In general I don't feel like a bitter or angry person. I feel like I am pretty fair in my opinions on church and my experiences. I defend Mormonism on the points I believe are worth defending. But I also do not excuse the church or its leaders for real harm that has been done. Perhaps, on this blog, I tend to be more critical because of the subject of the blog... being gay and Mormon. Maybe if there were more things to praise the church for when it comes to this topic, it would be different.
My beliefs have definitely developed and changed over the last year. To some... it may seem like I've abandoned everything I once believed. That isn't true. It was actually before I came to terms with being gay that I was probably most critical of the idea that God existed. I was in so much pain and I had begged him for help for so long, I just couldn't see that there was such a being since He didn't seem to notice my pain.
After coming to terms with being gay and being okay with that, all of a sudden life was pumped into me and I attributed it to God. God finally reached out. Things were better. I no longer punished myself with the idea that God rejected me or didn't want me to be happy. I finally felt that God loved me. So at that point, I kind of forgave all the years of hurt, of repression, or guilt, of self-hate that was instilled in me through my religion. I concluded that it was my fault for not being open to the idea that God loved me the way I was... a total homo. That if I had just given God a chance to give that answer, he would have.
Hanging onto Mormonism also allowed me to set boundaries and differentiate myself from "those gays" that we grow up hearing about. The sex maniacs who party and do drugs. I was a different kind of gay... one with morals! I felt that I was some new class of gay and hanging onto Mormonism is what made me, well... better really.
But then I met people. Really good people. Some of them had gone down different paths than I had... paths that I didn't really care to travel. But as I got to know them it all made sense. There was no way I could sit there and judge someone for the choices they made because I had not experienced their life. And despite everything we might conclude about a person from a list of choices they make, these people were honestly good people trying to navigate their lives the best they could.
I began having experiences similar to the ones I had on my mission. Those being experiences that taught me that there were wonderful, happy, productive people living good lives despite the fact that they didn't believe in Mormonism.
Then I would go to church or I would talk to lds friends (both gay and straight) and they would speak against these people I had met. Things would continue to be said in church by leaders that would cause fear and even hatred when it came to the "gay problem." I would be reminded of the years of hurt and self-hate. There seemed to be so much intolerance and judgement. And yes, perhaps the problem really is rooted in misunderstanding... and so i tried to share my perspective with patience and love. But it still continues. There are so many people going through real pain because of things leaders of the church have said or taught. At what point does my defense of the church and the leaders start excusing them from the pain they cause so many? At what point do need to stand up and say, "this is wrong and I do not support it and cannot support leaders who continue to teach false ideas about gay people." And then at what point must you come to the conclusion that if the men leading a church are among the last to realize and accept that being gay is not an issue of choice and that we are gay because God created us this way, maybe it isn't true?
But then so what? Why not move on? Well... I guess I see it like this. People in the pre-civil rights era didn't have a thought occur to them that maybe their treatment of other human being was wrong and then just move on with life quietly. Someone had to speak up. Someone had to point out the inconsistencies and the injustice. Someone had to wake people from their sleep so they could open their eyes for what was going on around them.
Honestly I feel like the church could be true. It could be true if there was a revolution within. I love the Mormon Stories podcasts and I love that there are so many people that are so much more open to new ideas and information and to differences. The level of openness and honesty and transparency is SO comforting. I feel like the church COULD be a TRUE church. I don't know how much I believe in "the one true church" idea anymore. Christ never set up a church... and the basis of his message was love... unconditional love. In fact he criticized the leaders of religion, the Pharisees and Sadducees, and spent his time amongst the outcast, the sinners, the poor, the people "good society" isn't thought to be made up of. But if a church could actually embody the message of Christ, then I feel it would be a true church.
So now back to my criticism of the church. I do it because I am holding my leaders accountable for their actions (or non-actions). I spent two years of my life teaching people and converting people to this religion, and the rest of it telling people how great it was. I feel I have somewhat of an obligation to speak up when I believe that leaders are leading people in a harmful direction... and I wouldn't know that except that I myself lived it. I still speak up in the church's defense when someone says something untrue or misguided about it, so can I not do the same in the opposite situation? Am I cynical?
Showing posts with label the church. Show all posts
Showing posts with label the church. Show all posts
05 August 2011
26 July 2011
THT: The Worst Kind of Harm
I don't work tomorrow... which is why I am writing a slew of posts. Anyway...
I was thinking how it seems the church and members of the church find assurance in the fact that they say they "love our gay brothers and sisters" and are "against bullying of any kind." I mean, those of course are good things... but personally, the church that screams "GOD HATES GAYS!" does so much less harm than my church does. The LDS church has been involved in the worst kind of harm.
Here is what I mean. As gay people, or as any person really, we can avoid a church that preaches hate against gays. We don't have to have anything to do with them. They can think what they want and make whatever judgments they want and the most it can do is hurt our feelings. They can deny membership and service and friendship to us, but that is it.
When a church steps outside its congregation, however, and actively seeks to prevent non-affiliated people from attaining the level of happiness they seek, when it goes beyond the borders of it's constituency to prevent people from attaining their dreams and goals for their lives, THAT is harmful in the worst way. The church has reached its hand into the lives of people who don't even have any kind of affiliation with it.
If I had to choose between a church existing that actively spoke about hating gays and bullied them on the streets and a church that claimed to love gays and not bully, but actively participated in taking away homosexual's rights and ensuring that they remain second-class citizens, I'd choose the former. At least then you would be in a relationship legitimized by society that you could depend on to be a rock in the stormy waters of hate and prejudice. At least then you could still move forward knowing that the laws of your country protect you equally as much as they protect the bullies. The church is just a bully disguised as your friendly neighbor who "loves you, but hates your choices." I don't think anyone should feel relieved that the church made a statement against bullying and for love. It's by their fruits ye shall know them... and lets be honest, it is because of the church that thousands of couples are treated like second-class citizens.
I was thinking how it seems the church and members of the church find assurance in the fact that they say they "love our gay brothers and sisters" and are "against bullying of any kind." I mean, those of course are good things... but personally, the church that screams "GOD HATES GAYS!" does so much less harm than my church does. The LDS church has been involved in the worst kind of harm.
Here is what I mean. As gay people, or as any person really, we can avoid a church that preaches hate against gays. We don't have to have anything to do with them. They can think what they want and make whatever judgments they want and the most it can do is hurt our feelings. They can deny membership and service and friendship to us, but that is it.
