Ok, this post is going to be light and fluffy. So my sister is somewhat of a tomboy. No, she's not a lesbian. Geez people, stop type-casting. Both my sisters are straight despite the fact that they are both more manly than me sometimes. The sister I speak of is 20 and likes to skate and wear boys shirts (sorry boys, she's taken) and says things like "that's gay." So you can imagine the fun we've had with that since I came out to my family.
I guess you get a glimpse into the future installments of "My Story" with this post. I suppose it is kind of like reading the last few pages of the book when you are halfway through. Oh well.
Anyway, one night my mom and I were teasing my sister and she said, "you guys are a bunch of fags!" To which I exclaimed, "Rude!" This was probably the day after I came out to them and she was SO apologetic, but we were all laughing our asses off. (Sorry if my few instances of "foul" language offend you... sometimes it is just the best way to put things). She said, "crap, there is no way I can change my vocabulary at this point... it just comes out! I'm sorry!"
Then, a couple weeks ago, she was signing a birthday card for my boyfriend (oops, there goes another bit of info that we haven't yet gotten to) and she is a bit of an artist, so she took it upon herself to draw "Happy Birthday" in the card. Once she completed the beautiful and unique phrase (cough, cough), she said, "gah! This looks gay." A second later she exclaimed, "PERFECT!" after which she closed the card and handed it to me with a big smile on her face.
Gotta love her =)
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.
08 November 2010
PE: My Story Part 3 - MTC
My call arrived. Reading my call was one of those embarrassing moments that showed just how ignorant I was of the world. Although I was assigned to the capitol of this Asian country, I'd never heard of the place. And while I knew the name of the country, I didn't have the slightest idea of where it was. Wow. Okay. I didn't have a problem with going foreign... in fact, I wanted to. But if someone would have said "Asia" I would have rolled my eyes. In five weeks, I was to be in Provo at the MTC where I would spend the next 3 months of my life.
Well, five weeks wasn't much time to prepare for 2 years in a country you know nothing about. But I quit my job and began collecting items on "the list." I loved the MTC honestly. I really did. I loved being able to hear talks from general authorities, participating in the missionary choir, and studying and discussing the gospel. I remember getting so angry after some of the talks when missionaries would start joking and being loud before we even left the building where I feel I had such a spiritual experience. But it wasn't all peachy. Although I felt I was learning and growing spiritually, I experienced some pretty tough challenges.
One of the first days you get to the MTC you are taken aside by your branch president (who you just met) and asked very personal questions about things like masturbation, or any number of sexual sins. That was intimidating especially when it is this man you've never met in your life. Well, lets just say I've never been comfortable going to a bishop on the matter of masturbation or other personal, private things like that. So I hadn't really addressed this with anyone, preferring to handle it one my own- between me and the Lord. No one could know that I did such nasty things.
The MTC has a reputation for making you feel extremely guilty. Not that I hadn't already felt horrible guilt throughout my life, but this was much more intense. I am not going to make a habit out of sharing my sins on a public blog, but there are some that I feel are hardly uncommon and, more probably, extremely normal which I may reference. Well, after a few weeks, I felt that I absolutely had to talk to my branch president about sins that went back even before I was 12 years old. It must be unhealthy for a kid to grow up feeling as though he was carrying this huge bag of ugly secrets that the world would be appalled to know since he was old enough to remember.
Well, I set up a meeting and I told the branch president who said that I needed to talk to someone higher up about my issues. This scared me to death. I just knew I'd be sent home. Looking back, I can't believe that such fear was struck into me. So I get sent to whoever it is that makes the tougher calls. I go to my appointment (and obviously my companion has to come... so there is more shame) and then you sit in a waiting room with other devilish elders confessing their horrid secrets... but all I could think about was how they all must be wondering what bad things I did.
Anyway, I go in and meet yet another stranger who asks what the issue is. I told him about the masturbation and pornography, and then, probably the biggest reason I was there- childish sexual experiences. These experiences were mostly the typical you show me yours, I'll show you mine deal and some touching. But seriously, this is before I even knew about or engaged in masturbation. I was young. I wasn't one who would initiate those experiences, but I didn't resist too much. The majority of those experiences (which weren't many, don't misunderstand me) were with other boys. "Hmm... you think... I wonder..."
Lets stop that little brain fart right there though. In no way do I think that THIS is what caused me to be gay. First off, I found myself interested in boys before any of this happened. Second, the other boy was the one to initiate it and he is straight and married. I'm not sure that this type of thing is very uncommon. But of course, at the time (and throughout my childhood) I thought it was my ticket to hell.
