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.

PE: OMG- I just came out to my future boss

Some of you know that I am interviewing for a job I can work as I start getting my film stuff going. Well, I had an interview for a management position at a certain place with the district manager. We talked for probably and hour and a half at least. It was insane. It went really well, and I am pretty sure I have the job (once I clear my background check).

Well, over the course of the interview, there is a part where she asks some questions. One of the questions was something along the lines of "what was a time when you've had to make a difficult decision?" Well, I knew there were lots of examples of that in my life, but I couldn't look past the big one staring me in the face. Coming to terms with my sexuality was FULL of big, difficult decisions. After trying hard for a few moments to think of something else to talk about, I just gave into my thoughts and said, "okay, this is really personal, but I will share it with you..."

So then I tell her I am gay and how I just came to terms with that recently and what kind of difficult decisions were involved. I was so relieved when she said she had a best friend who was gay and then she started asking me about the church and their stance on the issue. She grew up Mormon, but went inactive. She tried to come back to church with her boyfriend of 10 years and with her kids, but people in the ward kept pressuring them to get married. She felt like the people were ashamed to have an unmarried couple with children coming to church. But she and her boyfriend were determined to return to church. Eventually it was too much for them though. They didn't like the pressure they were getting and the vibe that people were uncomfortable with them.

So yeah- in my interview, we talked about things you should NEVER talk about in an interview, sexuality and religion. haha. But, I just kind of followed my gut and felt like it would be okay to talk about that with her. That is the vibe I got, so I went with it. I find out if I passed my background check Wednesday... I'll let you all know ;)

VID: Choices for A Gay Mormon

I know I've already talked about this in my blog here... but lets face it, some people don't want to read. I won't normally post videos this often, this is just to start off. Please visit my channel and submit and vote on questions that you'd like me to address in videos or submit them as comments or via email. Also, sorry the video is so long. I think that making these little you tube videos is kind of an art... one that I haven't mastered yet.

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.

PE: Acting Straight

It is impossible to detail all the daily struggles a Gay Mormon experiences when trying to repress their sexuality. If I were really to write a detailed description of my lifelong struggle to scrape the gay out of me, it would fill volumes... and I've already written a 9-part "My Story" series. But sometimes I feel like if we could really explain these daily struggles, maybe it would help people realize what kind of life a repressed gay person lives. For those of us who know first hand, it is second nature... we don't even realize that it isn't normal. So I will attempt to describe a couple examples.

I remember talking to a friend about another mutual friend who had mannerisms that were "gayish." This friend said, "kind of like you." I demanded right then and there to know what I did that seemed gay. Apparently the way I stood and the way I used my hands to talk were a bit "gay." Well, this was before I had accepted that indeed, I was gay. So I immediately determined to re-teach myself to talk and stand in a more "straight" way. Not using my hands was impossible, so for the next few weeks, I just worked on talking less. I would just sit back and listen and only talk in a bored, disinterested manner when I did. It was so hard. I'd watch how guy friends sat and stood and walked to try and mimic them better. I wanted to rid myself of any trace of gayness. Basically I wanted to become someone different.

Growing up I never allowed myself to really express my love for things that were "girly" or "gay." I would take straight guys' lead. If they said something was gay, then I definitely didn't like it. But in all honesty, I loved it. I loved Spice Girls and Brittney Spears. I enjoyed reading about Edward in twilight. But I could never allow myself to express my real likes. The only way I got away with reading Twilight was because I read all the books out loud to a dyslexic friend of mine who wanted to read them but couldn't. So that way, it was just because I was such a nice guy, a good friend. I was probably more interested in reading the next chapter than she was. I'm pretty sure she would have been happy no matter what I was reading. But I could never admit that I was actually into the books.

Then after all my hard work... after trying so hard to make myself as straight as I could, every once and awhile, friends would still ask, "are you gay?" Seriously... can anyone cut a guy a break??!! I was trying SO hard and somehow everyone saw right through it. Eventually that is the question that finally broke me. A person can only react defensively so many times. Eventually I had to consider it for real... as much as I wanted to deny it.