When a church steps outside its congregation, however, and actively seeks to prevent non-affiliated people from attaining the level of happiness they seek, when it goes beyond the borders of it's constituency to prevent people from attaining their dreams and goals for their lives, THAT is harmful in the worst way. The church has reached its hand into the lives of people who don't even have any kind of affiliation with it.
If I had to choose between a church existing that actively spoke about hating gays and bullied them on the streets and a church that claimed to love gays and not bully, but actively participated in taking away homosexual's rights and ensuring that they remain second-class citizens, I'd choose the former. At least then you would be in a relationship legitimized by society that you could depend on to be a rock in the stormy waters of hate and prejudice. At least then you could still move forward knowing that the laws of your country protect you equally as much as they protect the bullies. The church is just a bully disguised as your friendly neighbor who "loves you, but hates your choices." I don't think anyone should feel relieved that the church made a statement against bullying and for love. It's by their fruits ye shall know them... and lets be honest, it is because of the church that thousands of couples are treated like second-class citizens.
09 May 2011
PE: I worked on Sunday
This post actually has nothing to do with being gay. It does have to do with being Mormon. This Sunday, I worked. I don't normally work on Sundays, but this week, I did. I work downtown, just minutes away from temple square. On any given day, you will pass quite a few homeless people. Some are in groups. Some are taking a nap on the grass. Some hold signs hoping for some money. Others will just approach you and ask if you could get them a burger from mcdonalds. Some are old. Some are young. Some are mothers, and there are those that are just kids. Ever since I started working downtown, it bothered me. But Sunday it really bothered me.
I made it to work in my fastest time. As I drove out of the neighborhood I live in, cars were filing into church parking lots and families were entering the buildings all dressed up. Sunday is a good day to drive in Utah because everyone is at church. But while everyone was sitting in church, I was driving by the homeless that wander the streets around temple square. And maybe it was just my imagination, but there sure seemed to be a lot more out there on Sunday. It seems so backwards to me. Why are there homeless people in a state where so many Mormons live? But more than that, why are there masses of visibly homeless people surrounding temple square?
Meanwhile, the church is building the 3 billion dollar city creek center across the street from temple square. A massive project that includes luxury condos and an upscale mall with a retractable roof. I don't care were the money is coming from, no church should be putting money into an upscale shopping center before taking care of the homeless and needy that surround its very headquarters. In Jan. 2006, from the Church PR department, (Deseret News Publishing Company): Edgley said, “that since 1984, the LDS Church has donated nearly $750 million in cash and goods to people in need in more than 150 countries. I wouldn't have believed that the church would spend more money on a mall than on over 20 years of humanitarian aid.
Some will argue that it is only costing 1 billion dollars... my answer would be, only? And this IS the number the church initially reported... actually, it started at $800,000. However, take a look at this article from DESERET NEWS, and you will find that indeed, "City Creek Reserve is spending more than $1 million a day on construction, and the project ultimately will cost around $3 billion, said Chris Redgrave, a KSL executive who also chairs the Salt Lake Chamber's Can-Do Coalition." Mind you, this number was given in November 2009. Costs tend to rise on these things.
Sorry for venting. I just don't get it. Am I missing something here? The way the church is choosing to revitalize downtown is to provide another place to buy a new outfit? Should I not be worried about this? Someone please make sense of it for me.
I made it to work in my fastest time. As I drove out of the neighborhood I live in, cars were filing into church parking lots and families were entering the buildings all dressed up. Sunday is a good day to drive in Utah because everyone is at church. But while everyone was sitting in church, I was driving by the homeless that wander the streets around temple square. And maybe it was just my imagination, but there sure seemed to be a lot more out there on Sunday. It seems so backwards to me. Why are there homeless people in a state where so many Mormons live? But more than that, why are there masses of visibly homeless people surrounding temple square?
Meanwhile, the church is building the 3 billion dollar city creek center across the street from temple square. A massive project that includes luxury condos and an upscale mall with a retractable roof. I don't care were the money is coming from, no church should be putting money into an upscale shopping center before taking care of the homeless and needy that surround its very headquarters. In Jan. 2006, from the Church PR department, (Deseret News Publishing Company): Edgley said, “that since 1984, the LDS Church has donated nearly $750 million in cash and goods to people in need in more than 150 countries. I wouldn't have believed that the church would spend more money on a mall than on over 20 years of humanitarian aid.
Some will argue that it is only costing 1 billion dollars... my answer would be, only? And this IS the number the church initially reported... actually, it started at $800,000. However, take a look at this article from DESERET NEWS, and you will find that indeed, "City Creek Reserve is spending more than $1 million a day on construction, and the project ultimately will cost around $3 billion, said Chris Redgrave, a KSL executive who also chairs the Salt Lake Chamber's Can-Do Coalition." Mind you, this number was given in November 2009. Costs tend to rise on these things.
Sorry for venting. I just don't get it. Am I missing something here? The way the church is choosing to revitalize downtown is to provide another place to buy a new outfit? Should I not be worried about this? Someone please make sense of it for me.
05 May 2011
ARG: Isn't it funny
Isn't it funny how we will read scriptures that talk about men and apply them to women without question? Sometimes we even add that part in on our own... men (and women). Yet we do not think it right to suppose that scriptures that refer to one relationship or one family could relate to another type. We can change the exclusive "man" to inclusive "people" but we can't change "wife" to " spouse" or "woman" to "man." When it comes down to it, are Christ's teachings really about specific gender couplings or are they about relationships between people? What if we focused on and applied what Christ was saying about relationships rather than on the specific one he references in a certain parable or teaching. Aren't we supposed to apply the scriptures to our own lives and our own situations?
This is the approach I take. Funny thing about my patriarchal blessing... it became more true and more relevant and more personal after coming to terms with being gay. The wording is even such that it fits much better with the life I have now chosen to live. Certain wording always confused me a little. But now, it actually makes more sense to me. The only thing that doesn't fit is the mention of a wife. It refers to my spouse as a "her." It would appear that i have two options. I either through my patriarchal blessing out, figuring it is all a bunch of bull, or accept that I have chosen a path I am not supposed to. However, there is another approach.
My patriarch was like 70 years old. While I believe he is inspired, I'm not sure that that inspiration is in the form of words. I believe that, like the way the holy ghost works, it is more direction by feeling. So when he felt inspired to talk about a significant other or spouse, his assumption, and even his experience tells him that this significant other will be a female. When we read the words of John the relevator, or Isaiah, how many times are we told that they use language that is familiar to them to describe things they may not understand or may not have had experience with? Could it not be the same with a patriarch?