Moving right along. I had to answer some questions about homosexuality (and at the time I was still very much in denial and quickly assured him that I did not have homosexual feelings) and then call my stake president- right then and there. Smack in the middle of the day on his cell phone. Who knows where he was... work? And here I am on speaker phone to rehash my story for the third time. Anyway, turns out I am cleared and handed a copy of "the miracle of forgiveness" and asked to read and report.
Well, I felt like a million bucks. All that baggage was gone. But that didn't last very long. As soon as I started reading that book all the guilt came back. "Oh no," I thought, "maybe I should have been more detailed. What if I forgot something? I remember now, this one time that I didn't remember during the interview." It went on and on.
Furthermore, if you've ever read the book, you would know about the language it uses to describe homosexuality. If you haven't read it, don't. But here are some excerpts:
Now some of you may say, well yes, but Kimball did say he fears he might have been to harsh when he wrote the book... but here I was, in the MTC at the end of 2004 being handed this book and told to read it to complete my repentance process.
Well I did talk to my branch president about my concerns about maybe forgetting some details and he said that I shouldn't worry about the details and that I had done the right thing. Well, the book basically insured me that God would never bless me because I was such a bad sinner.
So, I know I kind of contradicted my statement about the MTC being such a great experience, but in a lot of way it was. And although I knew that God wouldn't bless me to learn this impossible language because of my past, I was determined to prove to him that I deserved the one blessing I really hoped to get out of my mission. I wanted him to take this evil, disgusting part of me away. So I worked hard. I would bring cards to gym and study rather than spent some time relaxing or playing a game of volleyball or whatever. I was going to earn God's love back.
Of course, it was really depressing to feel like you aren't being blessed and everyone around you is. So I was really hard on myself. Soon though, all the preparation was over, and it came time to board the plane that would take me to the other end of the world.
Well, five weeks wasn't much time to prepare for 2 years in a country you know nothing about. But I quit my job and began collecting items on "the list." I loved the MTC honestly. I really did. I loved being able to hear talks from general authorities, participating in the missionary choir, and studying and discussing the gospel. I remember getting so angry after some of the talks when missionaries would start joking and being loud before we even left the building where I feel I had such a spiritual experience. But it wasn't all peachy. Although I felt I was learning and growing spiritually, I experienced some pretty tough challenges.
One of the first days you get to the MTC you are taken aside by your branch president (who you just met) and asked very personal questions about things like masturbation, or any number of sexual sins. That was intimidating especially when it is this man you've never met in your life. Well, lets just say I've never been comfortable going to a bishop on the matter of masturbation or other personal, private things like that. So I hadn't really addressed this with anyone, preferring to handle it one my own- between me and the Lord. No one could know that I did such nasty things.
The MTC has a reputation for making you feel extremely guilty. Not that I hadn't already felt horrible guilt throughout my life, but this was much more intense. I am not going to make a habit out of sharing my sins on a public blog, but there are some that I feel are hardly uncommon and, more probably, extremely normal which I may reference. Well, after a few weeks, I felt that I absolutely had to talk to my branch president about sins that went back even before I was 12 years old. It must be unhealthy for a kid to grow up feeling as though he was carrying this huge bag of ugly secrets that the world would be appalled to know since he was old enough to remember.
Well, I set up a meeting and I told the branch president who said that I needed to talk to someone higher up about my issues. This scared me to death. I just knew I'd be sent home. Looking back, I can't believe that such fear was struck into me. So I get sent to whoever it is that makes the tougher calls. I go to my appointment (and obviously my companion has to come... so there is more shame) and then you sit in a waiting room with other devilish elders confessing their horrid secrets... but all I could think about was how they all must be wondering what bad things I did.
Anyway, I go in and meet yet another stranger who asks what the issue is. I told him about the masturbation and pornography, and then, probably the biggest reason I was there- childish sexual experiences. These experiences were mostly the typical you show me yours, I'll show you mine deal and some touching. But seriously, this is before I even knew about or engaged in masturbation. I was young. I wasn't one who would initiate those experiences, but I didn't resist too much. The majority of those experiences (which weren't many, don't misunderstand me) were with other boys. "Hmm... you think... I wonder..."
Lets stop that little brain fart right there though. In no way do I think that THIS is what caused me to be gay. First off, I found myself interested in boys before any of this happened. Second, the other boy was the one to initiate it and he is straight and married. I'm not sure that this type of thing is very uncommon. But of course, at the time (and throughout my childhood) I thought it was my ticket to hell.
