This post is a companion piece to Mondays essay, To Young Men Only: The Gay Version. I had intended to write this back in January, but it never happened. I think it is appropriate to insert it here in this series of posts as a follow-on to last Fridays post about Mormon doctrine concerning homosexuality.
I dont particularly enjoy writing about Elder Packer, by the way. Id much rather write about other things, such as how I felt last night while (finally) watching Prayers for Bobby, how the movie transported me back to my youth, and how I felt anew and afresh the pain of non-acceptance, of confusion, of self-doubt, self-hatred and condemnation. But instead, I have chosen to write about the type of teachings that were contemporary to Bobby Griffith and helped drive him to his death.
Elder Boyd K. Packer gave two very influential talks in the late 1970s that had a profound affect on Mormon men who came of age not only during that time but also in the next several decades.
The talks are directly relevant to the subject matter of this series of posts in that they shaped generations of young Mormon men who struggled with same-sex attraction. They influenced and created their attitudes. They led to the creation of many mixed-orientation marriages. They describe what the policies, beliefs and doctrine of the LDS Church were a mere 33 years ago. There are elements in the Church and in the gay Mormon community who would like to whitewash this history, to make it disappear (see, e.g., below), to claim that the doctrine of the Church regarding homosexuality has not changed. This, too, is why I believe these talks are important.
The first was entitled To Young Men Only. I wrote about it yesterday. The second talk, To the One, was given on March 5, 1978 at a 12-stake fireside at Brigham Young University, where Elder Packer was specifically asked by President Kimball to address the local problem of homosexuality and offer solutions. [1] The text of this fireside address is difficult to locate, so I have also posted it on my blog here . I have done so because I believe this speech is an important historical event. I am not claiming that the speech represents the Churchs current views on homosexuality. This is not the point. The point is that this speech shaped a generation or more of Mormon young men and shaped Mormon thought concerning homosexuality for a number of years. That is why it is important.
The background of the events leading up to the talk was described in an article by Ben Williams in QSaltLake published last December and available here. The genesis was a lecture given in the spring of 1977 at BYU, as the article explains:
In spring of 1977 Dr. Reed Payne, a psychology professor at Brigham Young University, presented anti-gay views on homosexuality in a lecture to his beginning psychology class. His comments werent well-received by some closeted gay students who were present. Soon after this lecture, BYU student Cloy Jenkins and BYU instructor Lee Williams authored a 52-page rebuttal to Dr. Paynes assertion that homosexuality was a pathological condition. The crux of these writings became a pamphlet simply called The Payne Papers, which called for a well-reasoned dialogue on the issue of homosexuals and the LDS Church.
The rebuttal was later made into a pamphlet which was mailed to all general authorities, to TV and radio stations and many BYU faculty members. Then, in the fall of 1977, Salt Lake Citys gay publication, The Open Door, began the serialization of what became known as the Payne Papers. As if that wasnt bad enough, The Advocate, the national gay magazine, announced in early 1978 that it planned to publish the papers. It was in response to this announcement, according to Williams, that President Kimball dispatched Elder Packer to BYU. (The Payne Papers are available here .)
The title of the talk To the One and the manner in which it was presented appear to have been designed to isolate and marginalize those who suffered from the disease of homosexuality. What I say in this presentation, Elder Packer began, will be serious and solemn. I will not speak to everyone. I ask the indulgence of the “ninety and nine,” while I speak to “the one.”
After commenting about how grievous his assignment is, he comes to the subject of his address: And so, now to the subject, to introduce it I must use a word. I will use it one time only. Please notice that I use it as an adjective, not as a noun; I reject it as a noun. I speak to those few, those very few, who may be subject to homosexual temptation. I repeat, I accept that word as an adjective to describe a temporary condition. I reject it as a noun naming a permanent one [emphasis added].
So, in these opening remarks, Elder Packer makes it clear that he does not believe in the concept of homosexuality (a noun), in the possibility of a man being gay or, apparently, or in the concept of sexual orientation. For him, homosexual is an adjective that describes a temporary condition that involves temptation. True to his word, he never mentions the term again in his talk, but uses words like it or this subject or sexual perversion.
Is sexual perversion wrong?
He doesnt waste much time coming to the heart of the matter:
I have had on my mind three general questions concerning this subject.
First: Is sexual perversion wrong? There appears to be a consensus in the world that it is natural, to one degree or another, for a percentage of the population. Therefore, we must accept it as all right …
The answer: It is not all right. It is wrong! It is not desirable; it is unnatural; it is abnormal; it is an affliction. When practiced, it is immoral. It is a transgression Do not be misled by those who whisper that it is part of your nature and therefore right for you. That is false doctrine!
Note well that Elder Packer differentiates between the existence of the homosexual condition (note that condition is his word; it is the it he refers to) and practicing such condition. If one substitutes the words same sex attraction in place of the word it in the third paragraph, Packers comments read as follows:
Same-sex attraction is not all right. Same-sex attraction is wrong! Same-sex attraction is not desirable; same-sex attraction is unnatural; same-sex attraction is abnormal; same-sex attraction is an affliction. When practiced, same-sex attraction is immoral [and] is a transgression. Do not be misled by those who whisper that same-sex attraction is part of your nature
In todays lingo, Elder Packer was distinguishing between having same-sex attractions and acting on those attractions. To merely have those attractions he labeled wrong, not desirable, unnatural, abnormal and an affliction. Of course, Elder Packer didnt believe in the concept of orientation; its not, as some have claimed, that he didnt know what that concept was; he rejected it as nonexistent.
Is this tendency impossible to change?
Packer then moves on to his second question: Is this tendency impossible to change? Is it preset at the time of birth and locked in? Do you just have to live with it? After citing the example of a faulty camera whose shutter needs to be recalibrated, he asks, Is perversion like that? The answer is a conclusive no! It is not like that. Note that Packer is not referring to acts, but a tendency.
Some so-called experts, he continues, and many of those who have yielded to the practice, teach that it is congenital and incurable and that one just has to learn to live with it I reject that conclusion out of hand. It is not unchangeable. It is not locked in. In other words, it i.e., the condition of same-sex attraction can be changed.
In the next few paragraphs, Elder Packer reveals some of what lies behind much of what he was saying, that has much more to do with his own and societys attitudes than it does with doctrine. If a condition that draws both men and women into one of the ugliest and most debased of all physical performances is set and cannot be overcome, it would be a glaring exception to all moral law, he states. Some who become tangled up in this disorder [note well the use of this word his first in the talk] become predators. They proselyte the young or the inexperienced.
Overcoming Selfishness: How it Can Be Corrected
Packer then moves on to his third question: The third question is a very logical extension of the other two: If it is wrong, and if it is not incurable, how can it be corrected? This is the longest part of his talk, which he starts off by talking about how good procreation and marriage are, then how bad perversion is.
During the rest of his address, Elder Packer uses the following words with reference to homosexuality: unnatural (2 times); confusion; deviant physical contact or interaction (2 times); disorder (3 times); perversion (11 times), and very sick.
Then, he comes to his conclusion: the root cause of this condition is selfishness which he claims is a spiritual condition requiring a spiritual cure. This is why, he says, psychotherapists have not been successful in curing the condition, i.e., because it is not a mental health issue, but a spiritual health issue.
I realize I may not be the brightest light bulb in the box, but I cannot determine where or how Elder Packer actually provided reasoning for his conclusion. Id welcome help here, but it sure seems to me he simply states that homosexuality is caused by selfishness. Period. End of story.
This was the interpretation of a father who wrote Elder Packer a well-known letter in 1999 concerning his son. David Eccles Hardy wrote:
Perhaps the most hurtful aspect of To the One is your revelation that the fundamental reason why my son has not been “cured” is because of his selfishness. When I inform other people that this is actually what you preach in To the One, they are incredulous (members included). They respond Obviously you have misread or misconstrued what Elder Packer said. You are well aware that this is precisely what is said. As one who knows my son and his heart better than you, your doctrine that my son’s selfishness is at the core of his ability or inability to be cured of his homosexuality is offensive in the extreme, and evidences the lack of any meaningful inquiry into this issue beyond the application of pure dogma. In saying this it is not my intent to offend you. It is, simply, incredible that you could hit upon anything quite so insensitive and ignorant of the facts.
Okay. So imagine yourself as a freshman at BYU, or perhaps as a recently returned missionary, attending this fireside. Youve known for some time that you have experienced attractions to other guys that you cant really explain. Youve just been reminded that for every person like you, there are 99 normal people. Youve heard your feelings referred to as perverted, sick, confused, unnatural, deviant and to top it all off selfish.
Then comes the coup de grace: Establish a resolute conviction intoned Elder Packer, that you will resist for a lifetime, if necessary, deviate thought or deviate action. Do not respond to those feelings; suppress them You will have to grow away from your problem with undeviating – notice that word – undeviating determination [emphasis added]. Meanwhile, echoing in your mind are comments Elder Packer made earlier in the fireside: In marriage a couple can unselfishly express their love to one another. They reap, as a result, a fulfillment and a completeness and a knowledge of their identity as sons and daughters of God. The power of procreation is good – divinely good – and productive. Pervert it, and it can be bad – devilishly bad – and destructive.
THIS was the environment that existed 30 years ago, and for years afterward. Is it any wonder that LDS men had difficulty recognizing their homosexuality, that they went to great lengths to hide it, and that they married in order to cure it?
Invictus Pilgrim blogs at invictuspilgrim.blogspot.com.
Let me start off by saying that yes, many people interpreted it that way, and yes that caused harm, and yes in an ideal world, Packer would have spoken in such a way that it would not cause any confusion. I am totally comfortable with the fact that Christ is the only perfect person to walk on the face of the earth. It is difficult to speak clearly in a world where definitions are changing so quickly.
According to many linguists, there is no such thing as a true synonym.
http://www.linguistics.ucsb.edu/faculty/cumming/ling50/language%2Bthought.htm
There are different words and phrases for a reason. Same-sex attraction, homosexual orientation, and homosexual tendencies are not the same thing. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have different words.
Let’s look at the historical context. Up until that point, homosexuality was considered a sexual act. In the 1970’s people started talking about biological causes to having gay sex – my genes made me do it. It started off being about gay sex. I had gay sex because of my genes. Sexual orientation is different. I know a couple of straight women who don’t want to have sex with anyone, but are still straight. Sexual orientation as understood today simply did not exist back then. I would argue that even today there is no consensus of what it means.
Given that context, I would assume that homosexual tendencies referred to the tendency to be a homosexual, or in other words, the tendency to have gay sex. I mentioned there are straight people who do not have heterosexual tendencies, or the tendency to have straight sex, so I would argue that there are gay people who do not have the tendency to have gay sex.
The tendency to have gay sex is what is wrong, unnatural and so forth, and I can also witness that it can be changed. I have never acted on my tendency to have gay sex, but I can tell you that tendency has been stronger at some points in my life than others. About 5 years ago, my desire for gay sex was very strong, but now, that tendency has been almost completely overcome. In his recent address, he specifically talked about the desire for Satan’s substitute for marriage. That clearly references the tendency to have gay sex and not simply being sexually attracted to the same sex.
Same-sex attraction is different. I will probably always think men are sexually appealing, but that doesn’t mean I want to jump in bed with them. Homosexual tendencies and same-sex attractions are completely different.
APL: Let’s reread Packer:
Like Invictus asks in his post, what is Packer referring to when he says “it”?
You are saying he is referring to the “tendency to have gay sex.” The tendency is wrong/not desirable/etc. “When practiced, it is immoral.”
I’m sure you’re aware that sex doesn’t mean the same thing as “kissing,” “massaging” or “hugging.” There are instances when a kiss, massage or hug between two people of the same gender is okay.
If homosexuality in Packer’s time was only related to “acts,” as you say it was, then it would be actually be impossible to distinguish between a “massage infused with a tendency to have gay sex” and “just a massage.” Clearly Packer is not condemning all forms of physical intimacy between two people of the same gender… just the “gay” stuff. So, he must also be condemning the thoughts. Which would mean that homosexuality in Packer’s time was not just about the acts.
Dallin Oaks, decades later, has tried to clarify the Church’s position in this way: “The line of sin is between the feelings and the behavior. The line of prudence is between the susceptibility and the feelings. We need to lay hold on the feelings and try to control them to keep us from getting into a circumstance that leads to sinful behavior.”
It is from a statement like this that you can tease apart different terms, such as “orientation,” “attraction,” “tendencies,” etc. Oaks is espousing a different position than Packer was, not the same one. Packer was in a generation of leadership when “same-sex attractions” were to be cured, in which a man who thinks men are sexually appealing (such as yourself) is sinning. Oaks doesn’t think this way because his generation of leadership recognizes that for many, it cannot be helped.
So, Lesson #1: Not all Church leaders think the same.
Lesson #2: Today’s policy is not yesterday’s policy.
Lesson #3: Listen to people’s grievances as if they are actual and not just “misunderstandings” of an infallible Church leader.
In terms of Oaks’ statement concerning present policy, basically, he is creating a line between what is voluntary and what isn’t. The voluntary side of things includes: sexual actions with a person other than one’s spouse, lustful feelings, fantasizing, yearning, etc.
Involuntary include: basic feelings of attraction, dreaming (while asleep), uncontrollable arousal, etc.
I would agree that on the surface these distinctions apply to gay and straight people alike. But this is only because of a lack of content. If you fill in the blanks, some people’s involuntariness never gets to match up with the their voluntariness. They just have to “struggle” or “wait it out” or “perform.” I really don’t see how this is a moral position.
I’ve heard the argument before that if gay people didn’t make “sex” the center of their universes, then there wouldn’t be a problem following God’s will.
But aren’t Mormons, with all these rules about who, where, when and how sex must happen, and pages and pages and sermons and disciplinary councils, making “sex” the center of their universes? Mormons should look in the mirror before point out assumed “deficiencies” in other people.
>> Lesson #1: Not all Church leaders think the same.
I totally agree with this one.
>> Lesson #2: Todays policy is not yesterdays policy.
What determines policy? If not all church leaders think the same, then policy cannot be determined just by the way one particular church leader thinks, because you would have just as many policies as you do opinions. I disagree with lesson #2.
>> Lesson #3: Listen to peoples grievances as if they are actual and not just misunderstandings of an infallible Church leader.
Reread my first paragraph. I conceded that Elder Packer’s comments have brought harm, and that Christ was the only perfect person to walk on the Earth. I said he should have worded it differently to avoid confusions. Where do you get the idea I think Elder Packer is infallible?
Second, there is a big difference between listening to people’s grievances and agreeing with them. Many people have been harmed by Elder Packer’s talk, and life would have been better if he has worded things differently. I admit that and agree with that.
However, you need to realize that many people have been helped by Elder Packer’s talk. You cannot discount that either. You cannot ask me to give up my rock of offense just because it has become a stumbling block for you. That is not fair.
My message is not that Elder Packer’s talk has never hurt anyone. My message is that it has helped me, and that I appreciate it and am glad he gave that talk. I don’t mean to discount other people’s experiences, but instead to share my own.
>> So, he must also be condemning the thoughts. Which would mean that homosexuality in Packers time was not just about the acts.
I would agree with that. See, even I am having problems communicating. I do think that “our words will condemn us, yea, all our works will condemn us; we shall not be found spotless; and our thoughts will also condemn us”. When I talked about tendency to have gay sex, I was not talking about only the act. I have never had gay sex, yet I have struggled with tendencies to have gay sex to differing degrees. Most of the struggle has been in my thoughts.
I think the massage example is a good example. I know I have massaged men with lustful thoughts. I have also massaged men without lustful thoughts. I have struggled with my thoughts, but my thoughts can be controlled. It is the same act, but a huge part is how I approach it, and that I have control over.
In October Conference, Elder Packer gave the famous address about controlling desires, which many people only applied to homosexuality for some reason. In the April Conference, Elder Oaks gave almost the exact same talk, but without reference to same-sex marriage and without a one-liner that could be taken out of context. Read the talk and explain to me how the two philosophies are any different. It would seem that there were more on the same page than you present. But, as I said, it really wouldn’t bug me if they were different.