Well, let me just say, it is such a relief to be gay and be okay with that. I can like gay things all I want. What is the worst someone could think? "He must be gay?" SO what? I AM! I can blast Brittney Spears in my car, I can say when I think a guy is hot (like that guy on Burlesque/Twilight OMG), I can buy all the chick-flick DVDs I want, I can decorate my room, dress with style, get highlights, watch Glee every week... the list goes on and on. It isn't that I didn't like these things before. I've always liked them. I just could never allow myself to appear as if I liked them. So I got really good at lying to myself. It is so refreshing to be honest with myself... even before the great feeling of being honest with others. I can finally let myself enjoy life and be unashamed about it.

THT: Why would God do this to me?

This isn't a post about Elder Packer's talk given last conference, there has been much said about it already. But when he did say "why would God do that to his children," I immediately thought of all my gay brothers and sisters out there who were probably on their knees just the night before asking that very question. I know that I pleaded with God on a number of occasions to reveal to me why he would let this happen. Why me? Elder Packer was certainly not the first to pose that question, though his argument was that God wouldn't make anyone this way. I know for a fact that isn't true, because I exist. And if I exist, and God didn't make me, who did? That used to be a very depressing question. But I know that God did make me. And he made me like this for a reason. I'm not sure the exact reason, but here are some things I've thought about:

To provide a loving home for children who otherwise wouldn't have one. Think of all the children who have no parents. Those who live in foster homes, orphanages, even those who are homeless. Gay people cannot naturally reproduce without the aid of science. This 5% (or whatever the real percentage is) could make wonderful homes for many of these unwanted kids. Not only did God make me so that I was attracted to men, but he put me in a Mormon home. I believe that I am very capable of raising children with another man in Christ. I can teach them the same moral lesson a heterosexual Mormon can.

To be another lesson to the world about love. What does it really mean to love everyone, despite their choices or their lifestyles? Perhaps we can learn a little more about how it is to love unconditionally by opening our hearts to our gay brothers and sisters. I know that gay people, who have to deal with rejection, prejudice, and misunderstanding, often become less judgmental about people because they know what it feels like to be judged. Some just get bitter. But perhaps there is something to learn about what love is made of. Gay people have surely had to try and articulate why they are attracted to the same sex to try and get heterosexuals to understand. It isn't simply about lust. There is substance to it. There is meaning.

To cause hearts and minds to open. When barriers break down and people realize how ignorant they had been about homosexuality, it opens eyes to a lot more. Who is to say that because a person smokes or has an abortion, gets a divorce, or steals food from a grocery store, that they are bad people? It is not our job to judge. We don't know the circumstances that led to their decisions. Only God can know. Who is to say that homosexuality is inherently evil? Are you gay? Do you know what it feels like? Let me tell you, I am gay. I also know what it feels like when I am doing something wrong, don't you? Living according to my feelings has NEVER felt wrong to me. Before I started living that way, I certainly thought it was wrong, because that is what everyone said. But when I started dating guys, it couldn't have felt more RIGHT.

To give women men who understand them. Let's face it. Women love to have a gay friend to go shopping with and get their hair done with and other "girly" things. Gay people are like the missing link between heterosexual females and males. They kind of understand a little about both sides. We are a great resource in my opinion (of course I am biased). Plus, there is no conflict of interest. Gay guys are interested in other GAY guys. So I'm not gonna steel my straight friend's girl and I can't steel a girl's straight guy (even if I wanted to), so we are the perfect safe friend.

To bring more music, theater, and other art into the world. I know that not all gay people are artsy. There are gay guys that have "manly" jobs who are engineers or whatever, but there is a very high percentage of gays in the arts. I wouldn't feel it is a stretch to say that if you took a random sampling of gay and straight men, the percentage of gay men in the arts would be incredibly higher than the percentage of straight men. Dancers, singers, actors, so many of them are gay. I don't believe that the arts are what make people gay either. I think that gay people just tend to be more emotionally expressive for whatever reason.

To tear down the traditional roles our society assigns to gender. Boys play sports and girls cook. There has been a lot of progress so far, but there is still a ways to go. What if a girl doesn't like barbies? What if a boy likes dressing up? Why would we ever feel that we have the right to tell any person what to like or dislike? Well, we do. It is the fear that if a boy likes something "girly" (say the color pink) something is wrong that needs to be corrected or else he is going to turn gay. When we begin to realize that, #1 people don't "turn" gay, and #2 that there is nothing wrong with being gay... all of a sudden, that fear that a little girl prefers trucks over barbies and sports over cooking disappears. That little boy is free to be himself and like pink if that's his favorite color.