Moving right along. I had to answer some questions about homosexuality (and at the time I was still very much in denial and quickly assured him that I did not have homosexual feelings) and then call my stake president- right then and there. Smack in the middle of the day on his cell phone. Who knows where he was... work? And here I am on speaker phone to rehash my story for the third time. Anyway, turns out I am cleared and handed a copy of "the miracle of forgiveness" and asked to read and report.
Well, I felt like a million bucks. All that baggage was gone. But that didn't last very long. As soon as I started reading that book all the guilt came back. "Oh no," I thought, "maybe I should have been more detailed. What if I forgot something? I remember now, this one time that I didn't remember during the interview." It went on and on.
Furthermore, if you've ever read the book, you would know about the language it uses to describe homosexuality. If you haven't read it, don't. But here are some excerpts:
“Homosexuality is an ugly sin, repugnant to those who find no temptation in it, as well as to many past offenders who are seeking a way out of its clutches. It is embarrassing and unpleasant as a subject for discussion but because of its prevalence, the need to warn the uninitiated, and the desire to help those who may already be involved in it, it is discussed in this chapter.”So it was so disgusting that it is something not even to be discussed. So much so, that a disclaimer has to appear before such an ugly thing is spoken of.
“... it [masturbation] too often leads to grievous sin, even to that sin against nature, homosexuality. For, done in private, it evolves often into mutual masturbation – practiced with another person of the same sex – and thence into total homosexuality.”So there it was. It's because I masturbated damn it! This will sound blasphemous, and maybe it is... but I wonder if Kimball ever practiced such a thing as a youth. If so, he must have been one of the exceptions who barely missed the homo-train [lucky guy]. I mean... did he REALLY believe that? Because that would mean most of us (like over 95%) would be gay. Not only that, but he also says in the book that homosexuality leads to bestiality. I don't even want to think of what the world would be like if people masturbated- yikes.
Now some of you may say, well yes, but Kimball did say he fears he might have been to harsh when he wrote the book... but here I was, in the MTC at the end of 2004 being handed this book and told to read it to complete my repentance process.
Well I did talk to my branch president about my concerns about maybe forgetting some details and he said that I shouldn't worry about the details and that I had done the right thing. Well, the book basically insured me that God would never bless me because I was such a bad sinner.
So, I know I kind of contradicted my statement about the MTC being such a great experience, but in a lot of way it was. And although I knew that God wouldn't bless me to learn this impossible language because of my past, I was determined to prove to him that I deserved the one blessing I really hoped to get out of my mission. I wanted him to take this evil, disgusting part of me away. So I worked hard. I would bring cards to gym and study rather than spent some time relaxing or playing a game of volleyball or whatever. I was going to earn God's love back.
Of course, it was really depressing to feel like you aren't being blessed and everyone around you is. So I was really hard on myself. Soon though, all the preparation was over, and it came time to board the plane that would take me to the other end of the world.
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.
04 November 2010
RANT: Political Neutrality??
So this week a front page article of the Daily Universe (BYU's Newspaper) was addressing the fact that BYU was politically neural and therefore couldn't endorse a member of the BYU community who was running for office. It kind of made me chuckle. Here is the statement in BYU's political neutrality policy.
One might also say that the call center was simply to encourage political participation. I guarantee that if I went into the call center and started telling people why they should vote NO on 8, I would be readily dismissed. There were endless amounts of volunteers on campus approaching students about prop 8. "Are you a CA resident?" "Are you registered?" "Come donate some time."
In CA, the church was running ridiculous commercials to support prop 8. One of them had my mission companion in it. haha. I can't find that one online anymore, but here are a couple:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4nqtDrJI7A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-jc4ujp9Ok
There are worse ones. One thing that bothers me is that they often use "our children" for the reason why we need to vote yes. They use kids as a weapon. I just think it is wrong. Don't we think it is disgusting when bombs are tied to children as suicide bombers? I mean really, some of these children they are using for the reason to outlaw gay marriage are also gay. Are we not in one way using them as a suicide bomber? One day these kids will grow up and there will be some that will have to face the results of his/her parents using them as reason why they shouldn't be granted the right to marry. Some of those kids won't be able to reconcile the fact that their gay with the negative attitudes about the issue in church and society. Some of those kids will attempt suicide because of the pain and hurt they feel. Young suicide bombers. Not to mention all the completely untrue statements made (especially like ones in the second video above). Anyway, that is a topic for another day.
The point is, the church and the school and shout "Politically Neutral" all day, but it is "by their fruits that ye shall know them." There actions when it came to politics in CA clearly demonstrated they are not abiding by this rule. For all the talk about protecting families, they sure are tearing a lot of them apart by having got involved in this issue.