>> Some peoples involuntariness never gets to match up with the their voluntariness. They just have to struggle or wait it out or perform.
I would argue that is what is called the human condition. We are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. I like how Paul puts it in Romans 7:
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.
19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.
That is why we need the atonement of Christ. It is Mormonism 101. You might not agree with it, but I don’t see how you can argue it is a different stance for gays than for straights.
Let me better explain my understanding of Elder Packer’s talk.
Up until that point, being gay meant having gay sex. Many people, especially in the SSA world, still use that definition. Elder Packer did start talking about homosexual tendencies in this talk. This was really a pioneering effort in the church. It was a step to talking about same-sex attractions, but it was not all the way there yet. He did talk about tendencies, which is not the same as gay sex, but rather a tendency towards gay sex.
He was talking about thoughts and desires, as the church has always taught about, but was not talking about the modern concept of homosexual orientation.
Does that make sense?
@APL
IMO, No. However, I applaud you for your revisionsit/apologist efforts. You obviously believe very strongly in your point of view.
The Church still doesn’t acknowledge the concept of sexual orientation. To the Brethren, it doesn’t exist (at least not officially), nor has it ever existed. IMO, there’s really no point in discussing it further.
You can frankly talk about what this or that person meant, etc., all day long. What you apparently don’t accept – which is your prerogative – is the concept that “perception IS reality”. If you talk to a group of men (gay men particularly) who came of age in the late 1970’s and 1980’s, you will have an opportunity to learn what these comments meant to them, which is the point of this post. To them, it is really irrelevant what you think – 30+ years after the fact – Packer meant by what he said, and this business about him not being perfect is frankly irrelevant, too (particularly in light of the fact that his comments have never been recanted, nor will they likely ever be).
I really do understand and appreciate, to a degree, your zeal. I simply do not agree with you. From my point of view, this is not an “argument” to be “won”. You choose, e.g., to interpret Packer’s 2010 comments in a certain light. That’s fine. But to take the position, as you stridently do, that those who heard code words and interpreted his words in another way are simply WRONG, is untenable. I could say more, but I’ll leave it at that.
I think your last post made me more confused. You said:
“The Church still doesnt acknowledge the concept of sexual orientation. To the Brethren, it doesnt exist (at least not officially), nor has it ever existed.”
So if for Elder Packer sexual orientation has never existed, what was he talking about all those years ago? Instead of sexual orientation, you said he was talking about same-sex attraction. By your understanding, what is the difference between sexual orientation and same-sex attraction? If he doesn’t believe in sexual orientation, what is he telling people is unnatural?
I am just trying to understand what you think he is saying.
The Church has refused to use the term “homosexual” as a noun. Elder Packer specifically stated as much in his “To the One” talk.
Furthermore, unless there was some thaw after the HRC petition was delivered last October (which some argue is the case), they have also refused to use the term “gay” as a noun, or even an adjective.
What Packer was talking about in 1978 was attractions (definitely not just gay sex, which would have been much more straightforward); but to him (and President Kimball, etc., which was the policy/position of the Church at that time), such attractions were in and of themselves sinful, degraded, impure, unnatural, etc. He felt that these attractions could be overcome, that one’s propensity to have such attractions could be changed/overcome/cured. Thus we have shock therapy at BYU, reparative therapy, etc.
What the Church has now done is acknowledge (a) that they don’t know what causes such attractions, (b) that one does not “choose” to have such attractions, and (c) that such attractions, in and of themselves, are not sinful. They still do not acknowledge, however, that one is “gay” – that one can have a sexual orientation toward persons of one’s own gender.
For example, you have these two relatively recent statements from general authorities:
Elder Hafen’s comments dovetail quite “nicely” with those of President Packer at October 2010 conference. He uses, for example, one of the same codewords (“inborn”) as does Packer. And Bishop McMullin’s comments were an echo of Packer’s 1978 comments about “it” not being a noun.
The undercurrents are still there. The main change over the years has been to acknowledge that same-sex attractions, in and of themselves, are not sinful. And the furthest the Church will (officially) go is to accept that some people might self-identify themselves as “gay” if they experience same-sex attractions; but (as per McMullin) the Church does not view them as “gay” – just susceptible to same sex attractions.
Of course, one gets into an exercise in splitting hairs over all of this because that is the current approach of the church. In my view, they are trying to forge a new approach, but are caught up right now in trying to keep the peace between hardliners and more progressive members of presiding councils of the Church. Of course, that’s just my opinion.
I’m still confused. What is the difference between a sexual orientation and attractions? How can you say they were talking about the attractions without talking about the orientation, especially if they didn’t actually use either word.
Both Packer and Kimball were clear that in terms of homosexuality, temptation was not a sin. Explain to me how you can come to the conclusion that they believe simultaneously that sexual orientation doesn’t exist, that same-sex attractions are a sexual perversion, and that there is no problem whatsoever with homosexual temptations. It just seems inconsistent. What is the difference between homosexual temptations and same-sex attractions? Why conclude that homosexual tendencies are connected with same-sex attractions, but not homosexual temptation or orientation?
I agree Elder Packer wasn’t just talking about gay sex. He was talking about inappropriate thoughts and feelings. Straight people have also been warned to watch their thoughts and feelings. Sexual orientation is more than just thoughts and feelings. So is same-sex attraction. Just because he was talking about dwelling on inappropriate thoughts or arousing inappropriate feelings, does not mean he was talking about same-sex attractions.
And with not using gay as a noun, Elder Oaks has repeated that same concept. So it seems like an argument that Elder Oaks is inline with Elder Packer. Not to mention that is the way it is used in other places.
See http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex_attraction/Terminology#Avoiding_using_gay_as_a_noun
In 2010, Elder Packer seemed pretty clear that he was talking about Satan’s counterfeit for marriage. Why do you think same-sex attractions, but not gay sex, fits in that category? Gay sex seems like a better candidate to me. He has definitely argued that gay sex isn’t inborn.
And what does any of this have to do with shock therapy at BYU? Is there any evidence whatsoever that either one of them had anything to do with shock therapy? There were many different psychological approaches at BYU. Why credit the church with some of them but not others? You might find this article enlightening.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex_attraction/Aversion_therapy
Questioning long-held notions is not the same thing as revising history.
@APL – You know what? I’m simply not going to argue the point. Most of your questions I address in my original post. I think it’s very clear if you read “To the One” and read my commentary in the post above. At least my position is clear, as is my reasoning for my position.
APL, I’ve resisted saying this, but I have the very strong suspicion that you were not even born in 1978. I have, several times, suggested to you that the experience of those who were actually there, in some cases actually being present for that very talk, is far more relevant than what you, 30+ years later, choose to believe about what he was saying. We KNEW what he was saying. We were LIVING it. Yet you dismiss this without even acknowledging it in any serious way.
Again, you can, and obviously do, choose what you wish to believe about Packer’s 2010 address. The point is that you have not directly responded to anything I have said. What is Satan’s counterfeit for marriage? It certainly isn’t gay sex, whic I understand to be your interpretation. The counterfeit that Packer was clearly referring to was same-sex marriage. How anyone cannot see that is just beyond me.
I frankly don’t believe you are interested in a constructive dialogue, but are merely trying to win an argument that is unwinnable. I am not interested in polemics. I am not interested in arguing the equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I will therefore no longer participate in this “dialogue” with you.
Please don’t be mad. I am interested in a civil dialogue. I agree that neither one of us are likely to change the other persons mind. I am not interested in changing your mind. I am interested in understanding. I don’t understand your world. A lot of people in the gay Mormon world don’t understand your world. You seem to see things totally differently than the way that I do. It is not that I am trying to “revise” history. That is how I actually see history.
I am interested in bridging the gap. I think that before we can work on healing any wounds we need to start to understand from each other. I simply don’t understand you, but I am willing to learn.
I do think that his talk hurt people. I do think he should have said things differently. I am not trying to dismiss what you went through. I believe it was real. You are right, I was not there. I would have to rely on people who were there who would better understand the culture and environment that it was given in, because I don’t understand the culture. I have talked to other people who were alive at the time, and they have given me a completely different interpretation than the one you gave me.
I want to continue this conversation. I will focus on trying to understand what you are saying, and not try to tell you how I understand things.
I honestly do not understand your definitions. I thought I did, but my interpretation seems to be flawed. I am confused about the difference you seem to make between homosexual temptations and same-sex attractions. I do not understand your conclusion that Packer thinks homosexual temptations are not sinful, but same-sex attractions are. It does not make sense to me.
According to your standing of Elder Packer, how did he distinguish same-sex attractions and homosexual temptations?
And I agree with you that Elder Packer’s talk did allude to same-sex marriage.
From the 1940s to 1987, the Church’s policy for gayness was “cure.” The cure was understood to make a boy “masculine,” get him a wife, get him having sex with his wife, and this “gay stuff” would go away. If it didn’t go away, that was because the boy was acting “selfish” and not trying hard enough. Sin included: homosexual acts, homosexual thoughts, homosexual attractions.
After 1987, the Church’s policy for gayness was that marriage is not a “cure” for gayness, but people should still try hard to fight against their attractions to not let them them fester into thoughts and actions. Sin included: homosexual acts and homosexual thoughts. Homosexual attractions were no longer considered sinful; there was an acknowledgment they couldn’t be “cured.”
Unfortunately, this post-1987 policy has not become church-wide, and since I assume you’re active with North Star, you might know that this is one of that organization’s concerns. There are still cases in the Church where a person will go to their bishop and say, “I’m struggling with my same-sex attractions” and they find themselves in a disciplinary council. As a result of a lack of understanding, a lot of people struggle quietly, thinking they have a personal “trial”: a tendency to be “selfish” and “evil.”
The most recent literature on the subject is different. There’s the story of Elder Holland talking to a kid in his early 20s who says to Holland, “I’m gay,” and Holland responds: “And?” The moral of the story is that “There’s space for you here” as well as “Don’t call yourself ‘gay.'”
The point is, as Invictus has been trying to explain to you, there is a history here, a change in the way the subject has been approached, a change in policy, and where the line of sin has been drawn.
As a case in point, when you said here…
…Packer in the 1960s would have said, “The fact that you are letting yourself find men sexually appealing means you’re okay with sinning.”
Oaks in 2011 would say, “You should always fight those attractions so that you don’t sin.”
Do you see the difference?
Young men like APL are not just frustrating. They are DANGEROUS.
I can say that with some authority because I was APL when I was 26. I knew the Lord would bless me and strengthen me for doing what President Packer suggested. As a result, I lived a life devoted to serving my family and the Church faithfully. Despite my best efforts and a loving, understanding and supportive wife, the facade I built on false faith eventually crumbled. (Remember that faith is “the substance [assurance] of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, WHICH ARE TRUE.”)
Like me when I was young, APL and his brethren espouse a way of life that has been found NOT to be true (what I would put in the same category as Heber J. Grant’s pronouncement that man would never set foot on the moon). The result of their professions is pain and heartache for nearly all gay men who determine through faith they will adhere to it. According to research, less than 10% of mixed orientation marriages last more than 10 years. Would you fly on an airplane or allow your children to fly on an airplane that had a failure rate that approached 90% over the course of 10 years, even if an Apostle told you to do it? Of course not. What makes marriage any different?
More importantly, the well meaning decisions of nearly all these naive yet faithful men eventually destroy the lives of their wives and adversely impact their children as well. Is this sound? I have to say to enter into this situation with clear understanding of the probably outcome is not just wrong, it is morally reprehensible.
For those of us who have spent our lives dealing with the ramifications of bad advice from ecclesiastical leaders, we know ever too clearly what President Packer said when we were young as well as the intent of his message last fall. Let’s not mince words or play semantic games. We are all adults.
Joseph Smith taught and President Hinckley reiterated that all men (including Apostles) receive revelation regarding their personal stewardship TO THE DEGREE THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO RECEIVE IT. Just as Elder Mark E. Petersen’s personal experience and prejudice led him to reject the revelation on blacks and the priesthood for over 20 years, President Packer’s experience and prejudice regarding homosexuality preclude him from gaining additional divine direction on this important issue. (Hence, his talk was fundamentally revised post-address to one focused on pornography rather than homosexuality. Why? Because his teachings on homosexuality in the sermon were not doctrinally sound.)
The tragic result of an Apostle teaching false doctrine, whether he is well intentioned or not, is that lives are ruined. APL may have thought he was strengthened by the talk, but by and by APL will discover like most of us that the end result of following false doctrine is destruction regardless of who taught it.
Now to you, APL. Go ahead and preach your views like Zeezrom, the Book of Mormon legalist who led so many faithful saints astray. We all do impetuous and ill-conceived things when we are young that we later regret. You are not too different than the rest of us. I would love to talk to you, however, when you are 50.
The real problem, APL, is that your naivete and persuasive ability will lead untold numbers of young men, equally naive, to ruin their lives and those of precious young women, if you are left unchecked.
I would not look forward to standing before the Lord with that burden weighing heavily on my shoulders.
@10: I assure you, I am not “mad.” While I appreciate the civil tone of your last comment and your expressed desire for greater understanding, I have to say that phrases such as “your world” make me kind of scratch my head.
I will think about this over the weekend as I am traveling. I don’t know how productive further discussion could be. We are simply poles apart on where we even start to look at these issues.
One example, and that’s all I’ll say for now: You write that Elder Packer “should have said things differently.” You have made similar statements a number of times in previous comments. You seem to believe that he didn’t mean what he said, that he simply misspoke or wasn’t clear enough or should have been more politic. That he simply made a mistake. That he himself didn’t understand or express articulately the Church’s position/doctrine concerning homosexuality. When you approach the dialogue from this position, I feel we really don’t have a basis for further discussion.
@12 Clive,
I am glad I live in a free country and can live the way I want to live. Know that I am not putting up a facade. I am true to myself, my wife and my God. I am first and foremost a child of God and I will be true to my true identity.
I am an active Mormon and I fully support my leaders and what they said. I respect your beliefs that they and not called of God. I wish you would respect mine.
Clive, do not think for a second that you know me. I am true to myself. How can you claim I am putting on a facade if you have never even met me. Your experiences are your own, and I respect that, but do not project your mistakes on my life. I live my own life. As you learn to accept people for who they are and allow them to live their own lives, you will learn to appreciate the great diversity in the world.
@13 Invictus Pilgrim,
I am finding out we are more at poles than I originally thought we were. But I also think that the rift between gays and Mormons needs mending. As a gay Mormon, I have too often found myself at the brunt of that rift. I don’t want the next generation of gay Mormons to have to deal with the brunt that I had to deal with. I don’t think we should stop talking because we are at poles apart. It is precisely because we are at poles apart that we need this dialogue.
The answer can’t be one or the other. There will continue to be gay Mormons who grow up and think like you do. There will continue to be gay Mormons who grow up and think like I do. That is the fact. As much as you think people shouldn’t think like I do, that won’t stop it. You need to learn to accept that fact. As long as both sides insist on a my way or the highway approach, we will leave gay Mormons behind in the dust. We need to stop leaving gay Mormons in the dust. We need to come together to work on a solution. And the first step is to simply understand each other.
Know that I will vigorously defend my position if I am attacked. I will not sit still while people call me names, tell me how I should act, or try to predict doom and gloom for my future. I have learned that if I give into those voices of pessimism, I am already lost. I will defend myself for my own sanity.
At the same time, I will avoid attacking your position. I apologize for doing so. Know I am human and I make mistakes. I am not here to attack, but to understand.
APL, it’s obvious I’ve touched a nerve. If your response wasn’t so sad, it would be funny.
Please reread my post. I never made assumptions about you or your life other than to point out that you are obviously young and naive. I never claimed nor do I claim to know anything about you. I never asserted that you are untrue to yourself or putting on a facade. I did say that your views are likely to change with age and experience.