I do not claim to know the mind of God. Who knows the real purposes for putting people like me on this earth? All I know is that there is a purpose in it. There must be. And that brings me so much comfort, to realize and understand that this was not some freak accident. It was intentional. And if God only chose 5% of the population to give these unconventional feelings and emotions to, then I count myself extremely lucky. I feel I understand some of the reasons why I am gay. It has helped me grow. It has helped me know God. It has helped me love. But someday I look forward to asking God himself what his purposes were. And after he tells me, I will embrace him and thank him for such a calling.

THT: I Had The Atonement Wrong

For most of my life, I misunderstood the Atonement. I'm sure i still have a lot to learn, but now that I have felt the effects of it, I at least know I am on the right track. A friend of mine put this into words that spoke what I felt and so I reference his note on facebook.

I fully expected that the Atonement would change my sexuality. I mean, Christ can reverse death right? Surely he could reverse orientation. The miracle I prayed so often for was that I would be made straight. I believed that if I was just good enough, worked hard enough, God would see my righteous efforts and change me. Well folks, he didn't. And now I realize that it isn't a matter of can He do it... it is a question of will he do it.


The idea that the atonement will change your sexual orientation is a dangerous one. Why? Because thousands of members are counting on that to happen. When it doesn't, they become disillusioned with God and religion. They become angry with God. I did. For awhile I was so angry. Was I not good enough? Did I not do everything I was asked? Did I not serve? Why won't you answer my prayers God? Is my request not a righteous one? I had to conclude that a loving God could not exist if He would not answer the prayer of a dying soul. I could not imagine a loving person knowing how much pain I was in and remaining silent. And so, I was done with God. Perhaps I just wasn't cut out to be a son of God. There must have been some flaw that could not be overlooked. That thinking was destructive, and it led to the decision I made to take my life. I was unloveable and unable to love. I hated myself. Why go on living life that way?

But I did survive. And though I would have never believed I could ever count that experience as a blessing, today I do. Why? Because it was only through that torment that I could know happiness today. When I found happiness, I began to understand that the atonement was primarily to heal our spirits. Christ's greatest miracles weren't about the physical healing (though that is often what we think of), it was the spiritual healing. My miracle wasn't that my sexual orientation was changed. It was that I finally realized that it didn't need to be changed. That God loved me for who I am and that I could love myself. It was the first time I could really accept God's love into my life. I punished myself for so long by denying the idea that God could love me. I knew he loved everyone else... he just couldn't love me.

I credit the atonement for the change that occurred in me. I obtained a new view of God and self. I could finally see myself with God. And THAT is how I know that my decision to live as a gay person was the right one. Because all those years of trying to change, trying to suppress it, trying to pluck it out of me drove a wedge further and further between myself and God. He became so distant that I could no longer see how He could possibly exist. But the minute that I accepted my sexuality and decided that I would move forward doing the best I could as a gay man, living honestly with myself and others, God was in my life. He was all around me, and I was suddenly enabled to be a tool in His hands.

I'm not perfect. I make mistakes. I don't fit in with the heterosexual majority. I am gay. But the atonement is there because Christ knows that we cannot return to God alone. Because we will always fall short. We are asked to do the best we can with what we are given. If we do that, we can have faith that the atonement will make up for anything we couldn't do ourselves.

I have been given the curse, and the blessing, of homosexuality. I don't know the purposes behind it. I don't know why God saw it fit that some people were gay. But I will no longer deny the gift I have been given. It may not be the ideal gift, but it is a gift. If it wasn't meant for me, GOd would have taken it away. But he didn't. So instead, I will move forward being the best gay Mormon I can be. I will strive to become more like Christ in this life and have faith that in the end, his grace will be sufficient for me to return to my God.

THT: How Would You Interpret These Facts?

I read a blog post by Lionheart that I thought was extremely effective in demonstrating the situation gay Mormons find themselves in. I want to address the same things that were addressed in that post and perhaps elaborate a bit on them. But please read the post I am referencing.