The essential functions of the university require strict institutional neutrality, integrity, and independence regarding partisan political activities, particularly because perceived partisanship is often interpreted as endorsement by the university's affiliated sponsor, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the "Church"). This policy is designed to protect the neutrality of the university and the Church in the course of political activities that involve members of the campus community or university facilities and resources and to preserve the university's tax exempt status under the Internal Revenue Code.Here is the Church's statement:
The Church’s mission is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, not to elect politicians. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is neutral in matters of party politics. This applies in all of the many nations in which it is established.I guess for me I am just not sure what the church really means when it says it is "politically neutral." Since I was at school during the prop 8 campaign, I know very well how politically involved the campus was. Furthermore, since I am a resident of CA, I know very well how involved the church was. I would receive emails from BYU asking me to come in to a call center on campus to call Californians to tell them how they should vote on Prop 8. Although one could say that it may have been some person or organization not sponsored by the school that emailed me, whoever it was was given access not only to my email address that is registered with the school, but the information that I was a California resident. Clearly the school gave access to this information for this purpose.
One might also say that the call center was simply to encourage political participation. I guarantee that if I went into the call center and started telling people why they should vote NO on 8, I would be readily dismissed. There were endless amounts of volunteers on campus approaching students about prop 8. "Are you a CA resident?" "Are you registered?" "Come donate some time."
In CA, the church was running ridiculous commercials to support prop 8. One of them had my mission companion in it. haha. I can't find that one online anymore, but here are a couple:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4nqtDrJI7A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-jc4ujp9Ok
There are worse ones. One thing that bothers me is that they often use "our children" for the reason why we need to vote yes. They use kids as a weapon. I just think it is wrong. Don't we think it is disgusting when bombs are tied to children as suicide bombers? I mean really, some of these children they are using for the reason to outlaw gay marriage are also gay. Are we not in one way using them as a suicide bomber? One day these kids will grow up and there will be some that will have to face the results of his/her parents using them as reason why they shouldn't be granted the right to marry. Some of those kids won't be able to reconcile the fact that their gay with the negative attitudes about the issue in church and society. Some of those kids will attempt suicide because of the pain and hurt they feel. Young suicide bombers. Not to mention all the completely untrue statements made (especially like ones in the second video above). Anyway, that is a topic for another day.
The point is, the church and the school and shout "Politically Neutral" all day, but it is "by their fruits that ye shall know them." There actions when it came to politics in CA clearly demonstrated they are not abiding by this rule. For all the talk about protecting families, they sure are tearing a lot of them apart by having got involved in this issue.
31 October 2010
RANT: "love the sinner, hate the sin" Part II
Perhaps you've heard enough on this subject, if so- feel free to skip this post. A friend emailed me a response to this argument that reminded me of a whole other issue that relates to this phrase. Let me post it here:
Christ said to love. He didn't say love as long as the person you are loving doesn't think your love is supporting his sinful ways. There is no conditions put on the love we are supposed to have for others. So I would argue we stop putting conditions on our love. We don't get to draw the line in the sand where love should stop.
I came upon another blogger who has addressed this issue and I think he brings out some important points: Young Stranger
"Still this does bring up a difficult question. The question of how do we love and respect others without compromising our own values and morals? In other words, at what point do we stop showing appropriate love to the sinner and start condoning the sin?"..."I cannot condone that course of action as righteous or just as I know it is wrong and spiritually harmful. Because I maintain this stance and express genuine concern for those who have chosen a path other than the Gospel path I have been accused of not respecting others' choices and of propagating hatred."Okay. I've heard this argument a lot. "Well, where do we draw the line between loving them and condoning their actions?" I believe that the point is, it isn't our place to even think about whether our love will be interpreted by the other person as condoning their actions. It is like the argument, "Well, if I give the bum money, I am just supporting his alcohol and drug addictions." By saying, or thinking this, we judge what the other person will do with the gift we give! You are not going to be held accountable for what the receiver of the gift does with his gift. You will be judged on whether or not you gave what you could to this person and from where your heart was. The reciever will be held accountable for what he did with it. Remember the parable of the talents? Saying that you are not giving love or whatever gift it is you wish to give because you don't want to condone the person's actions is an excuse to free yourself from showing love and giving service.
Christ said to love. He didn't say love as long as the person you are loving doesn't think your love is supporting his sinful ways. There is no conditions put on the love we are supposed to have for others. So I would argue we stop putting conditions on our love. We don't get to draw the line in the sand where love should stop.
I came upon another blogger who has addressed this issue and I think he brings out some important points: Young Stranger
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)