I do believe that people like you do tremendous damage by encouraging other young faithful and naive (i.e, lacking experience) Latter-day Saints to engage in what many consider to be immoral behavior. You will have to pay the price for that someday.
Please understand that contrary to your assumption, I am an active member of the Church and support my leaders. Like Joseph Smith, I understand that even apostles (i.e., Thomas Marsh, William E. M’Lellin, Luke S. Johnson, William Smith, Orson Hyde, Orson, Pratt, John F. Boynton, Lyman E. Johnson, John E. Page, Richard Lyman, etc., etc., etc.) can be led astray.
That is why the Lord has advised each of us who lack wisdom to ask him and he will enlighten us with truth within the parameters of our individual stewardship.
I wish you all the best, young man, but advise you to carefully consider the harm you are causing to others like you. As I said earlier, there will be a price for what you are doing and you will ultimately be the one to pay that price.
Clive, I am well aware what I am doing and am a better judge of what to do with my life than you are. You make too many assumptions.
Perhaps Invictus is right. If we refuse to give up our beliefs that the other side is wrong and dangerous, any bridge building efforts will be futile. The only solution is the continued war effort, in hopes that the causalities suffered in this war will be fewer than those eventually saved.
So you believe that gay Mormons are being left in the dust. Why do you think this is? In what way is the Church failing them in your estimation?
LOL! Please, APL, give me a break!!!! I’m as frustrated with you as Invictus!
As I said before, the only assumptions I made about you are that you are young and naive. Moreover, I am not telling you what to do with your life.
I am telling you that it is easy for a faithful idealist in his 20’s to make assumptions about mixed orientation marriages that are actually false.
My issue with you and others like you is that an inexperienced, naive, though well-meaning young man would presume to serve as an expert on mixed orientation marriages and become an outspoken proponent of them. That is where you cross the line and engage in what many of us feel is immoral behavior.
Understand, as far as we’re concerned, there is no place for bridge-building between your views and ours. Our mission is to do what is necessary to convince every unmarried gay Mormon that marriage to straight women is NOT an option!
As a young man stated on my blog this morning, “…I do not see any way that a gay member could in good conscience marry a woman in order to “do what’s right.” If someone is strictly intent on being by the book, celibacy is the only option. At least that doesn’t hurt anyone else.”
Encouraging anyone to engage in behavior that potentially puts ones life and well-being at risk not to mention the life and well-being of his partner can in no way be viewed as correct, decent, or honorable.
Honestly, I hope with all my heart that you can make your marriage work for the rest of your life. As I would readily admitted, there are a few exceptional relationships that last…but very few and then only at tremendous cost.
Let’s talk again in 20 years. I’d be interested in your views when you’ve got a bit more of life under your belt.
I think it is the rift that is failing them, and that puts the blame on both sides. I think many gay Mormons don’t feel accepted. I want them to feel like they can be open and honest and not have to worry about people judging them for who they are. I worry that our society has created only one way for gay people to come out, and that way is not acceptable to many gay Mormons. If society (Mormons included) could be a bit more accepting of faithful gay Mormons, I think we could avoid a lot of the problems that the closet creates.
I do fully support my leaders and think they are inspired men called of God. However, I think they are human and make mistakes. I feel they are trying to understand the issues and make progress. The fact that they are changing I think shows there is continued room for change. With that understanding, this is how I think they are leaving gay Mormons in the dust.
1) I think they could be clearer in their message.
Obviously, people have misunderstood the message. If people have felt they are inferior through no fault of their own or come to believe in order to be accepted they need to make an impossible change or are given false hopes that they can accomplish the impossible, then the message can probably be tweaked to avoid those tragedies.
We have some difference of opinions about what the impossible is or what gives false hopes. I don’t think MoMoM are necessarily hopeless. I have found great success in mine. If done in the proper way they can be a great source of peace and happiness. However, for some reason, people have come under the false assumption that it is permissible to lie in order to get married, or that it was okay to get married before they were ready in hopes that would change. I think our leaders could have better presented the message so that gay Mormons would not get married unprepared.
2) I think they could have been more universal in their message about same-sex attraction.
Most of the teachings are limited to pamphlets, outside interviews, or Ensign articles. Rarely do they ever talk about same-sex attraction outside of that. Most of the conference addresses, according to my interpretation, are not about the attractions but about chosen actions. As an English speaker, I can go back and receive encouragement from old talks from pamphlets, but non-English speakers often do not have access to such resources.
3) If you haven’t noticed, my usage of the term gay is vastly different from Bishop McMullin’s suggested use. I disagree with the church on this one. I understand why they are doing what they are doing. Like Clive thinks I am dangerous, I think the gay culture is dangerous. I think there is wisdom in disidentifying with the gay culture. I don’t expect others to agree with me, and I am really not saying this to attack others, but those are my beliefs and I think it is important to understand those are the beliefs of many gay Mormons if we ever hope to get anywhere. I agree with my leaders reasonings, but I think the way they go about it doesn’t take into account the reality that we live in and serves to closet people rather than liberate them.
I think the phrase “gay culture” as you’re using it is very limited. For example, I would include North Star as “gay culture”… or at least, “queer culture.” If the goal is to understand each other, then it might help to begin by considering how communities overlap, rather than insist on fundamental differences or need to disidentify from the start.
Let me tell you why I think you’re still insisting on fundamental differences even though you paradoxically say you want to “get along.”
Most gay Mormons are not very well read about gay history in America and come to the table with a lot of stereotypes. A big one I see is the idea that “gay culture thinks that if I’m a gay man then I have to be with a man.” This is untrue. A more accurate statement would be: “gay culture thinks that if I’m a gay man then I have a right to be with a man.”
Mormon leaders have twisted the gay rights movement into saying that “gays think that you don’t have a choice but to act on your attractions.” And they’ve done this to lead young gay Mormons into disidentifying with the gay community. “Those gays say you don’t have a choice. Mormonism says you have free will.” Talk about polarizing. How could the the gay rights movement have gotten this far if was based on the idea of not having choices? No, it’s based entirely on the idea of having choices.
So, you might want to chew on that a bit.
These are very important points that deserve nuance. I want to push you to think about why the Church hasn’t been universal about it. Why might the Church have felt a need to intentionally limit the discussions about homosexuality to “pamphlets, outside interviews, or Ensign articles?”
Okay, so you see how the Church has failed people here. Above, Invictus and I have only been trying to be clear about the wordings and policies that shaped this failure. Yes, we might seem to be “demonizing” church leaders, but since they are leaders, it is their responsibility to take the blame. And they haven’t taken it. In fact, they’ve actively refused it. They refuse it to save face, which is not a good sign of leadership.
Now, I’m not really here to argue with you about the functionality of a mixed-orientation marriage, either yours or generally. I’ve only dated guys and my partner is male. But when you say
I have trouble seeing what this means. In your opinion, should the Church come out with a handbook about how to make these particular marriages function that a fiance and fiancee read before getting wed…or should it be left as an individual matter to be discussed with one’s therapist once it’s already happening?
I don’t know where you live, but in the bay area, that message is loud and clear. Even on this forum, Clive seems to pretty insistent that “Our mission is to do what is necessary to convince every unmarried gay Mormon that marriage to straight women is NOT an option!” Saying it is not an option doesn’t entail choice to me.
Have you ever had someone go to the trouble to find your address and send you materials about the dangers of your lifestyle choices? I have. It isn’t just the Mormon leaders telling us that the gay community is telling us these things. It is coming on my doorstep.
You usually see what affects you. I am upset at Apple’s removal of the Exodus app. I am upset at Judge Walker’s conclusion that MoM is not a realistic option for gay people. I am frustrated at the APA’s hostile attitudes towards gays who don’t want to have gay sex. I am upset at the Human Right’s campaign’s activism against ex-gay rights. But these are things that affect me and get me upset. If you don’t care about those things, you really wouldn’t notice.
You are right about the stereotype though. Even though the message is very loud and clear does not mean it is universal in the gay community. That is often how stereotypes work, right? You judge a whole community based on what you hear. I have a lot of friends who are having gay sex and very much connected to that gay community and are very accepting to various lifestyle choices. Some have even expressed condolences about Apple’s decision. It is wrong of me to project the hostility towards my lifestyle choices by some in the gay community to the whole gay community.
There are stereotypes on the reverse side. I don’t think it is fair to say the church is against the right of a man to be with a man. I thought it was pretty impressive when they said they do not oppose rights already present in California for same-sex couples. Unlike many conservative churches, I think they have done a good job in stressing that the opposition was in the definition, not the right to be together. Obviously, within the church we teach our principles, and those are the principles that we believe will bring the most happiness, but we do not force those views on others.
Insofar as the gay rights movement is just about choices, I agree and support it. The gay rights movement is about promoting rights that would benefit people who have gay sex, which is often very good policies that promote basic human rights. I was very glad when the DODT policy was removed. I rejoiced when the church supported employment and housing rights. I personally would like to see a nationally recognized system of civil unions that granted same-sex couples, polygamous families and so forth, all the rights and benefits they need to protect their families.
There are many aspects of the gay rights movement that I fully support and agree with. I am all about making bridges with the gay community. However, I don’t think I need to identify with the gay community in order for me to support many of their goals and make bridges with them. I need to be able maintain my own identity and not let others define it. While I agree that there a lot of misconceptions and stereotypes around the gay community, you can’t get away with the fact that the gay community accepts gay sex as morally acceptable. While I support other people’s views to think that way, I am not going to adopt an identity that incorporates those views for myself.
I personally think they are still trying to figure it out. It also seems that whenever they do talk about it in a more general sense they get a lot of negative feedback from the community. Personally, I would rather have them talk about it and make mistakes than to keep it hush-hush. Still, that takes guts when every time you talk about something you end up with protests at the temples.
In general, I am not much of a fan of listing out a bunch of do’s and do not’s. I haven’t thought of a handbook, but that could be cool if done properly. They could stress things like openness, honesty, and developing sexual attraction first. Ultimately, it should be an individual matter. If a therapist happens to be involved (it had been years since I saw a therapist before I met my wife), then they could be involved, but nothing should be forced.
What I think should happen is that the idea that you need to be open and honest with your spouse and sexually attracted to him or her should be generally known and understood and not hid in an interview on the church’s newsroom site.
You’ve said so much that I’m intimidated to try to address it. One thing that stands out, though, is this:
Think about the “It Gets Better” campaign. It’s not about filtering queer kids into a life in which they’d have gay sex…it’s about helping them feel like they belong in society, that people care about them. The gay rights movement itself started out as a space where people came together because they were pushed away (whether or not they were having sex). It turned into a space to fight for acceptance at large (whether or not they are having sex). So, to talk about the movement as if it’s all about the “right to have gay sex” or for those “who have gay sex” is disrespectful. Frankly, it points to your own (by which I mean, an LDS-influenced) fixation on “gay sex.” But it also demonstrates what I said above: a tendency to insist on fundamental differences between two communities (gay and Mormon) even as you say you want to build bridges (and even when it’s been noted that the communities are nuanced).
Maybe that wasn’t the best way to put it. I feel excluded from the gay community because of my conservative beliefs. I do. I am not the only one to feel that way. A recent Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on “Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation” has the following:
I am not making up or getting it from my leaders that I feel excluded. I have felt the brunt of it, and enough other people have felt the brunt of it for the APA to take notice, (but not enough for them to actually address it unfortunately). I can tell you it is easier for me to be open about my sexual attractions and lifestyle choices in the Mormon community than in the gay community.
I said that for the most part the policies that the gay rights movement promotes “is often very good policies that promote basic human rights.” Anti-bullying would be one of them, but I still did not feel it was very inclusive. Were there any mixed-orientation couples in there? Were there any gays who were celibate for religious purposes in there? I didn’t watch all of it, so I may be wrong, but what I saw did not represent the full spectrum of gay people. It was a selection of gay people that they wanted the kids to see. If I were a faithful gay Mormon teenager, I would not identify with that campaign.
I do appreciate the concept of the anti-bullying campaign. From what I saw it was excellent and will go a long way to help stem the stream of gay suicide among non-Mormons or soon to be ex-Mormons. It may even help some gay Mormons.
Maybe it isn’t about sex. Maybe it is about values. The only thing I know is the values I aspire to are not being welcomed in the gay community, and I feel excluded.
I do not think that pretending I feel included is a necessary requirement to build bridges. Not dwelling on it would be. At this point I am answering your questions. I don’t feel included. I feel there are fundamental differences. I don’t identify with the gay community. If we can accept this, I can move on and work to move past these fundamental differences.
I find it strange how Mormons talk about how much they support the rights of gay couples, but then they don’t support the right of a gay couple to even exist in their community. This doesn’t seem like a psychological break to you?
A person has to see how they might be included by the “other side”; otherwise a bridge cannot be built.
I actually don’t see this as “one” bridge to be built — or rather, only “two” lands to connect. The APA report you quoted talks about “gay organizations and social networks.” This is different than “the gay community.” You’re clumping together a singularity you feel excluded from, whereas the APA is talking about particular networks of people affecting their participants. You might think I’m being meticulous. But I actually think the Church is far more of a singularity, and gay Mormons have a tendency to view gay communities the same way (they clump them together when they think about *that* part of their identity; they don’t like what they see out there, and so they dismiss the “gay”). I suspect there are plenty of conservative queer communities these days, though.
Here I think Clive was talking about the consequences for the straight woman. If you choose to charm someone into falling in love with you — knowing full well that you will not reciprocate that “in love” emotional bond — then you’re choosing to do something that carries a very high risk of profoundly hurting another person. I assume Clive is not talking about actively preventing that choice, but rather convincing single gay men that it is neither a responsible nor respectable choice.
@A Peculiar Light #22:
Why is it that leaders who claim to be prophets, seers and revelators, with a unique channel to God Himself, always seem to be lagging and have to be pressured by outside forces into any changes? Polygamy, the priesthood ban, and now just a basic understanding of gay issues, all were things the Church had to or will have to fundamentally change its view on, yet that only happens when the Church’s survival or ability to grow is seriously threatened?
Why wouldn’t leaders who claim revelation be out in FRONT of such issues, saying “Thus saith the Lord” and leading rather than being dragged kicking and screaming into accepting what other “non-inspired” people have long since reached and even moved on from? Do you not see how this recurring pattern leads many outside the church to scoff at the claims of inspired revelatory leadership?
It’s one thing for you to say “we must follow the prophet and apostles.” It’s quite another to have done so and realize what, through what you thought was obedience to God’s leaders, you have unwittingly inflicted on your own innocent children who look at you with tear-filled eyes and hearts full of pain and fear as they struggle to understand why their home has been torn apart and their sense of security and happiness destroyed. This latter has been my experience, and it will be in the next life before I am able to forgive leaders like Packer and Peterson and Kimball for the results of my misguided trust in their “inspired” advice and the irreparable damage it’s done to my own children. I too would love to talk to you when you’re 50 and see how your views have changed. Because you seem like a reasonable guy, and reasonable people do change their views as they learn and grow.
But for now, I’m with Clive. I think what you advocate is dangerous. I think you don’t know much of what you’re talking about. I think there can be no “bridge-building” because there is no place in LDS theology for the concept of homosexuality, let alone any explanation of the eternal destiny of gay people. This is not gay peoples’ fault, it’s the way the Church has framed the issue. And it’s painted itself into a corner. Because if it does change and find a place for God’s gay children–who are NOT going away–it will have to concede a huge amount of previous error and fault and culpability and apologize for it, and that is something the LDS Church NEVER does. Because it threatens the idea of reliable modern revelation, and people will start to say, as I did, “if the Church is so wrong on this, what else might they be wrong about?” And that is a place the Church will never go.
Honestly, I don’t know how they’re going to get out of this one.
I don’t have time right now to process and respond intelligently to everything that has been written while I’ve been traveling.