Another question people sometimes have is that if I believe that my patriarchal blessing is inspired, I must believe everything. The Book of Mormon, the church, the leaders, the whole package. I used to think that too. I don't anymore because I think it is unhealthy. It is like meeting one person that is trustworthy and then assuming that everyone else must be trustworthy too. Then one day, when you find out that first person you met was a fraud, you loose faith in everyone because you trusted them based on the assumption that the first guy was good, even if some of them really are good, trustworthy, honest people.
No. I take principles and ideas one at a time. "Precept upon precept." While reading scriptures I will come upon a teaching or principle that really strikes home and rings true in my heart. That tells my that that idea is a good one. It doesn't mean everything ever written in that book is pure and unadulterated truth. When I say i believe my blessing was inspired, it doesn't mean that I believe that everything from polygamy to the blacks not holding the priesthood, to gays being damned is inspired. I take things one at a time.
This is the approach I take. Funny thing about my patriarchal blessing... it became more true and more relevant and more personal after coming to terms with being gay. The wording is even such that it fits much better with the life I have now chosen to live. Certain wording always confused me a little. But now, it actually makes more sense to me. The only thing that doesn't fit is the mention of a wife. It refers to my spouse as a "her." It would appear that i have two options. I either through my patriarchal blessing out, figuring it is all a bunch of bull, or accept that I have chosen a path I am not supposed to. However, there is another approach.
My patriarch was like 70 years old. While I believe he is inspired, I'm not sure that that inspiration is in the form of words. I believe that, like the way the holy ghost works, it is more direction by feeling. So when he felt inspired to talk about a significant other or spouse, his assumption, and even his experience tells him that this significant other will be a female. When we read the words of John the relevator, or Isaiah, how many times are we told that they use language that is familiar to them to describe things they may not understand or may not have had experience with? Could it not be the same with a patriarch?
Another question people sometimes have is that if I believe that my patriarchal blessing is inspired, I must believe everything. The Book of Mormon, the church, the leaders, the whole package. I used to think that too. I don't anymore because I think it is unhealthy. It is like meeting one person that is trustworthy and then assuming that everyone else must be trustworthy too. Then one day, when you find out that first person you met was a fraud, you loose faith in everyone because you trusted them based on the assumption that the first guy was good, even if some of them really are good, trustworthy, honest people.
No. I take principles and ideas one at a time. "Precept upon precept." While reading scriptures I will come upon a teaching or principle that really strikes home and rings true in my heart. That tells my that that idea is a good one. It doesn't mean everything ever written in that book is pure and unadulterated truth. When I say i believe my blessing was inspired, it doesn't mean that I believe that everything from polygamy to the blacks not holding the priesthood, to gays being damned is inspired. I take things one at a time.
26 March 2011
THT: No Question
This is part two of my previous post. It also has to do with taking ownership for our own actions. This I write to every person really, but especially to the members of the church.
You, and only you, are accountable for the choices and decisions you make. Try as you might, you cannot hold another person accountable for what you have decided to do or say. I was having a facebook discussion with someone over the homosexuality issue and the church. He has since removed his remark and so I can't reference it here, but I will give you the gist of what he said (which I hear ALL the time).
Basically he said that he believes in revelation and that our leaders are prophets, seers, and revelators. He said that no matter what his personal opinion on matters are, he will always accept their words without question because they are called of God. He said that his reasoning for being against gay marriage is because that is what the leaders teach. He then said that if tomorrow, President Monson announced that the leadership supported gay marriage, he would just as quickly support gay marriage.
Oooooh, this makes me so angry. I know it shouldn't... but this type of thinking (which is SO prevalent in the Mormon culture) is extremely dangerous. Like I have said before, ALL people necessarily have limited understanding and experience (including prophets) and therefore their concepts of what is good and true are fallible. Each person can only envision a part of our shared reality. Such partiality, when presented as the totality, can severely limit the lives who embrace it as truth.
How nice it is that this person can flip a switch in his mind from being against gay marriage one day, and for it the next. It is so easy. And there is no responsibility. You ask this person why he supports or doesn't support the idea and his answer is, "because he (pointing his finger) told me so." No responsibility need be taken. All the while this person feels completely justified because his blind obedience is supposedly a mark of his faith. Meanwhile, the thousands upon thousands of people that have suffered long years due to the actions taken by people like this is completely disregarded. Those years of hurt cannot be so easily switched in a single day. Where is the compassion in that?
I asked, so let's say you were a supporter of "separate, but equal" back before blacks were given the priesthood. In your Sunday School classes, on your mission, you taught people that blacks were cursed and would never hold the priesthood. You perpetuated the idea that people with a certain color skin were some how less than others. Then the revelation comes that all that was wrong. You accept it and go on your happy way. In the meantime, the words you have spoken and the things you have done continue to affect and influence the people you have had contact with. It wasn't the president of the church who taught those things to the people you interacted with, it was YOU. YOU taught those hateful and prejudice things. It is on YOUR head. YOU had the power to find the truth of what had been said. That was YOUR responsibility.
Wake up! You are supposed to be seekers of truth, lovers of the word of God. You are supposed to thirst for knowledge and truth... have a hunger for the best books. That requires work, and YOU are responsible for it. We are required to actively test the knowledge we learn and find the truth. If you think that at the end of the day your conscience will be clear because you simply did everything the prophet said, think again. You are the owner of your choices, not the prophet. At the end of the day, YOU will be judged for what you have done, not the prophet. So you better be damn sure that what you claim to be truth is actually true.
We look back on the way blacks were treated and we gasp. We can't imagine how any Christian could really say the things and believe the things they did about black people. Are you doing the same thing today? Will your children look back and think the same about you?
You, and only you, are accountable for the choices and decisions you make. Try as you might, you cannot hold another person accountable for what you have decided to do or say. I was having a facebook discussion with someone over the homosexuality issue and the church. He has since removed his remark and so I can't reference it here, but I will give you the gist of what he said (which I hear ALL the time).
Basically he said that he believes in revelation and that our leaders are prophets, seers, and revelators. He said that no matter what his personal opinion on matters are, he will always accept their words without question because they are called of God. He said that his reasoning for being against gay marriage is because that is what the leaders teach. He then said that if tomorrow, President Monson announced that the leadership supported gay marriage, he would just as quickly support gay marriage.