The Church has been wrong on the causes of homosexuality. Leaders have taught that bad thoughts, masturbation, and selfishness lead to homosexuality and that homosexuality leads to unimaginable crimes such as bestiality. Leaders, both past and present have suggested that it is a choice and not inborn. However, the Church has recently reversed many of these claims due to the solid evidence against such teachings and now suggests that causes are unknown. Leaders have also begun to acknowledge that homosexuality may not be reversible or curable.

The Church has been wrong about solutions to homosexuality. Praying, fasting, being more righteous, trying harder to suppress feelings have all been suggested as cures for homosexuality by the church. Shock therapy, ex-gay programs, and other forms of intense therapy were not only suggested but required in many cases by leaders. Up until recently, heterosexual marriage in the temple was suggested as the cure for homosexuality, and worse, to keep that information about their "struggles" hidden from their wives. President Kimball even said that cures were often just a few months away. Due to the complete failure of these supposed "cures," the Church has reversed its opinion and no longer offers any solution to homosexuality.

General Authorities were wrong about blacks and the Priesthood. Leaders of the church holding positions as high as president of the church made racist, bigoted remarks about black persons. They proclaimed the color of their skin to be a curse and taught that blacks would not receive the Priesthood in this life.

The Church has tolerated unequal treatment of women. Before 1978, women were not permitted to say a prayer in Sacrament Meeting. Women did not speak in General Conference from 1930-1984. There are still many issues regarding women in the church that have yet to be resolved. Women are still largely defined by their husbands despite their own personal education, callings, or careers.

Church leaders have spoken out against interracial marriage and evolution. Both these ideas have been condemned using quite strong language by prophets, yet we are free to believe in evolution and marry a member of another race.

The Church offers no real solutions for homosexuality. The Church currently gives two suggestions for help: counseling and spiritual encouragement. Counseling can help in two general ways: 1) It can help homosexuals understand themselves better including their feelings, and 2) It can reduce destructive behavior, such as risky sex and drugs. After accomplishing these two goals where applicable, counseling reaches its limitations.

Spiritual counseling is good for any type of struggle. However, spiritual counseling alone is inadequate for nearly all gays. Imagine a cocaine addict simply being told to “pray and have faith and everything will be fine.” Or imagine a bishop suggesting only faith and prayer to a person who is bipolar. Certainly, spiritual counsel is not sufficient for these trials. Why is it okay to suggest that spiritual counseling is sufficient for gays?

The “fruits” of the Church policies towards gays are very negative. Most gays go inactive. Suicide rates are higher for gays than straights. Divorce rates are high. Families are torn apart as they choose between gay love ones and the church. The Church's involvement in Prop 8 has brought a storm of bad press and negative publicity for which the church is trying hard to re-cooperate from by inviting hi-profile gays to the Mo-tab Christmas concert for example.

If the Church’s support towards gays was sufficient, then activity among gays and straights would be equal. We would expect to see a fair number of older adults who are active and still gay. Given that at least 3% of the population is gay, where are the elderly gay members who have lived a life of celibacy and remained active? The Church’s fruits relating to this issue are embarrassing.

To summarize, the Church has been wrong about the causes of homosexuality, the Church has been wrong about solutions, Church leaders have been wrong about other issues such as blacks and the Priesthood and women, the Church offers no unique solutions now, and the fruits of the Church’s policies leave much to be desired. How do you interpret these facts?

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

Many non-members or people who have left the church may look at this list and say, "this is easy... just leave the church!" Gay people generally feel no pity for Gay Mormons because in their mind, we are insane masochists. But keep in mind some other facts that many Gay Mormons have to consider:

Testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Many still have strong faith in Christ and in his teachings and still seek to do his will and share his message with others. They seek to use their talents and means for good, righteous causes.

Testimony of the Restoration. Many cannot deny their feelings about Joseph Smith and the restoration of the primitive church. A large percentage of them have served missions for the church teaching people about this restoration and baptizing them. They believe strongly that God speaks today and can guide and teach us.

Testimony of the Priesthood. Many have seen the priesthood work in their own lives, in their own homes, even by their own hands. The believe in it's power and ability to heal, comfort, and perform any work commanded by God. They believe in the restoration and application of this power.

The culture in which they were raised. These people grew up in Mormon communities, in wards and stakes. Mormonism has informed much of their life, their values, their goals, their dreams. They cannot simply strip off everything that was affected by their upbringing because it has become so infused with who they are.