For now, I’m very pleased to see others join in this discussion. I also just want to respond very briefly to the following comment by Rob:
Why indeed? The Savior said, “Come, FOLLOW me.”
Well, I guess by that definition I would be part of the gay community, whether I want to be or not. If gay Mormons are by definition part of the gay community, and there is a rift between Mormons and gays, then it would seem to reason that there is a rift in the gay community itself, since there are plenty of gay Mormons and other gay conservative groups.
That makes it all the more discouraging that there is no prospect of bridge building. That means we are doomed to be isolated: forced to be part of a community that is hostile to the very essence of who we are – Mormons.
I would think a community that was more encompassing and less of a singularity would have a greater responsibility to be inclusive, since its members can’t ever leave whether they want to or not.
I would rephrase my argument to say the gay community is not very welcoming to minorities within its own community, to the extent that we feel excluded and seek to disidentify with a community that is hostile to the essence of who we are.
Like I said, not everyone in the gay community is like that, but even on this thread there is enough hostility that would make any gay Mormon want to try to leave the gay community and become straight.
This active effort from people in the gay community to isolate its own members is self destructive, and in my opinion, the main reason for high gay suicide rates.
Why wouldnt leaders who claim revelation be out in FRONT of such issues, saying Thus saith the Lord and leading rather than being dragged kicking and screaming into accepting what other non-inspired people have long since reached and even moved on from
I haven’t claimed that our leaders are perfect, but I will say that they are some of the people that understand the issue the best. I believe revelation is continuous, in other words, I believe God will reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God. Compare Hinckley’s comment that “Now we have gays in the church. Good people” with the philosophy that it is okay to exclude a minority group within your own community, and actively oppose any bridge building efforts.
Our leaders might not understand homosexuality very well, but one of the reasons I follow them is that they understand it better than anyone else out there. You have offered my your solution, and it doesn’t work for me. There solution works for me. I am not excluded there. I have a place. You can have a place too if you want.
Why would that make you want to join the straight people? You seem to be implying that straight people are more understanding of your struggle — or perhaps are merely indifferent to your struggle instead of reacting viscerally to it. When the folks in power are indifferent to your situation, that’s not necessarily a good thing.
p.s. to APL — despite how unfriendly my comments may seem, I do appreciate you coming here to explain your position and keeping your remarks civil. I think many people here are totally unfamiliar with such a perspective, and so your comments have been informative.
@ A Peculiar Light #30:
With due respect to your right to view things as you wish, I must disagree with the claim that Mormon leaders are some of the people that understand the issue the best. Only if you start from unquestioned premises that they MUST be inspired and MUST be true could you reach this conclusion. Viewed objectively, looking at nothing but the facts and shorn of any agenda that requires them to be right, their record falls dismally short of what you state (see, e.g. http://connellodonovan.com/lgbtmormons.html). Many other religious leaders have been and continue to be far more understanding and informed, with no similar need to force this phenomenon into a rigid theological structure that claims to be open to new revelation but so far shows remarkable resistance to it.
As to excluding a minority group within your own community and actively opposing any bridge-building efforts, I will say what Ive said before. Most local LDS leaders and members never got Hinckleys memo. While there are welcome exceptions, they tend to be individual cases. Broadly speaking, there is still far too much hostility and exclusion and kicking out of gay children and suspicion and, in Utah, stubborn resistance to changing the laws to promote those bridge-building efforts, as the most recent legislative session shows.
Mormon leaders do NOT understand homosexuality better than anyone else out there. If they did, they wouldnt continue to lend support and legitimacy to groups like Evergreen, which actively promotes not only hypocrisy (Evergreen conferences are well known as one of the best pick-up and hook-up events in Utah) but perpetuates myths about changing orientation. They would not continue to refer to it as an affliction or continue permitting unschooled, untrained, ill-informed and sometimes outright hostile local leaders to summon gay members for regular interrogation as to the details of their private lives in ways all my non-LDS friends describe as outrageous and unconscionable whenever I tell them about it. Such conduct perpetuates stigma and shame and doubt and fear. No senior church leader who really understands homosexuality would permit such things.
You are the best authority on what works for you and I must take your word for it. It is true, you are not excluded from active LDS fellowship. But only on conditions that most gay Mormons end up finding dishonest and, ultimately, intolerable. You are therefore a minority within a minority within a minority. What you have chosen works for virtually no one else that Ive heard of. I cant help suspecting that it has come at a personal cost greater than you have disclosed. I could have the same place, yes. And in fact I had it for many years. But it cost my honesty, my integrity, my peace of mind. I could have it again if I were willing to submit to permanent second-class citizenship and the whispered gossip and pity and unspoken patronizing that unavoidably follows those allegedly so afflicted in the LDS Church. I am no longer willing to do that, and I have joined countless others whose received answers to prayers tell us we need not do so, that God knows our hearts and approves of us just as we are. So, Peculiar Light, in the words of Oliver Cromwell, I would say to both you and the Church, I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.
There are more than two sides of the debate. If you recognize this, that might help alleviate some of your hurt feelings.
But if you insist on a single “gay community,” well, I would say that same-sex attracted people have been talking about same-sex attraction much longer than the Church has. I’m liable to think that that bunch of old straight guys coming onto the stage have a bit more learning to do before they catch up with what’s already out there on the subject.
Perhaps the first step to bridge-building is recognizing how uncompromising each side is.
Compare this with Holland, Packer and Oaks saying a person shouldn’t define themselves as gay. Seems like a contradiction to me.
I’m not really trying to insist on any vocabulary. I was trying to understand yours. I have heard many people talk about “the gay community”. I don’t think I have ever heard people talk about “the gay communities”. I didn’t get it from the Mormon community.
If that is the case, I would say that even though I personally identify as gay, I feel like gay communities that disidentify with the gay identity better represent my values. I feel few gay communities that identify as gay are accepting of my values. There is a documented correlation with identifying as gay and having gay sex, which many gay Mormons, including myself, wish to avoid. (See http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex_attraction/Denial#Effects_of_adopting_a_gay_identity )
I think two groups can learn to work together without necessarily agreeing with each other. You keep hinting at the fact that I am not really interested in building bridges because I don’t want to be a part of the other side. Do you want to be part of my side? I believe in the church. I believe the Mormon lifestyle is the best for me. I think a lifestyle that incorporates gay sex is dangerous for me. Others don’t believe in the church. They believe the Mormon lifestyle is dangerous for me. How do we get along?
This is one of my favorite quotes from Joseph Smith:
“If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No, I will lift them up and in their own way too, If I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.”
I think you are in error. You think I am in error. The answer is not to bear each other down. I think BOTH sides are doing that and that bearing down is one of the biggest things contributing to gay Mormon suicide. That doesn’t mean we shut up if someone is doing something and trying to recruit others to do what we consider to be dangerous. We should still use the force of reason, but seek to do it “in their own way”. I don’t think telling gay Mormons that gay people don’t fit in Mormonism is very helpful. That expects us to change, and ignores those of us who are fitting in Mormonism just fine.
I am actually a big fan of Evergreen and don’t believe what you say about them.
I probably didn’t communicate well. Many gay Mormons feel pressure to change sexual orientation. I disagree with that. I think part of the problem is the way the church approaches things, as I mentioned things I disagreed with, but part is also the perceived stereotypes of
Thank you Chanson!
It sounds like a difference of opinion to me. It’s not like any of them were declaring doctrine. (See http://newsroom.lds.org/article/approaching-mormon-doctrine )
If the Utah legislative session matches what the church says, people say the Church controls the legislature. If not, they complain the church is hypocritical. The Utah legislature may or may not agree with the church. In this one they are going in direct defiance of what the church teaches. I really never had high regard for the Utah legislature.
@APL – I have been monitoring the back and forth between you and other commenters. I am sticking with my decision reached late last week that I think it would not be productive to engage in further “dialogue” with you at this point. I have decided instead to let the comments that have been exchanged back and forth simmer in my mind for a few weeks, after which I may decide to write about what has been discussed.
I would, however, like to make a few observations at this point in time.
First, I think part of the problem in this discussion has been that you are aligned with groups of people, namely Evergreen and various apologetic organizations, that insist, among other things, in trying to create a whole new vocabulary in addressing gay issues. This splitting of linguistic hairs and fighting over word turf is, in my view, reflective of the approaches these groups take to homosexuality in general.
If you are serious in your efforts to build bridges, as you repeatedly have said, then I would suggest that a first step would be to stop insisting that everyone else agree to accept and adopt definitions approved and utilized by groups such as Evergreen and FAIR. Frankly, such an approach by these groups is bigoted, dogmatic, polemic and totally and completely unproductive. In my opinion, of course.
You are absolutely correct that there are various “camps” of people who have come out of the Mormon tradition who are gay or lesbian – or as you would probably insist on saying, who experience same-sex attraction or same-gender attraction. There is the Evergreen crowd, the Northstar crowd, the Affirmation crowd, and others. Again, if you are truly interested in building bridges among these various camps, then I would suggest that the first step is to recognize and accept that all of these people’s views are no less valid than yours and that they, for very good reasons, will refuse to use Evergreen’s stipulated vocabulary.
As I have written about before, dogmatism and polemics seem to be part of the very fiber of modern Mormonism, unfortunately. There is no grey in modern Mormonism – at least among orthodox Mormons; there is only black and white. And you might as well forget about any color. Everything is either true or false, right or wrong, black or white. Period.
This approach, which is totally contrary to the spirit of what Joseph Smith taught, quickly divides people in camps: us against them. In such a world, there is little tolerance, let alone understanding and empathy. “Dialogue” becomes virtually impossible when one side is totally and completely convinced of the “righteousness” of their cause; any efforts at “bridge building” are quickly perceived as patronizing, arrogant, bigoted and self-serving.
Lastly, you are gravely and recklessly wrong to blame suicides of LDS youth who have struggled with the fact that they are gay (or, as you would say, that they struggled with same-gender attraction) on “bearing down” between the various camps of gays within Mormonism. There are certain threads that run through most accounts of suicides or attempted suicides by gay Mormon youth, and these threads are rejection by family, rejection by Church and an overwhelming feeling of self-loathing and worthlessness engendered by Church doctrines as filtered through parents, seminary teachers, bishops, Sunday School teachers and others.
@APL I find it interesting that on one hand you continue to speak of bridge-building and on the other refuse to acknowledge the positions of those in “other camps.” I find it particularly interesting that you would assume that those who do not accept your radical brand of anti-gay Mormonism oppose the Church. Is that bridge-building?
Last night I was with a group of independent minded gay man, many of whom are devout believers. While these men categorically reject the Church’s teachings on homosexuality (which IS a noun, by the way) they are firmly committed to the Restoration and the core principles revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith (BTW, what are Joseph’s teachings–or for that matter, the Savior’s–regarding homosexuality anyway? Oh, there aren’t any…).
Like I said before, I would really enjoy visiting with you in twenty years. It’s amazing what life-experience can do to ones perspective.
I’m really confused now. What are you guys talking about? I really am trying to learn your vocabulary and all I get is yelled at for not already using it.
I said I disagree with the church’s use of gay, and I get yelled at for “insisting that everyone else agree to accept and adopt definitions approved and utilized by groups such as Evergreen and FAIR.” I identify as gay. My mistake was talking about the gay community instead of the gay communities, neither of which follows Packer’s stance. I am not sure what FAIR’s vocabulary is. I listed several areas I disagreed with the church, and I get labeled as both radical and dogmatic. I have always identified myself as gay, and I get yelled at for not considering myself as gay and for being anti-gay. Am I gay or anti-gay? Am I anti-myself?
I think you hear what you want to hear. I didn’t say half of the stuff you guys are accusing me of. I am trying to learn your vocabulary. I honestly don’t get it. Don’t yell at me for not already having learned it.
APL, I see from your Wikipedia user page that you’re very committed to these issues, that you’re gathering data from a variety of sources, probably to make sense of your own existence. I understand that a great number of people out there are engaged at this intersection, which I would describe as something like “what to do about same-sex attraction if we think same-sex sexual behavior is sinful.” These people are working hard to make their lives and those around them happy.
I would suggest you turn to better sources. For example, if you don’t have gay sex and still identify as “gay,” then don’t cite a FAIR wiki about a “correlation about identifying as gay and having gay sex,” since you yourself break that correlation. What that shows is that you’re more interested in upholding FAIR than your argument having coherence. I would say something similar happened above with you upholding church leaders on aspects that are clearly wrong-minded (for example, Packer’s ideas in the 1960s about “cure” having to do with being strong-willed); you seemed more interested in paying deference to church leaders than “bridge building.” I would suggest that you cite people like Yarhouse or Buxton who are doing research on “sexual orientation identity” or on mixed-orientation marriages where the gay partner admits to gayness beforehand. Even FAIR admits that “research by Buxton found that if a man with same-sex attraction were to enter a marriage without disclosing their attractions, the marriage had a 85% chance of failure within three years after the sexual attractions were discovered.” (We’re all waiting for research about what happens in marriages when the attractions are disclosed beforehand, which has only been a possibility after conservative cultures allowed people to have attractions and not be automatically sinning, circum the mid-1980s. What will the Church do if the “problem” still doesn’t seem to get any better…perhaps they’ll start to recognize the value of gay marriage? Perhaps they’ll look more closely at how “traditional marriage” died the day women were no longer considered property?)
I am trying to find my place. I also want to help others to find their place. I know the crap I had to go through to get where I am, and I want to help alleviate that for others. I am not as interested in forming an argument as in trying to understand.
I understand that you don’t think my position coherent, and at times clearly wrong-minded. I guess that is something I just have to live with. I don’t think I have to change my thinking in order to build bridges. And maybe I won’t be able to build bridges here. I want to understand. I really do.
I answered your questions about my point of view because you asked, not because I was trying to convince you that I was right. Maybe that was a mistake. Maybe I should just listen to your point of view.
You have mentioned several things wrong with Evergreen, North Star and FAIR. I would say I am at least somewhat influential in those communities, especially North Star.
Let’s say that I wanted to rework those organizations, or maybe even start a new one from the ground up. Let’s say the target audience is gay Mormons, who are faithful to the church. My goal is to prevent suicide, even at the cost of some becoming ex-Mormons.
What would you suggest doing differently in these organizations? Remember, if you start bashing the leaders or teaching a new doctrine, you are going to loose your target audience, and you have no authority to apologize for the leadership.
I personally have liked the approach of North Star and FAIR which have distanced themselves from the ex-gay movement, and recast the comments of the leadership in softer terms so people don’t kill themselves over it.
But enough about me, what do you think I should be working on that would reach our target audience to help reduce suicide?
I think many @ North Star have a misconception that people can talk more openly about homosexuality at a Church-wide level without also detracting from the policy of same-sex intimacy as immoral. If there’s open discussion, there can easily become a critical mass of people wondering why, oh why, people who are same-gender attracted have to marry those they aren’t attracted to. And a bunch of “faithful” gay Mormons saying, “No, no, we’re happy in mixed-orientation marriages!” won’t stop this critical mass. (The other thing preventing open discussion is homophobia.)
Thinking about this in terms of policy, in the pamphlet “God Loveth His Children” there’s a section that says: “It is not helpful to flaunt homosexual tendencies or make them the subject of unnecessary observation or discussion. It is better to choose as friends those who do not publicly display their homosexual feelings. Dallin Oaks (in the 2006 interview) has expressed the notion that if you want to keep same-sex attraction at bay, then don’t join groups that centralize same-sex attraction. If you ask him, I’m not sure he’s even a fan of Evergreen and North Star.
Yet Evergreen and North Star were born from the fact that church leaders don’t know what they’re doing on this issue, or that they’re not doing enough. @21 you said:
Above explains why I think it’s intentionally kept hush-hush. The unintentional part is that church leaders are “still trying to figure it out,” as you say.