Oooooh, this makes me so angry. I know it shouldn't... but this type of thinking (which is SO prevalent in the Mormon culture) is extremely dangerous. Like I have said before, ALL people necessarily have limited understanding and experience (including prophets) and therefore their concepts of what is good and true are fallible. Each person can only envision a part of our shared reality. Such partiality, when presented as the totality, can severely limit the lives who embrace it as truth.
How nice it is that this person can flip a switch in his mind from being against gay marriage one day, and for it the next. It is so easy. And there is no responsibility. You ask this person why he supports or doesn't support the idea and his answer is, "because he (pointing his finger) told me so." No responsibility need be taken. All the while this person feels completely justified because his blind obedience is supposedly a mark of his faith. Meanwhile, the thousands upon thousands of people that have suffered long years due to the actions taken by people like this is completely disregarded. Those years of hurt cannot be so easily switched in a single day. Where is the compassion in that?
I asked, so let's say you were a supporter of "separate, but equal" back before blacks were given the priesthood. In your Sunday School classes, on your mission, you taught people that blacks were cursed and would never hold the priesthood. You perpetuated the idea that people with a certain color skin were some how less than others. Then the revelation comes that all that was wrong. You accept it and go on your happy way. In the meantime, the words you have spoken and the things you have done continue to affect and influence the people you have had contact with. It wasn't the president of the church who taught those things to the people you interacted with, it was YOU. YOU taught those hateful and prejudice things. It is on YOUR head. YOU had the power to find the truth of what had been said. That was YOUR responsibility.
Wake up! You are supposed to be seekers of truth, lovers of the word of God. You are supposed to thirst for knowledge and truth... have a hunger for the best books. That requires work, and YOU are responsible for it. We are required to actively test the knowledge we learn and find the truth. If you think that at the end of the day your conscience will be clear because you simply did everything the prophet said, think again. You are the owner of your choices, not the prophet. At the end of the day, YOU will be judged for what you have done, not the prophet. So you better be damn sure that what you claim to be truth is actually true.
We look back on the way blacks were treated and we gasp. We can't imagine how any Christian could really say the things and believe the things they did about black people. Are you doing the same thing today? Will your children look back and think the same about you?
13 February 2011
THT: Updates
I've been pretty silent over the past week. I apologize. I've become very busy with things... mostly work. Starting a career is no easy thing.
I've had some really important and meaningful conversations over the past few days with people from all walks of life. They all have different ideas about God and religion. All have been devout members of the church at one point or another. If you have seen 8: The Mormon Proposition, I met with the mother (Linda Stay) and father of the boy that gets married in the film. There were six of us there total and we sat talking in a little cafe in St. George for almost 4 hours. Linda and her husband are wonderful, loving people. Something I have come to love is the connection I feel with people now. It doesn't matter what their situation in life is or what their beliefs are, I can connect on a very real and personal level.
Something we all had in common is that we were all hurt pretty significantly by the church. We have all dealt with that in different ways and are all on different paths. But despite all that, it is amazing to feel the love, the sincerity, and the deep belief that radiates from these people. Their love is real. Their pain is real.
I talked to my mom about her thoughts on my facing the church. It is a hard thing for her to consider. If I were to be excommunicated, she isn't sure how she'd handle that. She isn't sure how she could trust the church or its leaders. At the same time she doesn't want me to resign. She also understands that I feel the need to face this. She thinks about me and my situation and what it means every day. She is having to come to grips with her beliefs just like I have been having to. The difference is that I have friends and people to talk to about it. She has no one. She's tried to talk to a friend who has a son that is gay, but has found that that topic is closed for discussion with her. I will probably tell her about Linda today and see if she wants to talk to her.
After this week and the many discussions I've had, I am unsure about how to proceed with the church. I understand completely why people would choose to resign. It is interesting how many experiences I've had this last week since coming to the conclusion that I wanted to face the church that have been very relevant. I think that perhaps this will take more time than I initially thought. As strong as I sometimes feel that I am and as prepared as I think I might be, the truth is, I am not bulletproof. Certain things cut me deep. Things can still be said that tear my world apart and make me doubt myself. I can still be thrown back into that world of darkness and confusion if I am not careful. Whenever that happens (which isn't often by any means), it doesn't last long. But it is enough to remind me of the horrible place (mentally, emotionally, and spiritually) that I found myself in after years of self-hate. I am still on the path to healing. Am I ready for another blow?
I've had some really important and meaningful conversations over the past few days with people from all walks of life. They all have different ideas about God and religion. All have been devout members of the church at one point or another. If you have seen 8: The Mormon Proposition, I met with the mother (Linda Stay) and father of the boy that gets married in the film. There were six of us there total and we sat talking in a little cafe in St. George for almost 4 hours. Linda and her husband are wonderful, loving people. Something I have come to love is the connection I feel with people now. It doesn't matter what their situation in life is or what their beliefs are, I can connect on a very real and personal level.
Something we all had in common is that we were all hurt pretty significantly by the church. We have all dealt with that in different ways and are all on different paths. But despite all that, it is amazing to feel the love, the sincerity, and the deep belief that radiates from these people. Their love is real. Their pain is real.
I talked to my mom about her thoughts on my facing the church. It is a hard thing for her to consider. If I were to be excommunicated, she isn't sure how she'd handle that. She isn't sure how she could trust the church or its leaders. At the same time she doesn't want me to resign. She also understands that I feel the need to face this. She thinks about me and my situation and what it means every day. She is having to come to grips with her beliefs just like I have been having to. The difference is that I have friends and people to talk to about it. She has no one. She's tried to talk to a friend who has a son that is gay, but has found that that topic is closed for discussion with her. I will probably tell her about Linda today and see if she wants to talk to her.
After this week and the many discussions I've had, I am unsure about how to proceed with the church. I understand completely why people would choose to resign. It is interesting how many experiences I've had this last week since coming to the conclusion that I wanted to face the church that have been very relevant. I think that perhaps this will take more time than I initially thought. As strong as I sometimes feel that I am and as prepared as I think I might be, the truth is, I am not bulletproof. Certain things cut me deep. Things can still be said that tear my world apart and make me doubt myself. I can still be thrown back into that world of darkness and confusion if I am not careful. Whenever that happens (which isn't often by any means), it doesn't last long. But it is enough to remind me of the horrible place (mentally, emotionally, and spiritually) that I found myself in after years of self-hate. I am still on the path to healing. Am I ready for another blow?
05 February 2011
THT: I think I'm ready to face the church
January was an interesting month for me as I began the transition to the "real world." That transition isn't exactly complete, but I am optimistic and excited for the future. I love that scripture "consider the lilies of the field how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin." It brings me such comfort and I am reminded that I don't need to worry about how things will work out as long as I am doing what I feel is right. I've never really had to worry about money. I mean, things have been tight... and I am poorer now than ever, but I have never gone hungry or without shelter or warmth.
