that that would mean that we are the operator behind thoughts and feelings, not the holy ghost. Therefore, we (not the Holy Ghost) make ourselves feel and think that certain things are right or wrong.

When my sister got in a bad 4-wheeling accident, I couldn’t help the feelings of panic and fear that I had. I didn’t know if she’d live or if she’d be severely handicapped. If my mother died today, I couldn’t control my feelings of utter sadness and shock. I could not help feeling attraction to the guy that was sitting a table away in the restaurant I was eating at last night. Can a heterosexual help that he or she finds themselves physically attracted to an extraordinarily beautiful member of the opposite sex? No. Whether he or she acts on it or vocalizes that attraction is independent of the fact that the feelings of attraction are there.

Now, I do believe we can exercise restraint as we handle those feelings, but it doesn’t change the feeling. I could feel angry enough at someone that I want to punch them in the face. I can restrain myself from punching them, but that doesn’t mean I’ve changed the feelings of anger I have that make me want to hurt the person. (ps- I’m not a violent person. I’ve never punched a person in my life. I’m the kind of guy that sets an insect free outside after capturing it inside).

ARG: Elder Oaks & Elder Wickman on SGA - Part 3

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If somebody has a very powerful heterosexual drive, there is the opportunity for marriage. If a young man thinks he’s gay, what we’re really saying to him is that there is simply no other way to go but to be celibate for the rest of his life if he doesn’t feel any attraction to women?

ELDER OAKS: That is exactly the same thing we say to the many members who don’t have the opportunity to marry. We expect celibacy of any person that is not married.

ELDER WICKMAN: We live in a society which is so saturated with sexuality that it perhaps is more troublesome now, because of that fact, for a person to look beyond their gender orientation to other aspects of who they are. I think I would say to your son or anyone that was so afflicted to strive to expand your horizons beyond simply gender orientation. Find fulfillment in the many other facets of your character and your personality and your nature that extend beyond that. There’s no denial that one’s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person, but it’s not the only one.

What’s more, merely having inclinations does not disqualify one for any aspect of Church participation or membership, except possibly marriage as has already been talked about. But even that, in the fullness of life as we understand it through the doctrines of the restored gospel, eventually can become possible.

In this life, such things as service in the Church, including missionary service, all of this is available to anyone who is true to covenants and commandments.

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

ME: The church is definitely not asking the same thing of gay members as they are single members. If you are a single, heterosexual member, the church bends over backwards to encourage and facilitate dating and marriage. They organize singles wards, singles activities, singles firesides. Dating is encouraged and even commanded (by some bishops). People are excited for you when you are dating and when you find someone you want to spend your life with. As a heterosexual, single adult, you always have the hope of finding “the one” and the support of the church.

Now, lets consider a single gay member. You are commanded to break all ties with gay friends and dissolve any relationships you may have with other gay people. You are not only not encouraged to date, but told that you can’t. Your situation is “put away” so that others don’t have to be made uncomfortable by your attractions. You are expected to accept and understand that you will live a celibate life- even if you did meet the person of your dreams. There is no hope given to you for marriage to a person you love. In fact, the church actively fights against your ability to marry the person you love. Basically, you are asked to wait until death to find real love. You live life waiting for it to end.

Elder Wickman is right. “Gender orientation is a core characteristic of any person.”  As such, you cannot simply ask someone to ignore it in favor of other “core characteristics” any more than you can ask a tree to ignore sun in favor of earth and water or ignore water in favor of earth and sun. Saying it is core means that it is fundamental to our existence. By extinguishing something that is core to us, we extinguish life. Our vital organs are core. We cannot shut down our heart or lungs or brain without shutting down our life.

Finally, if you are going to tach that attractions or “inclinations” as Elder Wickman calls them, do not disqualify you for any aspect of church service, please practice that. Why is it that many of my friends have had to go through extreme difficulties in trying to serve a mission? They have never acted on their inclinations. Yet they need special interviews, special approvals, etc. They must put their life on hold while the church comes to a decision on whether they can go. One friend is now on week 11 in waiting for an answer. Every week he is sure it will be the week he will receive his call. Every week he is disappointed. This is one of many examples where there is a discrepancy between what you teach and what you do.