In terms of suicide, this is complex. I’ve been thinking of writing on it using the ideas in sociologist Emile Durkheim’s book “Suicide.” According to Durkheim, people kill themselves for four reasons:
(1) a prolonged sense of unbelonging,
(2) self-sacrifice for a group,
(3) moral confusion, and
(4) excessive regulation.
I think Church leaders speak out on homosexuality to respond to (1) and (3), but they are only exacerbating (2) and (4).
You want to re-work Evergreen? Target gay Mormons who are faithful to the Church, prevent suicides. What would I suggest doing differently? But no bashing of LDS leaders or teaching new doctrine because that would lose the target audience.
These are impossible to reconcile. It is a recipe for utter futility. Heres why.
LDS leaders are duty-bound to defend a theological system within which homosexuality should not exist. The very concept is antithetical to what that theology assumes that everyone on earthif God is a fair, just and loving fathermust be at least theoretically capable of: a heterosexual temple marriage. Yet the great majority of gay Mormon men end up leaving the Church because this goal which theyre told they should sacrifice everything else for is actually repugnant in the extreme to them, and eternal marriage to a woman is their idea of hell, not heaven. You are obviously an exception, and an extremely rare one. But these organizations you want to re-work cant make everyone into clones of you. They have to address the majority. And the majority will never make a success of a marriage like yours, and will always regard yours with skepticism at best, and more likely with relief that theyre not in your shoes.
If you insist that this majority never criticize the LDS leaders who defend a theology that must unavoidably exclude them from the highest blessings if they are true to the desires of their hearts, or else require that they spend their lives in the impossible task of killing off those desires, then you are setting them up for more of the very suicides you claim to want to prevent. Because those suicides result from realizing that these imperatives are irreconcilable, and from abandoning all hope as a result.
If you insist that no new doctrine be taught, then you are repudiating the principle of personal revelation and contradicting much of your own churchs history. Even the apostles quarreled amongst themselves and taught conflicting doctrine for decades over things like evolution, the priesthood ban, and others. To insist that that NOT be done in your organization is to suffocate the very type of honest questioning, debate, and seeking for truth that led Joseph Smith himself to ask God for answers.
I feel strongly about this because I spent years wrestling with these very questions myself, after a lifetime in the church, after being married in the temple, after years of service in ward and stake and temple leadership. And I reluctantly came to the conclusion that, as the Church currently frames this issue, no reconciliation is possible. Until the fundamentals of LDS theology change, none of the rest of this will either, and organizations like Evergreen will be nothing more than unsuccessful Band-Aids.
Rob @42
I appreciate your concern that I am in a loosing battle. Unfortunately, unsuccessful Band-Aids are what we have right now. I think even you can see the advantage of having a more successful Band-Aid for the interim.
I probably didn’t explain myself well. I wasn’t telling other people what they should or should not believe. I myself have openly criticized the leadership on this forum. I don’t see a problem with allowing other people the agency to say and believe what they want. What I meant to say was that if the group officially introduced doctrine or openly criticized the leadership it would be unsuccessful at attracting the target audience. I didn’t mean that the group should regulate the words and thoughts of the membership, but just be careful with the official stance. And I don’t want to turn people into clones of me. There are a lot of gay Mormons who have found peace in the gospel in several different ways. Others are looking for ways that it is done. I would like to see what has helped others find peace and convey that to those that are looking for peace within the context of the gospel.
Many gay Mormons have been successful at integrating homosexuality with the gospel without feeling a need to kill off their desires. I have seen several interpretations, so I wouldn’t say it was an impossible task. My nephew died when he was a couple months old, but even though he didn’t have a chance at temple marriage here on Earth, it doesn’t disrupt the Mormon afterlife for me. In general, I would say that sexuality has to be vastly different in the afterlife, even just in terms of heterosexuality.
@41
Thanks for your insights. I would personally rather get the conversation going than worry about what some people might think. I understand some may wonder why a gay Mormon would only have two options – celibacy or marriage, and why for many gay Mormons, celibacy is the only option. If that wondering makes them leave the church, then I am fine with it. I guess I don’t see a problem with them wondering that. If nothing else, it would take the conversation to the right place.
The suicide break down is interesting. I don’t completely understand how the church speaking about it more openly exasperates self-sacrifice for the group. I guess I don’t see how that applies.
The excessive regulation is an interesting one. I have definitely seen gay Mormons who seem to feel it necessary to get married, or live a life in the closet, or something along that line. That seems to cause a life of stress. I would think that setting more realistic expectations would help, not hurt. We have different ideas of what is realistic and not realistic, but I think both of us would agree any movement to a more realistic solution would help.
I think being aware of how our trying to help ends up exasperating the problem would go a long way in finding a solution. I am interested in more details in how talking more openly about it ends up exasperating the problem.
Church leaders don’t “speak openly” about homosexual desire. They speak of it merely to funnel it into a particular direction, or regulate it. Those for whom the funnel doesn’t work are prone to unhappiness, self-sacrifice [to include suicide], fleeing, etc.
@Peculiar Light #43
Thanks for the clarification on wording and intent.
I will concede that there are some gay Mormons who have chosen to stay in the church and who have integrated homosexuality with the gospel to some extent. However, I do not believe they have truly found peace and I do not believe this can be done without trying to kill off homosexual desires. These people may have found some equilibrium between conflicting desires at a level they can manage. They may be going along with inertia because their investment of time and experience and personal relationships is more valuable to them than finding happiness in a gay relationship. They may inwardly still be white-knuckling it while outwardly pretending to be happy. They may just fear coming out more than they fear the pain of staying silently closeted. They may privately be living a gay lifestyle while outwardly going along with the appearance of active church membership. I have known people in all these situations.
What we do know is that homosexuality doesnt go away. It is as ineradicable as eye color. To me, peace means no more conflict. And the situations I describe above dont qualify. As long as the LDS Church continues what its currently doing and saying, it will continue to create conflict in the hearts and minds of even the most faithful gay Mormons. The Church itself will prevent the success of those gay members who are looking for peace within the context of the gospel.
This is why I say that reconciliation is impossible. Because at the end of the day, the Churchs vision of eternity includes no gay people whatsoever. Ultimately, within its current theological framework, the Church forces even its active gay members to give up either honesty or any hope of happiness in this life. I dont see either one of these as finding peace.
I think your last comment is very telling, and wonder if you realize the implications of believing that sexuality has to be vastly different in the afterlife, even just in terms of heterosexuality. This is a very subversive statement in terms of LDS doctrine as currently taught. A recent excellent example, Julie Becks March 2011 Ensign article The Theology of the Family, is so soaked in hetero-exclusive doctrinal assumptions that it seems laughable to think any LDS General Authority would agree with you that sexuality in the next life is anything but a continuation of what we have herewith the exception of homosexuality being fixed and thus extinguished. Personally I agree with you, and believe its arrogant presumption for us to assume we know everything about eternal sexuality or eternal anything.
What I DO know is the witness of my own heart and of so many others of my gay brethren who say we love the way God made us, we dont ever want it changed either now or in the eternities to come, and that we would reject any change or fix hereafter, because then we wouldnt be ourselves anymore. And despite recent institutional overtures toward niceness (under duress), current LDS theology remains unchanged: flatly, implacably, absolutely opposed to any real acceptance or legitimization of homosexuality in any form. It may be take a slightly more kind & gentle form now in the wake of Prop 8’s PR wreckage, but the principles behind the Church’s position remain untouched and unquestioned.
That is why Evergreen and NorthStar are just Band-Aids. I say forget the palliatives. Deal with the conflict directly, dont just dance around the edges of the symptoms. And the only way to do that is to decide whether an organization that teaches what it has about this topic, and has built the track record it has, can actually be true and right overall, and whether its worth continuing to follow or not.
@Rob #46:
So the problem is the scenario that you described just doesn’t fit my reality. I feel more at peace now than I did when I was with other guys. I guess I don’t know for sure what other people feel, but they say they are happy and they seem to be happy. I’m not saying mine is the only way to do it. I have seen several different paths, both inside the church and out, where the people seem to have made peace. I think it is arrogant to assume that the only paths that lead to peace are outside the church, and it does not reflect the reality we deal with. I cannot foretell the future, but I am very happy right now, and that is what counts.
For those who are decided on following the gospel, there has to be a way to help them find peace. They aren’t just hopeless cases for us to abandon. I am so much more at peace now than I was several years ago. I think a lot of it has to do with opening up. I feel I am being honest with myself. I don’t understand why you don’t think I am being honest with myself. I don’t feel I have had to “give up either honesty or any hope of happiness in this life” because I have both.
I know there are people who are lying, hiding living double lives, white-knuckling it and so forth. I see it a lot. I want to reduce it. I want to help people find peace. I think those of us who are set on living the gospel deserve attention.
I can’t see into your heart, I can only read your words, and I can’t “disprove” them. I have to take your word for it. I also have to say that if they’re true, you are the only person I’ve ever heard of that has done what you say. If you are really not keeping anything back from yourself or your wife or anyone else here, and are being 100% completely honest in your statements, then I’m happy for you and wouldn’t presume to criticize.
The issue, though, is that the overwhelming majority of gay Mormons not only will never but don’t ever want to get to the situation you’re in. Some other resolution has to be found for them. And again, the way the Church has framed things, officially it will be implacably hostile to any ultimate resolution but one that most gay Mormons find impossible. Your goals are laudable. But the Church itself opposes them.
You realize, however, the Church doesn’t accept the notion of a person “making peace” outside the Church. That’s contrary to the concept of the Gospel. You might not say your route (or the route of celibacy) is the only way to do it, but the Church says so, and that really is the point across the spectrum of perspectives on this matter.
You remind me of a passage in In Quiet Desperation where Ty Mansfield says something along the lines of “even love expressed in ways contrary to the Father’s purposes for his children still retains elements of love’s grandeur.” Okay, so a gay Mormon man can see a value in love between two men. So what? The Church considers such relationships to be “abominable sins.” There is a great deal of distance between your position and the position of the Church.
Alan is spot on, and not just because I think he’s saying the same thing I have.
The issue is not whether individuals can or may or should find individuals paths to peace. The point is that the Church as an institution considers only ONE such path legitimate and believes all others lead to eternal damnation (that is, cessation of eternal progression). So while it won’t oppose peoples’ freedoms to find their own ways to “make peace” between the gospel and homosexuality, it must unavoidably oppose all but its own one approved way to do that. So Alan’s right again; to the extent your efforts advocate or support anyone reaching such a resolution that doesn’t conform to what the Church insists is the only acceptable one, you, Peculiar Light, actually are opposing the Church.
The Church is going to teach what it believes in. You really can’t expect it to teach what it doesn’t believe in. I believe in the things the Church teaches. I’m surprised that you think I don’t. I believe, and have experienced, that I am happier living the law of chastity than when I don’t. I am glad I have a place to go that teaches such things. I don’t think the Church forces anyone to do anything. You can leave the church at any time. If I don’t like what the church teaches, then you can go over to some other group where you like what they are teaching. The problem with saying everyone must teach like you think is that people who don’t think like you won’t have a place to go with like-minded people.
Let’s say the Church decided to embrace same-sex relationships. Where would that leave me? I would no longer have a church I can go to that teaches the values of my lifestyle. I have some friends through Exodus who were in the Presbyterian Church, where they are considered allowing same-sex relationships. They found that fewer teachers are willing to teach the values of their lifestyles, much less support them in the lifestyle choices. They are turning to other organizations that are more supportive of them and their choices.
I don’t want the same to happen in the LDS church, and I have faith that it won’t. Having choice entails having options, and having places you can go to support you in your options.
I think a lot of people from gay communities that embrace gay sex are under the misconception that gay people in gay communities that do not embrace gay sex only choose our values and lifestyles because that is what the church teaches. They think if they change the church, they can get us to change our lifestyles. They don’t take into account some gay people in gay communities that don’t embrace gay sex aren’t religious, and so their decision is unrelated to the church. For many of us who are religious, we are in the church precisely because of the values they teach, and if they were to change the values, we wouldn’t be there. I think this is more evident in other Christian churches were movement between denominations is more frequent.
It sounds more like you are saying there is only ONE such path legitimate and you believe all others lead to eternal damnation (that is, cessation of happiness and being honest). It seems the only solution you can offer is to eradicate our support because you feel it would force us over to your side.
Can you think of a solution that would satisfy people who don’t think like you? Forcing others to think like you just isn’t going to work. Gay communities that support gay sex have tried that, and it doesn’t work. There continues to be gay communities that don’t embrace gay sex, no matter how much they speak ill of us.
I imagine you would feel betrayed.
What you’re saying about “fewer teachers are willing to teach the values of their lifestyles” (the Exodus folks at the increasingly pro-gay Presbyterian church)…I do believe that to be a legitimate concern. For example, when the APA stopped considering homosexuality to be a mental illness in the 1970s, there were a lot of gay people who were upset with this, because they had built a life on the concept of themselves being sick. These people were legitimately upset.
Similarly, when a gay person builds a life on the notion of same-sex intimacy as sinful (which you keep coming back to), I can see how there would be legitimate problems in terms of where to feel at home if it seems like everyone around you is saying, “Same-sex intimacy isn’t a sin. You have internalized homophobia.”
But like I’ve said already, the gay rights movement has never said gay people must necessarily be intimate with each other. When you say
the first thing I thought of were gay folks who don’t really care about sex, but might instead care about belonging, love, family, friends, etc. Here you might see how non-Mormon gay and “faithful” Mormon gay interests intersect, without having to concentrate on the “sex” part.
I think I need a little detour about vocabulary again. You have frequently complain that many gay people in gay communities that do not embrace gay sex also do not wish to identify themselves with gay communities. According to you, there are many gay communities.
Do you see how identifying our interests as “anti-gay” and your interests as “pro-gay” serves to alienate our gay communities from your gay communities? You call us anti-gay and then yell at us for not identifying as gay. How can I identify with a gay community if most gay communities label me as anti-gay?
Back to the main point. The APA is different. What the APA does really affects everyone. I don’t think they should take sides. I think they do. I am extremely angered by that fact and hate the APA with a passion. But that is a different story. My point is that the APA is different because it effects everyone. If I disagree with the APA, I can’t just go to a different psychological association for therapy. I don’t have a choice.
The church is different. I want a place that preaches my values. You seem to say that I shouldn’t have that.
I do see where there is intersection. I think for the most part we all care more about belonging, love, family, friends, etc. I’m not sure why so many gay people in gay communities that embrace gay sex are so concerned with who I have sex with. The simple fact that I share with other people that I exclusively have sex with my wife gets me labeled as dangerous. Why do you care about who I have sex with?
If we focus more on what brings us together, rather than what brings us apart, and learn to agree to disagree one who we have sex with in our own private lives, I think we could do a lot to building bridges, forming a more inclusive group of gay communities, and do a lot more towards preventing gay Mormon suicide, since gay Mormons will free to choose whichever gay community they want to belong to without being labeled as “dangerous”.
You’re right that “pro-gay” was probably unhelpful in that instance. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of “pro-gay-families,” since prior to a few decades ago, the hundreds of thousands of gay couples in the country had very few welcoming churches to go to.
I don’t think you’re dangerous. I think people are interested in toppling systems of oppression, such as heterosexism and patriarchy. Sometimes I believe people go overboard in condemning others without taking into consideration the fact that “liberation” is more complex than sweeping resolutions. We all live in different statras with different internal logics. Often these logics overlap, but often they don’t. It’s important to work from the inside-out rather than vice versa. Let me just say that the internal logic of the Church that “every gay person should marry someone of the opposite gender or else be celibate” is dangerous. Since you represent this idea in your actions and affiliation with the Church, I can see how people might think you’re dangerous. But I don’t think it would be correct or helpful to label you as such.
Its interesting to see that all of your comments seem to focus on gay sex. However, I dont believe I ever did so. Thats not my main point anyway. The larger issue is that the church denies the fact, apparent to most others, that all the feelings of attraction and intimacy in a happy, successful heterosexual marriage can also exist in a gay relationship or marriage. This is just fundamentally dishonest and an effort to avoid reality.