I've been sick lately. I caught the flu a couple weeks ago. Now I have some throat thing. But I feel that I am on the upswing and now that I've gotten all my sickness out of the way for the year, it should be a healthy 11 months haha. I don't typically get sick. Maybe once a year. So here's hoping.
Now that I've come out to basically all my family and friends, the last cloud hanging over me is the church. It is like unfinished business. I don't like leaving things unfinished. It makes me feel lazy and fill me with regret. Today I felt this strong urge to face that unfinished business. A friend of mine was recently called to a church court. It was supposed to be tomorrow, but he has work. I don't think it matters how prepared you are for that, it always hurts. No one likes to be punished for something they are not guilty of. When you've had personal witnesses to assure you that your life decisions are not evil and that the Lord supports you, that is exactly how it feels to be exed.
I've given much of my life to the church. I've defended it. I've brought people in. I've tried to be an example of a good member. I've taught people about it. I've given two solid years of life to it as well as other time and resources. Much of my life experiences have come from being a member of it. Yet, because the deepest love I can feel can only be for another man, I will be cast out. It is hard not to feel thrown away and discarded. All those years of commitment and devotion and service are simply wiped away and forgotten the moment I announce that I want to spend my life with a guy and build a family with him.
But I know that God will not forget. I know that his love for me is real and his support is evident in my life. I know he will bless me and care for me even though the institution that claims to be his will revoke their blessings. That knowledge is enough for me to face the pain I will feel when I will be turned away. It will give me the confidence and the boldness to speak from my heart. It will give me the inspiration I need to prepare myself to face a room of men I have never met before in my life, but who will decide what what is best for me. I pray that God will give me the strength and power to speak in his behalf.
So, as long as I am healthy, I think next week may be the week. The beginning of the end of the life of pain, guilt, shame, and self-hate I lived for so long. And then I will finally be free. Free to love. Free to grow and learn. Free to inspire and be inspired. Free to finally be happy.
I've been sick lately. I caught the flu a couple weeks ago. Now I have some throat thing. But I feel that I am on the upswing and now that I've gotten all my sickness out of the way for the year, it should be a healthy 11 months haha. I don't typically get sick. Maybe once a year. So here's hoping.
Now that I've come out to basically all my family and friends, the last cloud hanging over me is the church. It is like unfinished business. I don't like leaving things unfinished. It makes me feel lazy and fill me with regret. Today I felt this strong urge to face that unfinished business. A friend of mine was recently called to a church court. It was supposed to be tomorrow, but he has work. I don't think it matters how prepared you are for that, it always hurts. No one likes to be punished for something they are not guilty of. When you've had personal witnesses to assure you that your life decisions are not evil and that the Lord supports you, that is exactly how it feels to be exed.
I've given much of my life to the church. I've defended it. I've brought people in. I've tried to be an example of a good member. I've taught people about it. I've given two solid years of life to it as well as other time and resources. Much of my life experiences have come from being a member of it. Yet, because the deepest love I can feel can only be for another man, I will be cast out. It is hard not to feel thrown away and discarded. All those years of commitment and devotion and service are simply wiped away and forgotten the moment I announce that I want to spend my life with a guy and build a family with him.
But I know that God will not forget. I know that his love for me is real and his support is evident in my life. I know he will bless me and care for me even though the institution that claims to be his will revoke their blessings. That knowledge is enough for me to face the pain I will feel when I will be turned away. It will give me the confidence and the boldness to speak from my heart. It will give me the inspiration I need to prepare myself to face a room of men I have never met before in my life, but who will decide what what is best for me. I pray that God will give me the strength and power to speak in his behalf.
So, as long as I am healthy, I think next week may be the week. The beginning of the end of the life of pain, guilt, shame, and self-hate I lived for so long. And then I will finally be free. Free to love. Free to grow and learn. Free to inspire and be inspired. Free to finally be happy.
19 January 2011
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? 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.
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? 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.
14 January 2011
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 ;)
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 ;)
04 January 2011
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?
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?
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?
02 January 2011
RANT: Gay Marriage
I honestly don't understand why churches fight so hard against gay marriage. Especially my church- the LDS church. Why is it that they are fighting against the most chaste, worthy, admirable thing that this group of people want? I mean, these are two people that want to make a commitment to one another, to be true to each other, to support one another through good and bad times. It is the most worthy goal that these people wish to attain and yet it is struck down by people in the name of God.
These same churches insist that homosexuals are a bunch of sex maniacs who go around sleeping with anyone that happens to pass by. But if it was all about the sex, why would any gay person in their right mind want to marry? Sex comes easy if that's all you want and marriage is hard. But these churches (who say that they support the family unit and chastity), rather than help those gay individuals who do want committed relationships to be granted the ability to marry, fight against it, forcing this group of people to dwell in the gutters that they despise.
Sure, maybe homosexuals don't live the life that you think is ideal. Maybe living a gay life with a partner is just not what God would want according to your beliefs, but does that mean you have the right to take away the ability for these people to live the "right" life as best they can? Think about it. Lets take a conservative number and say that 5% of the population is gay. That means there are almost 700,000 gay members of the church. Why do we not support those members by encouraging them to stay chaste until marriage. To apply the law of chastity in their dating habits just as we do the habits of heterosexual members? Instead, we call this core characteristic wrong and evil and fight against the opportunity for them to enter into a committed relationship with the person they love. We give them no hope of an appropriate relationship that they can wait for to begin sexual expressions of love. We simply say that to live like a gay person is wrong and if that is what you are going to do, you might as well sleep around and be promiscuous because it isn't any more wrong than being gay in the first place.
And then these "Christians" point to how dirty the "homosexual lifestyle" is and use it to maintain their condemnation of them. It is a catch-22. Christians refuse to allow gay people legitimate relationships, but then attack the community for not having legitimate relationships. It makes me sick. I just don't understand the thinking behind it. I don't understand where Christ's teachings are being applied here. We are all sinners. And guess what.... even the LEAST sin will keep you from the kingdom of heaven, so why do Christians insist on rating sins? Maybe it makes some people feel better about their own sins if they can point and say that this or that sin is the worst one.
Maybe my family can't look exactly like yours... but why wouldn't you want me to have as close an equivalent as I can? Why would you wish anyone to be alone their whole life, unable to enter marriage and begin a family within a committed, loving relationship? Why is it so bad that I want a family within which my partner and I can grow and learn, raise and teach children, and build a Christ-centered home? How is making that unobtainable helping anyone?