ARG: Elder Oaks & Elder Wickman on SGA - Part 2

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Let’s say my 17-year-old son comes to talk to me and, after a great deal of difficulty trying to get it out, tells me that he believes that he’s attracted to men — that he has no interest and never has had any interest in girls. He believes he’s probably gay. He says that he’s tried to suppress these feelings. He’s remained celibate, but he realizes that his feelings are going to be devastating to the family because we’ve always talked about his Church mission, about his temple marriage and all those kinds of things. He just feels he can’t live what he thinks is a lie any longer, and so he comes in this very upset and depressed manner. What do I tell him as a parent?

ELDER OAKS: You’re my son. You will always be my son, and I’ll always be there to help you. 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.”

I think it’s important for you to understand that homosexuality, which you’ve spoken of, is not a noun that describes a condition. It’s an adjective that describes feelings or behavior. I encourage you, as you struggle with these challenges, not to think of yourself as a ‘something’ or ‘another,’ except that you’re a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and you’re my son, and that you’re struggling with challenges.

Everyone has some challenges they have to struggle with. You’ve described a particular kind of challenge that is very vexing. It is common in our society and it has also become politicized. But it’s only one of a host of challenges men and women have to struggle with, and I just encourage you to seek the help of the Savior to resist temptation and to refrain from behavior that would cause you to have to repent or to have your Church membership called into question.

*italics added

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

Me: My first beef with this is the wording of the question that is posed. Rather than say that this hypothetical son comes to the parent and says “I’m attracted to men,” they phrase it so that “he believes he is attracted to men,” and “he believes he’s probably gay.” Ok. This is a simple yes or no question people. If you were to ask a heterosexual man if he was attracted to women, he wouldn’t say, “I believe I possibly could be.” The question itself is phrased to take out any hints that homosexuality is real.

Second, sadly the answer that Elder Oaks gives stops shorter than what is really meant. To be consistent with what the church teaches and has taught, the reply should go something like this:

“You’re my son. You will always be my son, and I will always be there to help you as long as you are trying to do what the church and I know is right for you.” 

My evidence of this comes from comments made later in this interview (sorry for skipping ahead):

“But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth.”

This completes this response that parents are encouraged to give. You should always be there to help them get “back on the path of growth.” If the child isn’t trying to get back on the “right path” parents aren’t obligated to help their children. Furthermore, I’ve witnessed this response by the parents of various friends and acquaintances.

“You haven’t failed until you quit trying”

Here, it shows that the mentality of a parent should be that once a child decides to give up the fight to try and be heterosexual, or at least try and rid him/herself of the desire to be with a member of the same sex, they can be considered a failure. Wow.

So once your child has “failed” and has decided to follow their desires and feelings for the same gender and he/she wants to be a part of your life as a parent, which includes their loved one, this is how you should react:

"'Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position,'" or, "'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.'”

This breaks my heart. And it shows that yes, the help and love a parent is being told to extend by church leaders is conditional. How is a gay child supposed to feel welcome or love from a family that treats the child as if they are an embarrassment to be hidden away? How is the family’s arms extended to the child in this case? How does this translate to “we will always be there to help you.” It doesn’t. This help is conditional which is made obvious by these comments by our leaders. How sad.

Furthermore, while the church says that by not acting on your homosexual impulses insures that you are worthy, they don’t practice this. I know people who have worked for the church in high places who were gay, but never acted on it. Yet when it was revealed that they were gay and conversed with other gay members, they were fired. Pre-missionaries who have homosexual feelings (even if they have never acted on them) must go through an intense interview process and must be evaluated before they are given the okay to go. I have several friends that have gone through, or are going through this long process. That doesn’t sound like the church really believes that “It’s no sin to have inclinations,” for these people are treated much differently than their straight counterparts.

Once again, church leaders try and make the homosexual a figment of our imagination. That there simply is no such thing. Elder Oaks says, don’t “think of yourself as a ‘something’ or ‘another,’ except that you’re a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.” Read my post on SSA and SGA for more on this.

Finally, let me say something about Elder Oaks. I fear readers may feel like I hate the man. I don’t. I used to work in a job at BYU where I was in pretty close proximity at times with general authorities. I remember one night (it was some special dinner) Elder and Sister Oaks were greeting people as they found their seats. When Elder Oaks got to the table, he pulled out a chair for his wife and stood behind it. But Sister Oaks, apparently, is a talker. She was still several feet away actively engaged in conversation. Elder Oaks waited patiently behind her chair. He would not sit down until she had been seated. It took several minutes before Sister Oaks finished talking and took her seat. Elder Oaks scooted her chair in, and then took his seat. I thought “what an example. What a gentleman. That right there shows me what kind of man he is.” So the truth is, I love the man. I respect him. I do, however, disagree at times. He is just as human as you and me and he makes mistakes. His life experience is limited, just like ours. Thanks for reading.