As I said before, current Mormon theology denies that this is even possible for gay couples. It is obsessed with sex and nothing else. I think this is both deliberate and unavoidable because if the church took any other course, it would essentially acknowledge that such relationships can be every bit as legitimate and worthy of respect as yours is with your wife. But the church will go to almost any length to avoid that. But eventually it will have to acknowledge this truth.
Personally, I dont care who you have sex with, if youre happy with your wife, thats great. And I have no problems with gay groups that advocate chastity either. I think thats everyones individual choice. But in a sense, those groups are even more dangerous to the churchs stance. Because they prove that being gay is about far more than just sex. Its an attraction of the heart and soul and spirit, just as much as the body. Yet the church likes to pretend that its all about sex. Its not. Because if the church agreed that it was about all this other stuff too, itd have to really confront and consider the possibility that theres nothing to fix, that the gay doesnt go away after death, and maybe God really did intend to make us this way and Hes not going to change it now or ever.
You know who would really have cause to be pissed off then? Everyone who stayed in a mixed-orientation marriage because the church said just hold on for this life and youll get all the blessings afterward. What if both spouses found out later that they didnt have to do that after all? That they both would have been just fine if theyd gone and found their own Mr. Rights? That all the white-knuckling and the heartaches and lack of fulfillment were unnecessary? Most gay Mormons who vote with their feet do so because even the possibility of that being true is more fulfilling than staying behind and going along with what for them is total pretense. If you are the exception, then Im sincerely happy for you. But again, you are a microscopic minority. Most of the rest of us recognize that current Mormon theology and culture is hostile territory, because it denies us not only intimacy but legitimacy. Its not just about sex, its about respect and equality too.
Rob, actually, I would disagree with this analysis. Perhaps on the membership level many folks still think homosexuality is just about sex, but I think the Church’s leadership has acknowledged [implicitly] that homosexuality is about more than sex. And I think their response to this “troubling fact” was the Proclamation on the Family that essentialized gender roles.
Interesting theory. You are giving them more credit than I would. I think the Proclamation is exactly what Pres. Hinckley said it was, a reiteration of Church doctrine on the points it covers. There’s nothing new there but the packaging and the popular veneration for it which I think represents collective thirst for new revelation that the Church otherwise seems to have lacked for lo these many decades.
I’m not persuaded that LDS leaders recognize what I’ve described above about the depth and range of gay attraction. I think the Proclamation is a defensive strike intended to persuade the rank & file that _only_ heterosexual feelings and relationships are normal or approved by God. And that anything else is a counterfeit. It’s not because they recognize that “alternatives” may actually be legitimate, it’s because they fear the world and some of the membership are falling for the fakes.
This is a very interesting statement in light of this other discussion going on here at the same time.
Sure, you can find a place that preaches your values, but you can’t necessarily expect that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will (always) preach your values. Some people in the other discussion wanted the CoJCoL-dS to be a church that teaches values they agree with — or at least allows a little room to voice dissent. And when they couldn’t find a place for themselves and their values in the CoJCoL-dS, they left. So you think you should get a comfortable, warm spot in a CoJCoL-dS that validates your values, but those other folks shouldn’t?
Keep in mind that the brethren reserve the right to change policy without notice. A lot of people who had been preaching in the late 70’s that a certain (supposedly moral) issue couldn’t ever change ended up feeling betrayed (and some left) in 1978. I’m not saying the church necessarily will one day preach that same-sex unions are OK (thereby taking away your warm place of values-validation), but it might. It’s theoretically possible that the CoJCoL-dS won’t budge on this issue in your lifetime, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.
Rob@58:
This is where I’d say you’re giving them more credit than I would 🙂 There’s the politically mobilizing language in the Proclamation, which coincides with the litigation in Hawaii and the establishment of DOMA. If we think about this in terms of the gay-feminist-intellectual witchhunt a few years earlier, I’d consider the Proclamation to be an offensive strike.
Certainly, there’s the counterfeit aspect, the idea that gay couples aren’t “truly” happy, or at least are experiencing a “worldly” allusion of happiness. But this isn’t the same as saying church leaders think gayness is all about sex (other than Packer).
The other thing I’d say is related to what chanson is saying @59 in terms of the ordination of black men. Plenty of church leaders who were privately for black ordination couldn’t be public about it for reasons of correlation. I suspect the same will be true on this issue (if it isn’t already)… we might look to the leaders who refuse to maintain that gayness is “repaired” in Heaven, which became the schtick after “cure.”
Actually, I have one more question about this quote:
Would you be comfortable with a group that teaches that MOMs (like yours) can be happy and fulfilling for some people — hence shouldn’t be treated as inferior to matched-orientation-marriages — but that same-sex unions can also be as happy, fulfilling, loving, committed, holy, etc., as opposite-sex unions? Or — in order for the church to “preach your values” — do you require the church to preach that same-sex unions are nothing more than carnal lust, hence inferior to opposite-sex unions?
@Alan #60:
Defensive and offensive at the same time, I suppose.
From a big picture perspective, though, what’s ultimately dispositive for me is the decades of Keystone Kops style formulation of policy and doctrine in a church claiming to be guided by continuous revelation. I used to be able to accept some fluctuations in this regard, allowing for individual human foibles. But I’ve now studied enough, learned enough, seen enough history that I’ve passed the tipping point.
I can no longer accept that God, the source of truth (which is always consistent with itself) would lead any organization along a path filled with such gyrations, switchbacks, fluctuations and inconsistencies. Having reached that conclusion, lots of the other debates and issues become purely academic for me. Unless they lead the church to try imposing itself on others’ lives where it has no business doing so (e.g. Prop 8), or it continues to teach and do things that harm others’ lives (e.g. perpetuate shame and fear and staying in the closet and depression and even risk of suicide). Then I will object openly and fight back against such un-Christian behavior.
So my understanding is that church leaders teach against sex outside of that between a husband and a wife. I haven’t really heard them talk about gay people in general. It is usually about people having gay sex or about people who find their same-sex attractions to be a struggle. I don’t see where you are saying that they say being gay is just about sex or that same-sex couples aren’t happy because I don’t see them talking about gay people in general.
I am really trying to wrap my brain around the concept that Elder Packer doesn’t believe homosexual temptation is a sin, doesn’t believe homosexual orientation doesn’t exist, and that those who have it are bad people. I don’t get it.
The fact that we have a special term for it when it is between two people of the same gender versus when it is between a coworker doesn’t seem to make a difference.
It seems that whenever someone talks about gay sex, people interpret it to mean they are talking about gay people, and then say that they reduce gay people to gay sex. It seems circular reasoning.
APL — I take it you’re responding to Rob…?
Since you’re back, can you answer my question @61? Would it be sufficient for the church to preach that mixed-orientation-marriages can be a good choice for some people? Or — in order for the church to “preach your values” — would you need the church to also teach that two men in a happy, loving. monogamous marriage are committing a grave sin?
A temptation is not a sin. If it were, everyone would be sinning by default of being in the world, including Jesus who you mentioned was “perfect.”
Perhaps you mean “homosexual lust.” Packer does believe homosexual lust is a sin. But he also thinks all homosexual attraction qualifies as lust. Church leaders who wrote later on the subject don’t say this because the Church came to recognize it is unfair to demean people for things outside their control, such as basic attractions. If you insist that aspects of desire are voluntary, you’re gonna have to admit that some aspects aren’t.
Church leaders seldom use the word “orientation.”
Kimball, in The Miracle of Forgiveness, wrote: “Many have been misinformed that they are powerless in the matter, not responsible for the tendency, and that God made them that way. . . . Does the pervert think God to be that way?” (85). Here, Kimball is talking about the “tendency to be attracted to the same gender” (or a possible “orientation”). He is not talking about the “tendency to have gay sex.” If you don’t believe me, I can pull out a direct interpretation by Oaks on Kimball’s meaning. Kimball thought the “tendency” could be cured. Packer thought the “tendency” could be cured. Therefore, both Kimball and Packer thought a homosexual orientation didn’t exist.
Church leaders today don’t think an “orientation” is particularly meaningful, since all sex and attraction is supposed to be oriented to a marriage with the “opposite” gender. Many Mormon therapists work with an assumption that a heterosexual orientation to one’s spouse is the only “real” orientation.
I thought it was established that Packer doesn’t think a homosexual orientation exists. Therefore he wouldn’t have an opinion on people who “have” it. He could have an opinion on people who think they have a homosexual orientation, and that opinion would be that they are “weak” or “misinformed.” Not “bad.”
According to Lance Wickman (2006 interview with Oaks), because society is so “saturated with sexuality,” people have trouble “looking beyond their gender orientation to other aspects of who they are.” This to me says that he thinks “being gay” is about sex (and/or sexual attraction) minus the “good, holy” stuff.
With that said, I don’t think Church leaders believe people in same-sex relationships are just in it for the sex. I believe they think love and happiness exist in these relationships, because I suspect many church leaders have family members in same-sex relationships and they see the love and happiness.
But they can’t touch same-sex couples as happy, because they’ve already decided that same-sex intimacy is fake or ephemeral happiness. They do this even when they see real happiness and aren’t positive about the afterlife in terms of what happens to “alternative” families. They suggest that “same-gender attraction will be repaired in the afterlife,” but then they won’t say, “same-sex couples will be separated in the afterlife.” Interesting. Basically, they will say anything to convince people in mixed-orientation marriages that everything will be dandy in Heaven, but then they can’t even make sense of what’s happening on Earth.
@65
I was trying to answer your question. It seemed your question supposed that our leaders teach that same-sex relationships aren’t loving, or automatically inferior to opposite-sex relationships, which I haven’t heard. I also know that we don’t believe those who are ignorant of God’s commandments are committing sin, so I would say that most same-sex couples aren’t committing a grave sin. Your question assumes things that I don’t believe are true, hence it is hard to answer.
I think society should welcome all values as long as those values don’t directly and unreasonably hurt other people. I don’t think that is religion’s role. I want a religion that welcomes everyone, but beyond values that don’t directly hurt other people, I also want it to teach values that I think will help everyone be better people. Chastity is one of those values. I will never belong to a church that encourages same-sex relationships. My values are that sex is only to be between a husband and a wife.
Outside of church, I think that basic human courtesy is to respect other people’s values and beliefs that don’t match up with yours. I don’t see that from the majority of gay communities that identify as gay.
OK, well, here’s my perspective as a happily married person:
I feel that marriage can and should be a source of joy and emotional sustenance for both partners.
When I see people claiming that marriage needs to be defended out of duty to God or for the good of society, I find that very sad. Maybe marriage is good for society, but it doesn’t need to be “defended” by people who need that sort of external motivation in order for their marriages to be worth the bother. Marriage is its own reward.
I support marriage equality not only out of general fairness, but also because I think marriage can be a joy. I see no reason to limit that joy to people who are [superficially] like myself. Many people find that they can’t connect emotionally/romantically with a person of one gender they way they can connect emotionally/romantically with a person of the other gender. C’est la vie. If your wife is your soul-mate and you are happy together, why begrudge others the same happiness of marrying their own soul-mates?
Re: “sex is only to be between a husband and a wife”: Which is more important for a happy, stable, successful marriage? That their hearts and souls match up, or that their plumbing matches up (according to some cultural standard of normalcy)?
Describing something as a “sin” — AKA “don’t do it” — qualifies as it as being deemed “inferior.” There’s an essential disrespect there.
@66 Alan
Let me start by saying that I am learning a lot from this conversation. I am starting to better see how other people are seeing things. While it is more clear, there are still some cloudy parts. As I write this, I sound argumentative, and I apologize, but I really am just trying to wrap my brain around this. I am sorry if this sounds like I don’t respect your interpretation. I do. I just don’t understand it.
I do think lust is a sin, even if it is with your opposite-sex spouse, but I don’t understand why you think that he thinks all homosexual attraction qualifies as lust. What do you think he was talking about when he was talking about homosexual temptation? He definitely believes there are people who are tempted, but do not give in. That is what I am having a hard time grasping. Does that mean there are people who are attracted to the opposite sex and have no attractions for the same sex at all, but are tempted with the idea that it might be cool to be attracted to the same sex? That doesn’t seem plausible.
He once gave a talk which likened thoughts to actors on a stage. He said we didn’t have control when an actor comes on, but we should get them off. Elder Holland recently gave another example, that we can’t control if temptation comes knocking at the door, but we shouldn’t invite them in for tea. It seems to me to be saying that the sin is in dwelling on thoughts, encouraging attractions, arousing emotions, but not on simply having them.
Elder Oaks has talked about the difference between evil acts and evil thoughts. Notice he doesn’t condemn all homosexual thoughts, just lustful ones.
He did a direct comparison between homosexual lusts and heterosexual lusts. If you argue that he believes all homosexual thoughts are evil, you would have to likewise argue that he believes all heterosexual thoughts are evil, which is absurd.
Our leaders have limited their discussion to avoiding gay sex in thought and deed. I don’t see any reason to assume that they are talking about anything else.
I would like to see that. I might broaden it from tendency to have gay sex to tendency to lust after gay sex. That is what I meant to say when I was talking about never having gay sex but yet having a tendency to have gay sex. I meant to say I wanted it really badly but have since been “cured” of that desire. A discussion on the definition of lust might be helpful.
Maybe a good question is what you think “being gay” is. Take out the thoughts, actions, and desires, and what distinguishes a gay person from a straight person. It seems to me to say that there is so much more to a person than who they are attracted to.
I don’t see this either. Why don’t you think they make sense of what is on the earth. What makes you think people in MoM are just holding on until heaven? It seems they say don’t get married until you are attracted, specifically because they are concerned about what happens here on Earth. If they only cared about everything being dandy in heaven, they wouldn’t push marriage in this life at all because everyone who didn’t have a chance here on earth will have one in heaven.
You keep coming back to this “gay sex” thing, over and over. You keep reducing same-sex relationships to “sex” as if actual people are absent from the “sin,” just as Rob said church leaders do.
If two guys court each other, they aren’t just “lusting after gay sex,” just like when a LDS guy and girl court, they aren’t just “lusting after straight sex” (presumably). So even if you wanted gay sex “really badly” and “cured” yourself of this desire, don’t act like this framing applies to anyone other than yourself and those who have been convinced that the most relevant aspect of homosexuality is the sex (whatever that means).
Both Kimball and Packer thought the “condition” of homosexuality could be cured. By “condition,” as they wrote about it in the 1960s and 70s, they are not referring to “the tendency to have gay sex” or “to lust after gay sex.” The tendency for them was the condition of “having attractions to the same sex.”
Oaks, in this 1984 memo (pp4-5), writes:
You can see here that Oaks’ interpretation of Kimball is that he is “obviously referring to the condition of sexual attraction to persons of the same sex,” a condition Kimball thought could be “cured.” Oaks later states what you quote above, that “condemnations directed at the condition of homosexuality are condemnations of persons who are sinners in thought,” but this is a change from saying that the condition can be “cured” altogether, which Kimball and Packer were saying in the 1960s and 70s.
The title of Packer’s “To the One” indicates that he thought homosexuality affected a minority: 1 in 100. However, this does not negate the fact that he also thought that it could be cured entirely, and that the person who couldn’t make the thoughts go away entirely simply wasn’t trying hard enough, or wasn’t smart enough, or well organized enough.
You already said somewhere above that you believe Kimball was ignorant in terms of “cure.” I find no evidence that Packer was not basically restating Kimball’s position when he was writing a decade later.
You can think of “cure” now to mean “a cure from a desire to have gay sex.” But to overlay this definition onto Kimball or Packer’s meaning would be historical revisionism.
Indeed. Which is why it’s ridiculous that the Church is so focused on who people are attracted to. It’s sad that if two guys fall for each other in the LDS world that it can’t just be taken for what it is.
I didn’t say that MOMers are just “holding on.” I said that church leaders want to convince them that things will be dandy in Heaven, that the “problem” will disappear.