The history within their families. Many come from long lines of Mormons. Their grandparents, their aunts, their uncles, cousins, brothers and sisters all look to them to be an example. These loved ones who give Gay Mormons a sense of belonging and family all have expectations and hopes and dreams for them. Gay Mormons don't want to be the one disappointment, the one failure, the one that is cast out.


This isn't an easy fix. It is very confusing and frustrating and can even be earth shattering. Are you surprised that people in this situation have suicidal thoughts? What would your conclusion be?

RANT: Not a Choice?

So this is the third post today... but I can't sleep and my mind is going. Bare with me.

The Church no longer claims that homosexuality is a choice. It no longer claims that change is possible or even recommenced. So here is my question: if it isn't a choice, and the church is beginning to recognize that, why does it continue to condemn it.

If we teach that God says it is evil to be born without legs, and then someone is born without legs, what is that person to think?

Now, the Christian heterosexual might then say, "well, it isn't evil to have homosexual feelings, it is only evil to act on those feelings." Okay. Lets switch that around then. Pretend that churches taught that acting on heterosexuality was wrong. I know... it is hard to imagine, but please try. Don't worry, it is okay for you to feel those emotions... but it is evil to act on them. The churches recognize that you didn't choose to have those heterosexual tendencies and feelings, but that doesn't excuse you from not acting on them.

Really put yourself in a gay person's place. If you are married, there must have been some burning desire within you to date and find "the one." There must have been something powerful driving you to do that because, let's face it, marriage is hard. Now take that burning desire and stop it short. You are not allowed to do anything about it. DO NOT date. DO NOT hold hands. DO NOT kiss. DO NOT flirt. DO NOT even associate with anyone else who shares these heterosexual desires. That is what you are asking of me and of every gay member of the church. Yet you expect them to feel welcomed and accepted and supported and loved. Would you stick around if the church asked this of you?

THT: Why Do You Struggle WIth Your Sexuality?

I should probably clarify my "Choices for a Gay Mormon" post where I mention not feeling right about "test driving" a marriage relationship with a girl. I did not mean we shouldn't give relationships a go to determine if there is longterm possibility there. What I meant was that I don't feel that sexuality is something that should need to be test driven in order to know what gender we are sexually responsive to.

Having said that, may gay people do test it to some extent. I did. I tried to date girls. I tried to make that work. But it didn't. So why should I believe that testing a marriage with a girl would be any different? How is testing marriage to a girl going to yield different results than dating a girl? Do heterosexuals feel the need to test their sexuality before they are certain about it? Are they sincerely oblivious about their sexual attraction before they start dating someone of the opposite sex? No. So why should gay people feel compelled to test it? Why do gays struggle so much with their sexuality?

I'd like to propose a possible answer and then offer a way for you to test it. I believe the truth is that we struggle, not because we are unsure about our sexuality, but because of the weight and pressure society puts on us to deny it. The pressures of religion and tradition, pop-culture, gender roles, etc tell us from a young age that heterosexual relationships are the only valid ones. Maybe you agree, maybe you don't. But if you are struggling consider this:

Pretend we lived in another time... another world. In this world the issue of sexuality was not a moral question. It wasn't uncomfortable for anyone. Society has not established preference for one relationship over another, religion hasn't tagged salvation onto one relationship and damnation to another. There is no stigma. Family and friends wouldn't be at all offended or surprised by you having a same-sex partner. It didn't turn heads in public. People never reacted with distain or disrespect. You were completely free and comfortable choosing any partner no matter what the gender. In this world- would you seek a relationship with a guy or girl?

Perhaps that doesn't help you. But for me it eliminates one thing: The idea that I am unsure of my sexuality. If there is no confusion after this thought experiment, I would argue that it isn't necessary and can even be dangerous to "test" your sexuality. If you still find yourself confused and unsure of which gender you would pursue, then perhaps you are bisexual. Being bisexual, however, does not mean that you can successfully deny your feelings for someone. Bisexual people still need to make peace with their fluidity if they are going to be able to live into the fullness of who they are. Otherwise, they will always feel trapped to some extent.

Looking at it this way, we can see that the pressures that lead to internal "confusion" are actually due to external variables. These external pressures are causing internal hell. We will never be able to live with full integrity if we allow external pressure compromise who we are and what we feel. Can we consider the possibility that perhaps there isn't something wrong with us? That perhaps the wrong lies in the "traditions of our fathers" and in the prejudices and biases of society?