ARG: Elder Oaks & Elder Wickman on SGA - Part 1

This will be kind of a series of posts just like the "My Story" series. There is just too much to have in one post. No one would ever read it all. What sparked this is, first, I read this when I was coming to terms with my sexuality and trying to find answers. I had to deal with the things that were said then which were by no means healthy. It gave me greater reason to believe death was a good option. Now that I have a much more healthy perspective, I want to get this out there for those who might be hurt by what is said in this interview with Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman which is still the latest "official statement" by the church on "Same-Gender-Attraction."

Second, as I was perusing lds.org (as I sometimes do) I noticed that the site no longer makes its position on same-sex attraction as visible as it once was. It used to be located on the right sidebar of the news room where the "spotlights" are located. So I thought I should comment on this interview before it fades away into the oops-we-might-be-wrong black hole that the church sometimes sweeps things into.

So I will break these posts down. One for each question. I will post the original dialog here, and then write comments below it. Also, realize that the interview was conducted by the church's PR department, not some third-party outside the church. So you can bet your life that these answers weren't just made up on the spot. The must have been carefully constructed, especially since it is now the "official position."

Lets begin:

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

PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At the outset, can you explain why this whole issue of homosexuality and same-gender marriage is important to the Church?

ELDER OAKS: 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 [not sent to] 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.

*italics added

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

ME: How do you define normal? Does normal mean average? Typical? Does it mean that it conforms with social norms and standards? Does it mean natural? I wish Elder Oaks was more specific. In my mind, the church says a lot about being unique. Having unique gifts, being a unique spirit child of Heavenly Father. We often call ourselves “a peculiar people.” So from what I gather from our doctrine, his use of the word “normal” has nothing to do with being average or socially acceptable since we are taught to not get caught up in social “norms.” If he means natural... well, define natural. Does this mean existing or caused by nature? If so, how do we explain the hundreds of species of animals (in nature) who exhibit homosexuality? They are a product of nature, correct? Uncle penguin didn’t molest baby penguin causing him to be gay. And even if being gay was a product of nurture and you could come up with some equation (ie. molestation + distant father + over-powering mother = homosexual), would this not be a natural result of the combination of these circumstances? But I’m not sure this is what is meant by “normal” either since later in this discussion Elder Oaks says “Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.” The other definition of “normal” could be “free from physical or mental disorders.” Well, seeing as how, later in this discussion physical disabilities are compared to homosexuality, maybe this is what Elder Oaks meant by "normal."

The gay community has not only experienced “unrelenting pressure” from the church to prevent their union with their loved one, but anyone who disagrees with the church are villainized and given labels like, gay “extremists” or “activists.” Simply having the opinion that gay marriage should be granted makes them someone to fear- a gay “activist.” The church is quick to claim political neutrality, but equally quick to step in and take the lead on Prop 8- something that should be left to (and only to) the voters of California. So those statements by Oaks go both ways.

Elder Oaks, you should know better seeing as how you are come from a law background. The case to which you refer to is the Hugh Owens case in Canada. First off, anyone can be sued for anything. I can sue McDonalds for serving me coffee that is too hot. A single woman in my ward can sue for a bishop giving a talk about how marriage is essential to salvation and children are the greatest blessing the Lord can give us. She may call it hate speech, but she won’t win her case. Neither did the case against Owens come out victorious. Also, this case happened well before Canada legalized gay marriage. Furthermore, this man was not a minister. No minister has been convicted of a crime in the US or Canada for preaching against same-sex-marriage. What he did do was produce a bumper sticker that depicted two stick figures holding hands, covered by a circle and a slash, along with a passage from Leviticus which says that any man engaging in homosexual activity “shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them,” (more on Leviticus in another post). But, like I said, the case was overturned upon review. On top of that, the U.S. has far more liberal freedom of speech and religion laws than Canada (or pretty much any other country for that matter).

Finally, what does Oaks mean by this issue (that of gay marriage) being a “test of our most basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach?” What freedoms would granting gay-marriage take away from anyone? Would legalizing marijuana force the church to stop teaching that it is against God’s commandments? If so, why hasn’t the fact that it is legal to drink and smoke taken away the church’s freedom to preach against it? Furthermore, members don’t sue the church (nor can they) because they aren’t given a temple recommend. If they are drinking (even though it is legal) they will not be able to enter the temple. The church can’t be forced to allow someone into a temple.