Because if we live in a world where hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people are in same-sex relationships and are forming families and cultures and interconnections, then it seems more than a little silly to express to a “struggling” Evergreen audience that “same-gender attraction will be repaired in Heaven.”
It didn’t seem like a change. It didn’t seem like he was contradicting it or saying it used to be this way and now it was that way. He quoted Kimball and said it applied to evil thoughts. He didn’t say it used to be all thoughts but now applies only to evil thoughts. You agree that homosexual temptation was never considered a sin, but I am still fuzzy what you think that means. You can’t use one internal document to trump several general conference talks. That is what the law of two or three witnesses is all about.
Courting sounds like they are purposely entertaining thoughts, encouraging attractions, and arousing emotions, which I think we agree that the church considers a sin. A married man sneaking off with his secretary may very well have non-sexual elements to it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a sin. I agree same-sex relationships aren’t just lusting after gay sex, but take out the sexual elements. What do you have? Just two guys who are good friends. If things progress then they might even become roommates. Is that a sin? Of course not. The sin is the sex. We aren’t saying being gay is a sin because it is all about gay sex. We are saying gay sex is a sin. That part about being gay that isn’t gay sex isn’t a sin.
Put back in some elements of sexuality, but not sex. Put in romance and holding hands and kissing. Have our leaders ever taught about that specifically? Not that I am aware of. I know I would have a hard time doing that with a guy without arousing sexual feelings and starting to lust after gay sex, so it would be a sin for me because it would induce lust, but not for necessarily for other people. If some other guy can do all that without lusting after gay sex I’d say more power to him. I think most Mormons would condemn him, and I disagree with that. I would imagine many of our church leaders would teach against it, but they haven’t, and you can’t blame them for something they haven’t done. They taught against gay sex. They never said being gay is just about gay sex. They have likewise taught against straight sex outside of marriage, but they never taught being straight is just about sex.
That is the thing. There is no difference between how the church sees a straight married man’s relationship to other women and a gay man’s relationship to other men, yet you never complain that the leaders think being straight is just about having sex.
I don’t know what that means either. I am trying to figure that out. I don’t want to have gay sex. I haven’t ranked that among other aspects of homosexuality for relevancy. Other aspects of my homosexuality I have embraced. I have found a great community among other gay Mormons, for example. I think that is very important. But I think you agree with the need for a community where you fit in, so we don’t discuss it very much. Our main conflict is about the gay sex and the same-sex attraction, so that is what we talk about. That doesn’t mean that is the most important part of my gay identity, nor that my gay identity is the most important part of my identity.
And why shouldn’t they be? If they are dandy here, will they cease to be dandy in heaven?
While I see why might think they don’t make sense of what is on earth, I think this particular argument is lame. Are there not millions of people who are orphaned, handicapped, or otherwise have a condition that is repaired in heaven that are likewise forming families and cultures and interconnections? Does that belief mean I think deaf people are inferior? No, but the deaf community is not going to exist in the afterlife.
Oh come on, Peculiar Light. Really? REALLY?
The two gay guys who were pushed to the ground, handcuffed and hauled away by Church Security just because one gave the other a peck on the cheek on Temple Square? Dallin Oaks telling all gay Mormon guys to avoid gay friends, dress, situations, music, basically do everything possible to avoid anything gay? BYU prohibiting as “advocacy of homosexuality” ANY expression of homosexual affection, even something as innocent as holding hands? What do you think would happen if two guys kissed each other on the lips inside an LDS temple? No sex, so you think that should be okay, right? Really? I honestly can’t believe you believe what you wrote here.
This more than anything persuades me that you are at most bisexual, not really gay. Because if you were really gay, you wouldn’t say this. You would intuitively know that a gay guy loves his husband/partner with every type and depth of feeling a straight guy does his wife: physical, emotional, spiritual. He resonates with and is drawn to the guy he loves in every possible way, is inspired, comforted, energized, and made joyful by him. FAR beyond “just good friends.”
I don’t think church security speak for the prophet. BYU doesn’t speak for the prophet. For example, at BYU you can’t have a beard, but Mormon.org prominently features many members with a beard. Go to the University of Utah’s institute program and see how many of them think BYU speaks for the church. I bet you can get an earful of how BYU doesn’t represent the church. Elder Oaks said nothing of the sort. I have heard him talk about people who make inappropriate displays of their sexual feelings, but I think that is wise counsel regardless of the orientation of those feelings.
And can’t two friends have a physical, emotional, and spiritual bond? Can’t they be inspired, comforted, energized, and made joyful by each other? I’m pretty sure that our leaders haven’t taught that two guys can’t form a physical, emotional, and spiritual bond. Look at David and Jonathan. That was a very deep relationship between two guys, yet it wasn’t sexual. (unless you are one of those people that assume every deep relationship is sexual.)
Don’t mix culture with religion. If it happened in a Latin American temple, I don’t think people would care. If the kiss were completely asexual, I don’t see a problem with it. Culturally, two men kissing is considered sexual in America. I think that is a problem with American culture.
From the official Church publication “God Loveth His Children”:
“It is not helpful to flaunt homosexual tendencies or make them the subject of unnecessary observation or discussion. It is better to choose as friends those who do not publicly display their homosexual feelings.”
In other words, don’t talk about anything gay more than minimally necessary. And don’t hang around with anybody who shows any signs of being gay either. If an official Church pamphlet says that, how tolerant do you think the Church would be of two guys or two women actually hand-holding, or kissing, or flaunting the back-rubbing you constantly see between young marrieds in Sacrament Meeting? If you think anything like that in an LDS venue would go unrebuked (even if only privately) then you haven’t seen the Church I have.
And as to the bond between two guys, you’ve just confirmed my belief. You’re either hiding from yourself, or you really were never as gay as you thought. I suspect the latter. Because nobody who has ever experienced the kind of love I’m talking about (and I have) would EVER explain it away as friendship.
The two men on Temple Square were in a relationship, so “non-sexual same-sex friendships where two guys sometimes kiss, hold hands, or romance each other” is not relevant to what Rob was talking about.
He is talking about how a policy of “homosexuality as sin” is directly related to policing people’s bodies, whether you’re at Temple Square, BYU, or sitting in a pew with Dallin Oaks at the pulpit.
For example, if my partner and I were to go to an LDS meetinghouse in America (not Latin America), holding hands, people would assume we’re gay rebels and many wouldn’t want us there. I could say, “We’re just holding hands. Is that a sin?” If we keep doing this “not sinful” stuff — “inappropriately displaying our sexual feelings,” even though we’re not doing anything sexual — people are going to get more and more uncomfortable, thinking we’re influencing their children and whatnot. We’ll be made to feel unwelcome. Our bodies will be policed to leave the space, just like what happened at Temple Square.
So, basically, what is happening here is that straight, uncomfortable people are getting to decide what qualifies as “sexual” behavior. The gay couple holding hands is “acting sexual” (which isn’t allowed), while the straight couple holding hands is non-sexual.
You might not realize it, but the exact same oversexualization is happening in your own language with your constant referencing of “gay sex,” where a simple kiss with the “wrong” thoughts is something terribly egregious.
The “straight married man” is already in a relationship. The “gay man” is not. I fail to see how there’s “no difference” between the two.
Basically, what I get from your logic is that “gay sex” is when there’s more than one person involved plus (x) type of feelings. Homosexuality in the Church must be contained to individuals because “sex” can only be in the husband/wife dyad. But again, what is “sex”? “Certain thoughts” qualify as “lusting for gay sex,” while “these other thoughts over here” are “just friendship.” The point is that the Church does indeed treat heterosexuality and homosexuality differently, because it distinguishes between the two, and actively attacks one by trying to sequester it into an infinitesimal space, an aberration that disappears in the afterlife. The other is given the huge, celebrated space of “marriage” that is everlasting. How can you even begin to suggest the Church treats the two the same?
If a same-sex couple is together their whole lives, to suggest that their attraction to each other will be “repaired” in the afterlife (because their relationship is “broken” in some way) is highly offensive. This is what I meant about considering people inferior.
So much anti-gay-marriage rhetoric is about the central importance of being able to biologically reproduce with your spouse (which LDS doctrine extends to the afterlife). It absolutely reduces straight marriage to being not much more than sex — and is no compliment to straight marriage.
And (as Alan points out), sex between two men (or two women) in a committed, loving relationship is a whole lot more like a straight person having sex with his/her spouse than it is like a straight person cheating on his/her spouse.
[Aside: so you’ve compared homosexuality to adultery and to a handicap — have you remembered to compare it to alcoholism yet, so we can have the whole set…? I feel like we’ve had this discussion here on MSP before…]
That is NOT what it says. If you keep imagining additional injury, I can see why you are so upset.
I don’t care what a security guard did. He does not speak for the church.
Sorry if you find my religious beliefs highly offensive. There are other people who find my belief that drinking green tea is a sin highly offensive. I find many of your beliefs highly offensive, but I learn to respect your beliefs. I don’t expect you to change them, just because I find them highly offensive. What do you do if you find someone else’s religious beliefs offensive? Keep it to yourself.
The Mormon Church in Latin America was as much of the Mormon church as it is in America. That goes back to American culture, which I have never been much of a fan of. I think men should be more intimate, like they are in India. American culture does assume if men are intimate, such as holding hands, they are having gay sex, which is a bad assumption. If you and your partner are not sexual with each other, I don’t see a problem. Even if you were sexual with each other, I think you should be considered sinners to be loved and welcomed.
I believe all of us are sinners. I have my sins. I don’t think your sins are worse than my sins. Any amount of sin keeps us from heaven. That is why we need Christ. The fact that sin is universal puts us at an equal playing field.
Says who?
I didn’t say it was the same. I said sexual relationships outside of marriage were the same regardless of gender. I limited my comments to sexual relationships and you expanded it to be about homosexuality. That is not my fault.
I started off by saying the only sexual relationships should be between a man and a woman. You keep assuming that excludes homosexuality. I’m not sure why. Many gay people have made successful marriages.
Because man + woman = hetero. Not homo.
Including gay people married to their same-sex spouses. But then you don’t think these are actual “marriages,” do you?
Actually, no. Your freedom of belief does not equal freedom of action over others. If your beliefs are offensive to me and affect me, I have a right to protest them rather than suffer them. It’s the same logic as the Church protesting the movement in society toward same-sex marriage. The Church has a right to protest it. But it shouldn’t expect that its “religious beliefs” are suddenly off-limits. That would be like me saying that the Church doesn’t have a right to protest same-sex marriage because of my “religious belief” that gay people should have a right to marry a same-sex partner. That wouldn’t make any sense.
I thought we were talking about sexual orientation. If man + woman = hetero, then homosexuality is 100% changeable. You can’t switch context on me. Is homosexuality defined by a sex act or sexual orientation?
I didn’t say it did. I separated belief and actions. I haven’t even talked about the church’s actions. I am talking about my ability to worship with people of shared values. Has the church protested your belief systems? No. We firmly believe all men can believe what they want. Are we going to change our definitions to accommodate your beliefs? No. That is something different. We don’t protest your beliefs like you protest ours.
Well, I guess passing Prop 8 wasn’t really a “protest” per se, but you’re splitting hairs here to the point of being disingenuous.
Prop 8 was about what was on the books. It makes sense to protest both sides of that, since that effects everyone. Prop 8 did not control anyone’s beliefs. I really don’t want to get into a debate of Prop 8 here. As you know, not all Mormons supported prop 8.
I brought up Prop 8 because you suggested that your “religious beliefs” are untouchable in this conversation. Yet if we’re talking about welfare and happiness in the world, then one’s beliefs about what leads to welfare and happiness in the world have to be open to questioning. If you don’t want your beliefs questioned, then don’t participate in a public discussion.
Homosexuality is defined by its relationship to heterosexuality. Kinda like how “black” is defined by its relationship to “white” (both as colors and as races.) They were born in relationship to one another — and frankly, their contrast at birth was a degradation of one over the other (“the homosexual as mentally ill”). People in the degraded category took it and reshaped it, from “invert,” “pervert,” to “gay” and “queer.” The Church pedestals hetero and degrades homo under a false impression that body parts are what define a complementarity of souls for all people. The world proves this to be a farcical belief, and by “farce,” I mean you have to come up with a bunch of other beliefs to support it, such as the belief that homosexual attraction disappears in Heaven.
You seriously have to indoctrinate a queer child to think he or she is lesser the way he or she was born to “orient” the child to choose differently than they would ordinarily choose had he or she not been indoctrinated. By this, I mean, if you take 100 queer kids, and 70 of them go with the same gender and 25 go with the opposite gender (5 stay single), I’m not saying those 25 are “indoctrinated” — I’m saying that the idea that the 70 shouldn’t be with the same gender is indoctrination and is homophobic.
I feel like you have this belief that if you can educate people in the Church to be cognizant of people with the “struggle” of same-gender attraction, that homophobia can eventually disappear. You fail to see how homophobia is about seeing same-sex relationships as lesser than opposite-sex ones.
There is a difference between questioning my beliefs and respecting them. I question your beliefs too. I believe your lifestyle and your propaganda is dangerous. I believe it ends up recruiting people to live a lifestyle that is against the law of chastity and will eventually end up in misery. I don’t believe any of that prevents you from going into heaven. I believe my beliefs are pro-gay people. That is what I believe.
However, I respect the fact that you don’t believe that, and is one of the reasons I don’t think it prevents you from going into heaven. I respect the fact that you believe that my beliefs are inaccurate. I don’t feel like you respect my beliefs. But that is beside the point. I came here to better understand where you are coming from and I am accomplishing my goal. It seems you have some interpretations of what our leaders say that I haven’t considered before. I don’t agree with the interpretations, but I see where you are coming from. Do you see where I am coming from? I do believe that understanding and communication will help prevent gay suicides, which is what my main concern is all about. I think the argument and lack of respect from both sides contribute to the feelings of being torn, which contributes to suicide. If we could learn to respect them no matter what they decide, I think there will be less suicide.
The way you use homo and hetero, it makes it sound like you think homo is just about sex. I honestly don’t understand how you accuse me of making being gay just about sex. The church does not pedestal hetero nor does it degrade homo. Both gay and straight people alike are equal before God. It pedestals opposite sex marriage, and within the religion degrades other opposite-sex and same-sex relationships. It does not degrade homo.
This is false. I never was indoctrinated that I was lesser. I don’t think I am lesser in any respect than straight people.
Again, you are the one making it about sex. I think homophobia is more about the people themselves, regardless of who they have sex with.
I have followed, more or less, this string of comments. I have run out of patience and, against my better judgment, am driven to make a comment.
The foregoing statement by APL is both the most coherent as well as the plainest statement that he has made that reveals what he truly believes. It also reveals the ridiculousness of his “position.” How he can assert that his beliefs are “pro-gay people” is utterly beyond me unless he is implying some sort of patronizing religious arrogance.
Ultimately, what bothers me the most is APL’s bizarre hijacking of the word “gay.” I will not comment on whether he is truly gay, as he self-identifies. But what is obvious is that he is trying to use the word “gay” in a sense that is totally contrary to what 99.9% of the world considers the plain meaning of the word to be.
APL, please just go back to using the terms the Church prefers: call yourself SGA or SSA, but please stop using the term “gay” in such bizarre ways, arguing back and forth about sex, sex, sex. YOU are the one “making it about sex.” Your comments about the “law of chastity” make this abundantly clear, as if your multitudinous comments about sex don’t. Just please give it a rest.
I frankly have found your constant assertions about “understanding”, etc., extremely disingenuous. You have frankly come across at times as deliberately obtuse. It is obvious that you are engaged in this “discussion” in a sense of Ballard-esque missionary zeal, believing that you can go forth, Don Quixote-like, and bring the world your ‘truth.’
Alan and Rob, I admire your patience. Like I said earlier, I’ve run out.
Weren’t you just upset a bit ago about being called “dangerous?” And now you’re going to hurl the same word at me?