These same churches insist that homosexuals are a bunch of sex maniacs who go around sleeping with anyone that happens to pass by. But if it was all about the sex, why would any gay person in their right mind want to marry? Sex comes easy if that's all you want and marriage is hard. But these churches (who say that they support the family unit and chastity), rather than help those gay individuals who do want committed relationships to be granted the ability to marry, fight against it, forcing this group of people to dwell in the gutters that they despise.
Sure, maybe homosexuals don't live the life that you think is ideal. Maybe living a gay life with a partner is just not what God would want according to your beliefs, but does that mean you have the right to take away the ability for these people to live the "right" life as best they can? Think about it. Lets take a conservative number and say that 5% of the population is gay. That means there are almost 700,000 gay members of the church. Why do we not support those members by encouraging them to stay chaste until marriage. To apply the law of chastity in their dating habits just as we do the habits of heterosexual members? Instead, we call this core characteristic wrong and evil and fight against the opportunity for them to enter into a committed relationship with the person they love. We give them no hope of an appropriate relationship that they can wait for to begin sexual expressions of love. We simply say that to live like a gay person is wrong and if that is what you are going to do, you might as well sleep around and be promiscuous because it isn't any more wrong than being gay in the first place.
And then these "Christians" point to how dirty the "homosexual lifestyle" is and use it to maintain their condemnation of them. It is a catch-22. Christians refuse to allow gay people legitimate relationships, but then attack the community for not having legitimate relationships. It makes me sick. I just don't understand the thinking behind it. I don't understand where Christ's teachings are being applied here. We are all sinners. And guess what.... even the LEAST sin will keep you from the kingdom of heaven, so why do Christians insist on rating sins? Maybe it makes some people feel better about their own sins if they can point and say that this or that sin is the worst one.
Maybe my family can't look exactly like yours... but why wouldn't you want me to have as close an equivalent as I can? Why would you wish anyone to be alone their whole life, unable to enter marriage and begin a family within a committed, loving relationship? Why is it so bad that I want a family within which my partner and I can grow and learn, raise and teach children, and build a Christ-centered home? How is making that unobtainable helping anyone?
28 December 2010
THT: "The New Mormon Gay"
So in the book I am reading, "Conservative Christian Identity and Same-Sex Orientation: The Case of Gay Mormons," there is a whole section on "The New Mormon Gay." I didn't know I fell into a class of Gay Mormons until now. Let me tell you a bit about this small class of people.
These people choose to accept their sexuality and be actively (to the extent that they can) LDS. According to the book, "most are urbanites and better educated than there married and celibate counterparts." They seek to urge change in the church when it comes to the way homosexuals are viewed and treated. Their reasoning is that "most Mormons, even those who are highly religious, do not believe everything the church teaches," and that the stance on homosexuality is one of those issues.
This class of gay Mormons are in a difficult position. They are often "marginalized because they are stuck between two incompatible communities." They don't agree 100% with everything the gay movement does or says and they don't agree 100% with what the church says or does with regard to homosexuality. The gay community thinks that they are crazy, ignorant, and backward for wanting to be involved with the church and the Mormon community thinks they are deviant sinners unworthy to share their company or fellowship. So they seek respect and acceptance among Mormons as homosexuals and seek respect and acceptance among the gay community for being Mormon.
This is a pretty accurate description of me. The change that I would like to see if for gay members of the church to have a healthy, spiritual support base withing the church to help them make the best choices they can living as a gay individual. Instead of turning our backs and casting them out of our congregations leaving them to find company in bars and clubs, welcome them in, give them examples of healthy gay relationships. Healthy dating. Eventually healthy marriage. If gays have chosen to live in line with their sexuality, would it not be better to help them apply the gospel in their lives the best they can? Would it not be better to encourage committed monogamous relationships that are built upon faith in Christ? I think so. And I hope that one day I can be be that kind of example.
These people choose to accept their sexuality and be actively (to the extent that they can) LDS. According to the book, "most are urbanites and better educated than there married and celibate counterparts." They seek to urge change in the church when it comes to the way homosexuals are viewed and treated. Their reasoning is that "most Mormons, even those who are highly religious, do not believe everything the church teaches," and that the stance on homosexuality is one of those issues.
This class of gay Mormons are in a difficult position. They are often "marginalized because they are stuck between two incompatible communities." They don't agree 100% with everything the gay movement does or says and they don't agree 100% with what the church says or does with regard to homosexuality. The gay community thinks that they are crazy, ignorant, and backward for wanting to be involved with the church and the Mormon community thinks they are deviant sinners unworthy to share their company or fellowship. So they seek respect and acceptance among Mormons as homosexuals and seek respect and acceptance among the gay community for being Mormon.
This is a pretty accurate description of me. The change that I would like to see if for gay members of the church to have a healthy, spiritual support base withing the church to help them make the best choices they can living as a gay individual. Instead of turning our backs and casting them out of our congregations leaving them to find company in bars and clubs, welcome them in, give them examples of healthy gay relationships. Healthy dating. Eventually healthy marriage. If gays have chosen to live in line with their sexuality, would it not be better to help them apply the gospel in their lives the best they can? Would it not be better to encourage committed monogamous relationships that are built upon faith in Christ? I think so. And I hope that one day I can be be that kind of example.
26 December 2010
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.
------------------------------
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.
01 December 2010
ART: Who do you think you are?
I love Christina Perri's song Jar of Hearts and the beautiful music video that was produced for it. It became popular after an episode of So You Think You Can Dance where a couple danced to the song. It was due to that episode that dance so heavily influences the music video.
It tells the story of a heartless man-whore who gets girls to fall in love with him only to crush their hearts. He's definitely the villain of this story. But when I listen to these lyrics, I relate it to the situation many people like me (gay LDS people) face. It then becomes, to me, a desperate argument against the society that embraces moral conventions that supports intolerance. Listen to the speaker as he/she desperately addresses society (religion, governments, other social constructs). Sometimes I personify the society as someone like the Pope (who to me, represents both religious and political power) or, specific to the LDS culture, a bishop or stake president, etc.