It was terrifying for me to admit to myself that I was gay. My world collapsed. It collapsed because I finally had to give up the illusion that I could be "normal." I knew that it spelled possible ridicule, rejection, and hate. But I had no choice but to accept that I had no power to make myself be different. I had been hopefully fighting and trying to "correct" my sexual orientation my whole life. That effort consumed me until I became a shell of a person and my mind could no longer maintain the illusion.

To realize I didn't have a choice but to face the possible rejection by family, friends, religion, and society, I crumbled. But now I realize... to hell what other people think. I am not going to live my life fighting against myself simply to receive the praise of others. The only opinion I care about is God's and any condemnation I have felt has never been from God... it has been from the words and attitudes of the people who profess to know him.

The truth is. those attitudes and opinions led me away from God, not toward him. They made me feel ashamed to pray to God or ask him for help. They made me feel like I was unworthy of his love. They made me feel like he didn't care about my pain. They made me feel separated. God would never want that. That is how I know that the shame and guilt I felt was not from him or as a result of his disapproval, it was from people. People who I respected and looked to for guidance and direction. Good people who were unintentionally misleading me because of their own biases and the prejudices that have become the tradition of our society.

What if the war you are waging on yourself right now is unnecessary?

THT: Choices for a Gay Mormon

Being an oxymoron, the choices for a Gay Mormon aren't really a decision between "good, better, and best." The choices presented to people like me are really a decision between bad, worse, and worst. It wouldn't have to be this way if I was only one and not the other, but I cannot deny that I am gay or Mormon anymore than I can deny that I exist. So here are the choices I have:

------------------------------
Live a Heterosexual Life in the Church

The Church used to prescribe marriage to a woman to guys like me as a cure for their gayness. Now however, Church policy is to not recommend marriage to homosexual individuals. Why? Because it didn't work. What happened instead is that men got married in good faith that their leaders told them the truth and that their homosexuality would go away, but then it didn't. Some became disillusioned with the church and even with God because this promise wasn't fulfilled. Some ended up leading double lives, one to maintain their good, happily married, heterosexual Mormon facade while meeting up with random guys in the night (just look at craigslist in Utah if you don't believe it... better yet, don't)... this is option #3 below. Others, upon realizing that their orientation was not changing, have made the difficult decision to divorce and lead a life true to themselves.

I am not about to enter a relationship with a woman when I know that it is almost guaranteed to not work out. I am not prepared to go for a "test drive" to see if I can do it. How selfish is that? I hold other human beings in higher regard than that, especially ones that I love. I am not about to ruin another person's life because I am trying to see if I can become the mold that society and religion wants me to be. On the other hand, doing that would allow me to participate in the church, hold callings, and be esteemed by the Mormon community.

------------------------------ 
Live a Celibate Life in the Church

Be alone my whole life. Just wait for death to bring me company. This is not the same as not having the opportunity to marry. I am perfectly able to find someone I love and be with them for life. But even if I find the person I love most in this world, I am to never enter into a romantic relationship with him. I would never know what it is like to have to find a way to make a long-term relationship work. I would never get the opportunity to be the person someone depends on when they have a bad day at work or loose their mother or father. I would never know what it is like to raise a family.

But I would be worthy according to the church. Worthy on paper. Not worthy in practice. Single members of the church don't really get called to all the positions a married member does, so their capacity to serve in callings is still limited.  Members will always ask if you are dating anyone, try to set you up, wonder why that boy isn't married. Plus you are taught in Church that marriage is required to reach the highest level of heaven and that having children and raising them is the "greatest gift" God could ever give a person... to entrust you with his children- what a blessing.


------------------------------
Live a Gay Life in Secret in the Church

This might work for some people... but not for me. Actually I don't think it would work for most people. The guilt would be too much. Pretending to be someone you are not isn't fun and it definitely isn't in line with what the church wants of you... though it may be more comfortable for everyone if you lived this way. Many would rather only see the facade and pretend it is real. But to sit in church and pretend that you are being true to your covenants and truthful with your leaders is a quick way to spiritual death. Once the church finds out about this double life, you'd be excommunicated.