I think people who feel driven away from the church are often given insult to injury. They go to church and are hurt by things that are done and said to them by members and leaders alike. Then, when they express how they've been hurt, members say, "well, you choose to be offended. There is no good reason for you to leave. People only leave because they want to justify their sins." It becomes the fault of the disaffected member for the treatment they received. And then people wonder why they don't come back:
I think people who feel driven away from the church are often given insult to injury. They go to church and are hurt by things that are done and said to them by members and leaders alike. Then, when they express how they've been hurt, members say, "well, you choose to be offended. There is no good reason for you to leave. People only leave because they want to justify their sins." It becomes the fault of the disaffected member for the treatment they received. And then people wonder why they don't come back:
I know I can't take one more step towards you
Cause all that's waiting is regret
And don't you know I'm not your ghost anymore
You lost the love I loved the most
29 November 2010
THT: A Call to Repentance
Since I have become more and more outspoken about my thoughts and ideas, I have been called to repentance by various people, none of whom have the authority or right to call me to repentance. I have also been written off as one of the tares that need to be rooted out or one of the elect who has been deceived. All these judgments have been made about me by fellow members of the church.
Okay, so you can see how we confuse the two. People all are on all different parts of the spectrum with how they incorporate the two into their lives. Often what happens is that people are so wrapped up in the culture (enrichment, scouts, mutual, home (and visit) teaching, FHE, etc, etc) that they start letting the culture inform the doctrine. We interpret the doctrine through the eye of the culture that surrounds it. But, we've already established that a culture cannot be true. I guarantee that the culture was extremely different in the early days of the church from what the church is now. Does it make the doctrine (Christ's gospel) any less true? No. So filtering the gospel through the eyes of the present culture invariably leads to problems.
I am on the other end of the spectrum. I let the gospel (the core teachings of Christ) inform the culture that I function within. Obviously, this is the correct method in my opinion. So when something is said or scriptures are cited by someone or actions are taken against me, I don't let those things inform the doctrine of Christ that I believe. I try and see everything (including the words of prophets) through the lens of the gospel while keeping in mind the culture within which the interpretations are made and the words are being said. Sometimes the culture is so offensive that I cannot feel a connection with Christ and his teachings in the physical organized church. It is hard to focus on things like love and forgiveness when you are sitting in the midst of judgmental people who tell you to your face that you will not be saved. So often, I choose not to subject myself to that culture. But I do fully embrace the gospel.
There are so many misinterpretations and misguided beliefs that result from the mixing of the Church and the Gospel. Here is one, and it helps explain how I maintain my identity as a Mormon and believer even when prophets are sometimes the reason for my reluctance to subject myself to the culture (which I wrote a little about in this post):
The doctrine of Christ clearly teaches us that prophets are imperfect. They make mistakes. Open the scriptures if you doubt this. There are many accounts of prophets making mistakes, and not just little ones. Some of them are huge. The culture, that is the church, is organized in such a way that we don't question our leaders. Imagine sitting in Sunday School and the Bishop makes a comment that really just rubs you wrong. Do you raise your hand and confront him? No. And if you did, surely you would be called out and maybe even be told that you are driving the spirit away. We don't question authority in the church. So this is our culture. Then we take a scripture (doctrine) and look at it through the eyes of our culture and condemn the person who disagrees with a leader's words. We accuse people who disagree of being like those who stoned the prophets, damned to hell. And yet Christ's doctrine is clear in its call for everyone to ponder and pray about the truth of any words spoken to us that are put forth as true.
Even when he visited the Nephites and taught them and established the gospel among them, he asked them to go and ponder and pray to God about what had been taught. Do we do that? Do we go through conference talks and really ponder and pray about the things that are said? Or do we simply accept it as truth even as we nod off during the one time we listen to it? And then what right do any of us have to condemn someone else who has pondered and prayed and studied the message and finds that he/she disagrees with a point or two?
The Church (member, leaders, activities, organizations, auxiliaries and the way all these things interact... the culture) is heavily influenced by it's time, environment, and the circumstances surrounding it. The cultural biases and prejudices of today make even the word "gay" wrong in today's church. However, ALL people necessarily have limited understanding and experience (including prophets) and therefore their concepts of what is good and true are fallible. Each person can only envision a part of our shared reality. Such partiality, when presented as the totality, can severely limit the lives who embrace it as truth.
Even apostle's words must be read and understood in context and must then be evaluated in terms of those limitations. No person's portrayal of common truth and collective good can be allowed to stand unexamined and unquestioned.
"You must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me [the Lord] if it be right." God doesn't ask us to simply accept things as truth and follow blindly. "For he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward."
I am so bad at keeping my posts at a reasonable length. Sorry readers.
"My disciples, in days of old, sought occasion against one another and forgave not one another in their hearts; and for this evil they were afflicted and sorely chastened. Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin. I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men."
-D&C 64:8-10
Before moving on, I must say that I forgive anyone who has sought to judge me. I don't have any bitterness to those that have called me to repentance. Having said that, I feel I should address how I manage to continue to believe, despite the quoted scriptures and judgment I get from the members of the church.
Yesterday an anonymous reader left a comment that was simply a scripture reference. The scripture reads, "And it was the more righteous part of the people who were saved, and it was they who received the prophets and stoned them not; and it was they who had not shed the blood of the saints, who were spared." Apart from the fact that the person who posted this is obviously judging me, calling me unrighteous and damned (not saved), and accusing me of stoning the prophets according to his or her interpretation of this scripture, it was basically an instance of "BoM Bashing" (kind of like Bible bashing).
While this can be great fun, the church does not endorse "bible bashing." Why? Because you can find a scripture to support almost any idea you have and condemn another person while declaring your own righteousness- just as I have demonstrated above. I don't want the person who wrote that comment to feel attacked at all. I really do appreciate everyone who comments, including the author of this one.
Okay, so I hope you can see the approach I take to comments like these. This approach comes from a more foundational belief I have about the difference between the gospel and the church, one that was articulated in general conference in 1984 in a talk given by Elder Poelman and has helped me in my continued belief in the gospel.
The Church and the Gospel, are two entirely different things. The Gospel is the doctrine taught by Christ. Who's gospel is it? Christ's. Not Thomas S. Monson's, not Joseph Smith's, not your religion professor's. It is Christ's gospel. Everything else is an appendage to the doctrine of Christ.