------------------------------ 
Live a Gay Life Open to the Church

In this case, I would go to my bishop, tell him that I am gay and that I do not plan on living alone, nor do I plan on trying to be heterosexual and be totally open with him and ward members. This way I am true to myself and to the church. I can embrace my orientation without shame. The problem then is, I will be called to a disciplinary court where it will be determined that I should be excommunicated. I will have less opportunity in the church than a non-member. I would not be able to say prayers in meetings, give talks, serve in any capacity, etc, etc. I will basically be cut off from the church I have devoted so much of my time and resources to.  And while I am welcome to attend, I wouldn't be surprised that I would be mostly ignored and avoided.


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

So what would you choose? Does it sound like a choice between good, better, and best? Many would say, "well just give up Mormonism- why bother!" That is a lot more difficult to do than to say. Perhaps even impossible. Remember the phrase "people can leave the church, but they can't leave it alone?" Why is that? Because being Mormon means so much more than having your name recorded on the membership records. It is a culture, a way of life, a way of thinking, a lifestyle, a tradition. I cannot take the Mormon out of me any more than I can take the Gay out of me. So am I consigned to unhappiness? Is there just no good option for me? Maybe not. We don't all get dealt the best cards in life, but we do all get to choose which hand to play. I can't play the full house most Mormons can. The wife, the kids, the level of involvement in church, the acceptance and praise from community. Those cards weren't dealt to me. But in playing the hand I can choose with the best attitude I am able to manage, the best way I know how, I feel that I can get just as much satisfaction from life.

You may not like it. My bishop might not like it. My friends and family might not like it. But I am determined to live a happy life on my terms with a clear conscious before God and everyone else. I will not go back to crying out to God and asking him to make me someone I am not. I will not bury the person I am. I will not pretend to be someone I am not.

In case you are wondering which option I choose, it is the last one. I will be posting my first video by Jan. 1st. I will be choosing a ward to attend and talking to the bishop. I will go through the required processes as outlined by the church handbook. And I will be telling you all about it.

THT: I Am Not a Deviant

I am reading a book right now on Mormonism and Homosexuality. I guess I've taken that challenge by BYU to be a "lifetime learner," but I'm sure that BYU wouldn't approve that the subject of my continued study is on this topic. The book is entitled, "Conservative Christian identity & same-sex orientation: the case of gay Mormons." I read a lot on this topic. It isn't so that I can somehow find away to "justify" myself because I am already quite comfortable with who I am and feel no need to justify it to myself. I do, however, feel the need to do what I can to clear up misunderstanding and add to the conversation so that I might help others who are and will be going through the awful place where they engaged in a full out war with themselves between their identity and their faith. For this reason, I find it important to find out what has already been said about the issue. Sadly, this blog is far more accessible to people who might benefit from material on this matter than books are. The ones who might benefit most would be too embarrassed to buy a book with such a title, and wouldn't be caught dead reading such a thing. But a blog... well, you can access it from the privacy of your own computer and can even delete it from your browsing history.

Anyway, point is, I like to read, learn, listen and then report on what I have found. At the beginning of the book it stars talking about the label "deviant." Homosexuality was, and still is, considered "deviant" behavior. Who labels it as such? The book calls them "Moral Entrepreneurs." This power to extend the label of "deviant" belongs to powerful people and interest groups who make rules and brand those who break them as deviants in order to further their political aims, protect their power, extend their influence, and enhance their prestige. These Moral Entrepreneurs are kept in business by their vested interests and values.

Now, there is a problem with this labeling system. Just because someone believes that something ought to be a certain way doesn't mean that it is. The other problem is the way individuals react to being labeled as a deviant. According to studies by sociologists, at first, they resist the label. But, "despite their efforts to resist it, they often find that because their opportunities in society are restricted by those who equate them with their label, they are forced into stereotypical behavior." An example that is given of this is the child labeled as "delinquent." The parents of other kids forbid their children from playing with the labeled child and he is forced to associate with the kids given the same label which perpetuates the stereotype of such a child. Think about the things that come to mind when you think about the "gay lifestyle," (a phrase I hate). In time, "individuals bearing the stigmatized label" begin to "incorporate elements of the label into their personality" and they begin to see themselves in terms of the label. This is why some people make radical changes int heir lives after coming out. Since orientation is such an integral part of the person, the status as a deviant becomes the loudest description of who they are. The label through which most people see them and through which they begin to see themselves.