The Church is the organization that acts as a catalyst to promote that gospel and provides the space and structure within which the gospel can be taught and lived. It includes the leadership, the for-profit businesses of the church, the members, and basically everything else you can imagine that is not the doctrine taught by Christ. In summary, the church is the culture in which we presently function within as members. Let's recap:
We get these two mixed up all the time in the church. How many times have you heard someone bare their testimony and say, "I know the church is true." Can a culture be "true?" Is there such thing as the only true culture? People also often say something like, "I don't know where I'd be without the church in my life, it scares me to even think about it." Really? So if the church was taken away from you, the doctrine with which you guide your life with would disappear also? What about the countries of the world were "the church" hasn't been established but "the gospel" has been preached to and received by people in that same country? What we really mean, I believe, is that we don't know how we would navigate our lives without the guidance that Christ has given us through his teachings.The Gospel = Doctrine (teachings) of ChristThe Church = Culture
Okay, so you can see how we confuse the two. People all are on all different parts of the spectrum with how they incorporate the two into their lives. Often what happens is that people are so wrapped up in the culture (enrichment, scouts, mutual, home (and visit) teaching, FHE, etc, etc) that they start letting the culture inform the doctrine. We interpret the doctrine through the eye of the culture that surrounds it. But, we've already established that a culture cannot be true. I guarantee that the culture was extremely different in the early days of the church from what the church is now. Does it make the doctrine (Christ's gospel) any less true? No. So filtering the gospel through the eyes of the present culture invariably leads to problems.
I am on the other end of the spectrum. I let the gospel (the core teachings of Christ) inform the culture that I function within. Obviously, this is the correct method in my opinion. So when something is said or scriptures are cited by someone or actions are taken against me, I don't let those things inform the doctrine of Christ that I believe. I try and see everything (including the words of prophets) through the lens of the gospel while keeping in mind the culture within which the interpretations are made and the words are being said. Sometimes the culture is so offensive that I cannot feel a connection with Christ and his teachings in the physical organized church. It is hard to focus on things like love and forgiveness when you are sitting in the midst of judgmental people who tell you to your face that you will not be saved. So often, I choose not to subject myself to that culture. But I do fully embrace the gospel.
There are so many misinterpretations and misguided beliefs that result from the mixing of the Church and the Gospel. Here is one, and it helps explain how I maintain my identity as a Mormon and believer even when prophets are sometimes the reason for my reluctance to subject myself to the culture (which I wrote a little about in this post):
The doctrine of Christ clearly teaches us that prophets are imperfect. They make mistakes. Open the scriptures if you doubt this. There are many accounts of prophets making mistakes, and not just little ones. Some of them are huge. The culture, that is the church, is organized in such a way that we don't question our leaders. Imagine sitting in Sunday School and the Bishop makes a comment that really just rubs you wrong. Do you raise your hand and confront him? No. And if you did, surely you would be called out and maybe even be told that you are driving the spirit away. We don't question authority in the church. So this is our culture. Then we take a scripture (doctrine) and look at it through the eyes of our culture and condemn the person who disagrees with a leader's words. We accuse people who disagree of being like those who stoned the prophets, damned to hell. And yet Christ's doctrine is clear in its call for everyone to ponder and pray about the truth of any words spoken to us that are put forth as true.
Even when he visited the Nephites and taught them and established the gospel among them, he asked them to go and ponder and pray to God about what had been taught. Do we do that? Do we go through conference talks and really ponder and pray about the things that are said? Or do we simply accept it as truth even as we nod off during the one time we listen to it? And then what right do any of us have to condemn someone else who has pondered and prayed and studied the message and finds that he/she disagrees with a point or two?
The Church (member, leaders, activities, organizations, auxiliaries and the way all these things interact... the culture) is heavily influenced by it's time, environment, and the circumstances surrounding it. The cultural biases and prejudices of today make even the word "gay" wrong in today's church. However, ALL people necessarily have limited understanding and experience (including prophets) and therefore their concepts of what is good and true are fallible. Each person can only envision a part of our shared reality. Such partiality, when presented as the totality, can severely limit the lives who embrace it as truth.
Even apostle's words must be read and understood in context and must then be evaluated in terms of those limitations. No person's portrayal of common truth and collective good can be allowed to stand unexamined and unquestioned.
"You must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me [the Lord] if it be right." God doesn't ask us to simply accept things as truth and follow blindly. "For he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward."
I am so bad at keeping my posts at a reasonable length. Sorry readers.
09 November 2010
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.
------------------------
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:
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:
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.
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.
05 November 2010
RANT: SSA & SGA Make Me Sick
Ok. This has bothered me for a long time. Not long ago, the church developed a new acronym for homosexuals. No longer were you gay, or homosexual because those things just do not exist (as Bishop McMullin clearly stated this year)
All of a sudden the church was able to make being gay sound like a disease or deficiency of some kind. "So how are you dealing with your SGA?" "Oh, he struggles with SGA." "She suffers from SGA." Very smart. We really should give some time for applause. The next time a bishop asks me how I am doing with my SGA I am going to ask him how his OGA (opposite gender attraction) is treating him. I mean, certainly there isn't such thing as a heterosexual or a straight person. God does not refer to his children this way. It is simply not true. To speak that way seeds doubt and deceit about who we really are.
On the other hand, if I am afflicted with some kind of mental disorder, my church teaches that I get a free ride to the celestial kingdom. YAY =)
Oops, almost forgot to take my meds. Wouldn't want my SGA to start acting up again.
“If someone seeking your help says to you, ‘I am a homosexual,’ or, ‘I am lesbian,’ or, ‘I am gay,’ correct this miscasting,” McMullin said. “Heavenly Father does not speak of his children this way and neither should we. It is simply not true. To speak this way seeds a doubt and deceit about who we really are.”Well, apparently you are reading a post written by a person that doesn't exist because there just isn't such thing as gay people. Anyway- don't get me started on McMullin's little speech. Point is, the church didn't want people believing that "gay" was something you could be. So, they invented the phrase "same-sex-attraction," which conveniently was reduced to "SSA." It is kind of like "ADD" or "IBS." But then they realized people were getting offended by the word "sex" [I know, sad right?] so they changed it to "same-gender-attraction," or "SGA."
All of a sudden the church was able to make being gay sound like a disease or deficiency of some kind. "So how are you dealing with your SGA?" "Oh, he struggles with SGA." "She suffers from SGA." Very smart. We really should give some time for applause. The next time a bishop asks me how I am doing with my SGA I am going to ask him how his OGA (opposite gender attraction) is treating him. I mean, certainly there isn't such thing as a heterosexual or a straight person. God does not refer to his children this way. It is simply not true. To speak that way seeds doubt and deceit about who we really are.
On the other hand, if I am afflicted with some kind of mental disorder, my church teaches that I get a free ride to the celestial kingdom. YAY =)
Oops, almost forgot to take my meds. Wouldn't want my SGA to start acting up again.
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)