I am not a deviant. Just because I am not what many people feel that I should be doesn't mean that what I am is wrong. Just because my life isn't the one you envisioned for me doesn't mean it is bad. I will not accept that label and will not see myself through those glasses. At least I will try. It is much harder than you can imagine. Let me explain.

After I came out, I started to make a lot of new friends. These friends were primarily gay. Why? Because the only people I felt comfortable with being myself around were other gay people who wouldn't judge me or be disgusted with my orientation. Around them, I don't have to hide any part of who I am. So who do I spend most my time with now? Other gay guys. It doesn't have to be this way. If society didn't label me as a deviant, if the church didn't label me as unnatural, I could feel comfortable among anyone. This is one of the biggest reasons I feel the need to "come out" to my extended family and friends and even to the church. When I feel as though I need to hide a part of me around them, I start to isolate myself from them. I will not be isolated from my family and friends. I will not be isolated from my faith. I will not accept a label that requires me to reinvent my life and make drastic changes to they way I live it.

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: 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.

RANT: Sexuality is not Based on Action

This post was sparked by a comment by a reader. Before I go into this however, I want to make it clear that I am not attacking this person in any way. I simply want to explain why this argument doesn't make sense in my head. Obviously, I could be wrong, but here is how I think about it:

I reject the idea that action is what defines sexuality. This is a common argument. Gay people are often painted as purely sexual people. In the comment, the logic (and at first glance, it seems appropriate) was that the simple desire to cheat doesn't make you a cheater. The need you feel to lie, doesn't make you a liar. It isn't until you act on those feelings/desires that you become a "liar"/"cheater." The argument is then put forth that the desire to be homosexual doesn't make you homosexual.

Let's first look at the definitions of "cheater," "liar," and "homosexual."

Cheater: To deceive by trickery; swindle. To act dishonestly; practice fraud. One who cheats.
Liar: a person who has lied or lies repeatedly.

So far the argument holds true. Indeed, to be a liar or cheater, your actions must define it.

Homosexual: a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex.

Okay, so here is where the argument falls apart. A homosexual is not defined by his/her actions. Furthermore, sexuality is WAY different from adjectives like "cheater" and "liar." Sexuality is a core element of our humanity. It is a very important element of our being.

Ok, now for some logic. In order for sexuality to be determined by action, the following must also be true. All people are simply asexual until they act on their attraction. That means that, in the church, kids are asexual until they are 16 when they can finally date. It isn't until they hold a girls hand, kiss them, and start displaying their sexuality, that they become defined as a heterosexual. However, I am almost certain that if you asked these kids if they were asexual at age 15, they would, in large part, say NO- I am VERY heterosexual.

The term "homosexual" and "heterosexual" are also a bit confusing because sex is implied in the word. This is often used to show that gay people are purely lustful creatures looking for sex. But is sex what makes you heterosexual? Do you marry someone simply for sex? If so, I would argue that you are probably marrying for the wrong reason (and I think the brethern would agree with me). Instead, being a heterosexual means that you long for and are intrigued by the companionship of a person of the opposite gender. There is an emotional need for that partnership to feel complete as a human being. Much of this is based on sexual attraction, but just as heterosexuality isn't all about sex, homosexuality is much more than that. If it was only about sex, why do gays want to marry? There are much easier, no-strings-attached methods to satisfy lust.

Before coming to terms with my sexuality and being honest with myself, I dated girls. I'd take them out, hold their hands, cuddle, even kissed a couple. Based on my actions, I would be heterosexual. Yet underneath those actions was inner hell. It was so hard for me. It felt so unnatural and I couldn't understand why people kissed, why they held hands. It felt forced. And worst of all I would be in emotional agony whenever it came time to act heterosexual. It wasn't that I was dating boys. My actions were not homosexual ones. Yet I was and am gay. Once I became okay with that idea, I quickly found out why people held hands, why they kissed, etc. I couldn't understand it until my actions were in line with my emotional and sexual needs which are both parts of my sexuality (or perhaps, less confusing, orientation). When my actions became honest with my soul, I finally found out what being in love felt like. That was this year, age 25. Well after my peers have felt heartbreak and experienced love. Better late than never =)