If you think I’m still going to [possibly] go to Heaven, then how can you be sure I’ll be “miserable?” Is Heaven a miserable place?
Weren’t you just upset a bit ago about people saying your marriage will end in misery?
I can’t respect the idea that gayness is “cured” in Heaven. It would be akin to me respecting the idea that black people will be “lightened” in Heaven. Not all beliefs are worthy of respect. All people are worthy of respect. But not all beliefs.
Let me ask you this. Why does the Church pedestal opposite sex-marriage?
I’m not just talking about you. In my equation, you were one of the “25,” and I specifically stated that the source of the indoctrination did not lie in the choices of those 25, but in the degradation of the choices of the 70.
It’s not my fault that when you read the phrase “same-sex relationship,” you seem to read the word “sex” more than you read the word “relationship.”
You are 100% right. I am wrong. I do want to understand, but I let my emotions get the best of me. I apologize. I will readjust. Feel free to point out when I do it again. I am a very emotional person and sometimes I let my emotions get away from me. I am sorry. I should take more time to think before I respond.
That is probably a good way to put it. I respect you. I think I respect your beliefs too. I might be confused on what that means, but okay, we will go with the need to respect other people regardless of their beliefs.
I think I am starting to understand this a bit better. It seems that you think a huge part of being gay is about whom you can have fulfilling relationships with. I also see the need to have relationships with guys in order to be fulfilled. To me, I don’t think it needs to be romantic or sexual to be fulfilling.
The problem is that I guess we assume that same-sex relationships are romantic or sexual. Technically, a father and son relationship is a same-sex relationships, because both are male, though it usually isn’t romantic or sexual. As you know, a father/son relationship is a relationship that can be sealed in the temple.
So when you complain that I read sex into same-sex relationship, does that mean that when you are talking about same-sex relationships, that you aren’t talking about sexual relationships at all? Or are you upset that I am more concerned with the sex part than the relationship part? The church teaches against sexual relationships outside of marriage, but not against platonic relationships outside of marriage. I think the relationship part is great. I could certainly use a few more same-sex relationships myself.
Anyway, I see homophobia about the people, rather than the relationships they choose to participate in.
Alan, you are a paragon of restraint. I admire your ability to respond rationally, directly, yet politely to a DANGEROUS zealot whose mission is to preach self-hate and loathing to young gay men who are teetering on the edge of life and are seeking only to understand and learn to accept who and what they are.
APL’s unhealthy pre-occupation with homo-sex acts while vociferously exclaiming otherwise, makes me think, “APL, thou protestest too much.” His inability to discuss issues from an objective position concern me. It is obvious this boy is in way over his head and is actually struggling to stay above water. Based on my experience with young men like him, APL is a train wreck waiting to happen.
APL, I honestly ask you to please seek therapy before it is too late. I would hate to see you do harm to yourself as much as I hate seeing you do harm to others. My heart goes out to you, young man.
I think a person can “cheat” on their spouse by engaging in a platonic relationship, and by “cheat,” I mean, make the spouse feel like they’re in second place. The only difference I see between a “very strong platonic relationship” (which is supposedly not sinful by church standards), and a “platonic + sexual relationship” is a given set of cultural ideas, like what a person does with their genitals or whatever.
Personally, I think the boundary between “homosocial” and “homosexual” is blurry. Not all gay men will agree with me on this. I’ve had straight male friends who get really affectionate when they’re drunk (or sad), so that the difference between “homosocial” and “homosexual” is often contextual. We’re much better off using Kinsey’s scale of 0 to 6.
A lot of gay couples will sometimes have sexual relationships outside the relationship (or have a threesome), but then if “very strong platonic love” gets in the way, then that is cheating. Or, alternatively, platonic love is fine, as long as it doesn’t “get sexual.” The point is, people think differently about the relationship between sex, love, their bodies, and so on, and these things get worked out on an individual basis. The Church doesn’t have a monopoly on how these things are interpreted.
When I say you keep talking about “gay sex,” it seems like you’re very strongly asserting a particular set of boundaries that you’ve worked out for yourself to be comfortable and “chaste.” And so you keep forcing the conversation into those boundaries when I clearly don’t think about homosexuality the way you do.
You mentioned Jonathan and David. I read them as a “gay couple.” I know they wouldn’t have called themselves that, but I don’t think it is unreasonable to believe that they slept in the same bed together and “made love” by cuddling, kissing, or whatever. Is this “platonic” or is it “sexual?” Did they engage in “sodomy?” Who knows. They were a couple….a “same-sex relationship.” I don’t think it’s “ugly” to view them this way. In fact, I’m happy the Bible includes gay love (or to believe it does), because if it didn’t, then I wouldn’t trust it.
There were a lot of Mormon therapists in the 1980s who argued that the problem of homosexuality is that it is “inappropriate bonding with members of the same sex.” It is a “heterosexual friendship that goes too far.” Their idea of therapy was to get gay men to play sports with each other and do other stereotypically masculine things. To “massage” each other on the boundary between “platonic” and “sexual,” so that they could better control their “impulses.” (I’m pretty sure this ridiculousness still happens today; I remember seeing an ABC report).
Anyhow, this is heterosexism. And it’s pretty stupid on its premise, because of what I said above about how “sexual” and “platonic” is relative. Basically, the premise these therapists held is that these men “weren’t really gay” and that they needed to learn to “act like men.” Unlike Invictus @ 85, I actually see you as having some sense in saying, “I’m gay.” You recognize this about yourself, whatever it means.
But the truth of the matter is, the Church doesn’t want you to call yourself gay — it wants you to concentrate on being a “son of God,” who in Heaven will be “repaired.” This gay thing will go away, the Church says. If you want to talk about homosexuality in the Church, then it ultimately needs to be about how to better concentrate on being a “son of God.” Personally, I think you are eating up the heterosexism just as much as those men playing sports to be “masculine” did. Just a different manifestation of it, where a gay man can be “gay,” just as long as he doesn’t think his soul is.
Okay, I’ve done a little detective work on you. I see that you were at Journey into Manhood (that thing I was just saying was “pretty stupid” to make men “masculine”…oops.) I read your life story here.
Anyone interested in MoMs, I would suggest reading his story. Chanson, you might like this line: “I think there are some women out there that just need a gay guy, and my wife is one of them.”
Or this one of him quoting his wife:
Lol.
(Actually, the whole book looks great…released a few months ago. It’s a collection of gay Mormon profiles, many of whom are women.)
So….the other people on this thread are saying I’m “patient.” Perhaps that’s because I don’t find you to be a threat. I once had a Mormon boyfriend who acted like our intimacy was “intoxicating,” but then he couldn’t commit due to a “loss of peace” (words you use). I wrote a novel about our relationship — which you might be interested in (my website also has a comparison of my novel to Langford’s No Going Back)… sooo, my point is, I have a place in my heart for people like you. “Son of God, who walks and talks a little effeminate, but is in charge of himself”… heh, describes my ex exactly.
Although, my patience also probably comes from the fact that I see the Church as “losing the battle.” Maintaining a belief that everyone’s soul is straight in the afterlife in the face of the right to happiness of same-sex couples and families here on Earth… well, concreteness tends to win over abstraction. I’m not sure what I can do for you in terms of helping you figure things out. Are you seriously most interested in “stopping suicides?” It’s a noble goal, but my reading of you if that you’re still trying to figure things out for yourself.
@ APL #87:
Aha. OK APL, thanks to Alan I now know who you are. Ive seen your stuff before. And now everything falls into place. So I too will share some conclusions Ive drawn from your own writings.
You are not gay. You are at best bisexual, and on the Kinsey scale you are sufficiently hetero to make a straight marriage work (so far). I accept as true all your statements about your relationship with your wife, and they confirm this conclusion.
In addition, one of the most revealing things in this whole conversation is your apparent failure to comprehend the emotional and spiritual depth of a committed gay relationship or marriage. It doesnt even seem to have occurred to you that this could match or even exceed those aspects of a straight marriage. This also tells me you are at best bisexual. Otherwise, you would have understood this intuitively and nobody would have had to tell you about it.
Because being gay is ultimately NOT about sex. Its about who you are attracted to in every respect, not just erotically. Who your soul most deeply resonates with, right down to the deepest, most visceral gut level. The level where you feel a connection, a love, a completion that goes right through you and satisfies you to the ultimate degree. The level where you could look God in the eye and say without hesitation or reservation that being sealed to a woman for eternity would NOT be heaven for you but something else entirely, and you can only be happy with another one of His sons. Sounds like you could or would never say that. Sex is only one facet, one expression of that depth of conviction. So if you think its purely the sexual attraction that constitutes being gay or not, then youve got things backward.
I note that youve spent time with Jeffrey Robinson. If you think he was able to help you stick closer to the task youve chosen, and it works for you, then thats fine. Ive talked to a number of guys whove been through his therapy and they say things quite different. I did my own analysis of the therapy he describes in his writings, if you care to read it: http://scrumcentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/danger-jeff-robinson.html. You say that you lost your sense of peace when pursuing gay sex but found it within marriage to your wife. Well, I and lots of others pursued that sense of peace for years in marriages to women but never found it until the marriages were over and we were free to pursue a relationshipNOT just sexwith another guy. I accept that your experience is different. But I also firmly believe it disqualifies you from being able to call yourself gay.
If you also acknowledge that your and my experiences are different, and we legitimately find peace on different paths, then you must also concede that this is the crucial problem with the one size fits all insistent LDS approach to this whole issue. Because despite your earlier statement, the church DOES put straight marital relationships on a pedestal and it advocates the eventual abolition of all other models, at least as a qualification for exaltation, which is the only result the church seems interested in. Its another facet of the all or nothing approach the church seems to inculcate, e.g. Pres. Hinckleys statement that its either all true or its the biggest fraud ever. LDS theology has painted the church into a corner on this and allows it no alternative.
And that just doesnt make sense to me or to countless others whose experience is that people and life are far more complex than that. Such a straitjacketed model for heaven just doesnt line up with the reality we see all around us. For God to shut someone out of all possible blessings simply because of who their heart cant help loving seems remarkably cruel, and certainly not characteristic of a God I think would be worthy of worship. You may say thats why LDS theology contemplates the three degrees of glory, but to me thats not good enough. Why should someone be excluded from every possible blessing just because of who their heart and soul tells them they love? If God is love, and a guy finds the greatest happiness and fulfillment in life loving another guy, and is just as faithful to that other guy as a straight man is to a woman, how is it fair to say it doesnt matter, you still cant get in to the top tier?
Sorry, doesnt wash with me anymore. And this is why I think LDS theology is incomplete (as the 9th Article of Faith confirms). And why should I or anyone else put our lives on hold and sacrifice all hope of happiness just because those who claim to be Gods mouthpieces seem to resist even thinking about asking God for further instructions? Nope, not gonna do that anymore. Dallin Oaks said his responsibility is to teach general principles, and if someone thinks an exception applies to them, then they work that out with God themselves, directly. If ever there were a good reason to do just that, this is it.
I don’t think it’s necessary to draw this conclusion. To me APL is putting on a “good performance of heterosexuality” and the “performance” is what is more important to him than the “orientation.” Whether he’s “gay,” “bisexual,” or “straight” is less relevant to him than the performance.
Here’s an interesting quote from a couple Mormon therapists, of the Journey into Manhood variety:
So, regardless of what his body says, he believes, “My body is less important than my soul. My soul is attracted to my spouse of the opposite gender.” This is why I don’t think it’s necessarily helpful to place a label on him, since he’s pretty deep into this sense of performance. And an actor on a stage often loses a sense of what’s real and what isn’t. And if all the world’s a stage, then well…who’s to say what’s what?
The best thing he can do, in my opinion, is learn to get out of his own head and not judge others for the ways they refuse to perform like he is, because they don’t believe that every soul is straight. He might investigate the Church’s ideas about “gender” and see how they compare to outside views of gender. My opinion is that the Church’s obsession with gender dualism will be its weakness in the 21st century, and the reason “gay people” are supposedly “dangerous” is because their very existence as happy and well-adjusted and accepted makes the Mormon obsession obvious. Gosh, it was so much easier and clearer when American society considered those homosexuals sick and deviant.
@89
I think you are onto something. I think I force the conversation into those boundaries because that is what I know. I am starting to see that you don’t think about homosexuality the way you do, much more so than I originally thought. I came here to learn how you think, and I realized I have some preconceived notions that aren’t necessarily true.
Let me see if I understand. The church draws a clear line between actions, thoughts and desires that are acceptable and those that are not. You seem to think that the line is arbitrary, and doesn’t really reflect reality. While you agree it may fit for some gay people, there are many for whom it does not fit. These sharp distinctions about appropriate and inappropriate sexuality interfere with other desires, such as companionship, love and other attributes that have nothing to do with gay sex. Picking that one part of same-sex relationships to fixate on makes it seem that is all we think same-sex relationships are about.
It almost seems that it is more of a difference in how we see rules and regulations. I have a good friend who I supported in her marriage to her girlfriend. She grew up in the church, but left it. However, she still maintains many of her ideas of sexuality. She has similar bounds of what is appropriate and what is not, but just applies them to her wife instead of to a guy. I have heard other gay people who don’t have sex before committing as much as the law permits. On the flip side, I have seen straight people who seem to have a version of sexuality more similar to what you are describing, where they don’t place arbitrary boundaries that makes sex the focal point.
I do see this as a conflict of ideologies on sex, much more so than gay and straight.
Am I understanding you correctly? The idea that you think Mormons think being gay is just about sex is something that had been confusing me, but I think you cleared it up.
That’s a decent summary. I don’t think LDS rules and beliefs on sex and gender are arbitrary, though. I think they exist to maintain a particular structure to the culture — men here do this, women there do that — which is arbitrary.
Great. The thing is that there are lots of same-sex couples in various states and countries who are every bit as legally married as you and your wife are. So by your definition, they’re not sinning.
So, all we need to do is work to expand marriage equality to all countries, and every couple who wants to marry will have that right — problem solved.
I also agree that it’s not necessary to question APL’s self-identification as “gay” or to armchair-psychoanalyze him as caring more about performance than about his feelings. If he says his feelings for his wife are as profound and emotionally intimate as any happily-married couple’s emotional bond, then I’ll take him at his word.
However, APL, the problem isn’t simply that it’s upsetting or inconvenient to feel attraction to other people in addition to your spouse. A huge part of the problem (in many MOMs) is that people often find they are unable to build an emotionally-intimate soul-mate-type relationship. And so both partners are trapped in a constant state of emptiness and longing.
If that’s not your situation, then you must understand that your situation is simply not applicable to many gay people. I’m sure they will be happy for you in your happy marriage if you would show them the same courtesy and be happy for them in their happy (same-sex) marriages. That’s how I feel about families that are different than mine.
I am happy for happy same-sex marriages. I also agree that my situation is not applicable to many gay people.
The problem is I feel that since my situation is not applicable to other situations, people want to invalidate my experiences, or get upset when I share them. I am not trying to force my situation onto others. I just want to help bring awareness about people in my situation and help others in my situation feel less alone. I know many people in MOMs do feel very isolated, and that doesn’t help.
That is why I think it is important we all respect other people’s lifestyle choices, even if we don’t agree with the genitalia of the person they are having sex with. I do think the respect should go both ways. I just don’t feel it from the other side.
OK, sounds good. I’m not going to second-guess people who report that they are happy with their personal life choices.
One last question:
Suppose a young Mormon man says to you: “I know I can fall in love with men, but I don’t know if I can fall in love with women. I feel like I love my girlfriend, but I’m not in love with her (the way I’ve felt for some guys). My family says to propose anyway because through the years of raising a family together in the church, we’ll grow to love each other.” He wants to do the right thing, but isn’t sure what the right thing is in his case. What do you tell him?
p.s. to Rob — I agree with what you’re saying @91. The reason I suggested @96 not to second-guess his self-identification is simply on the principle of respecting people’s self-identification.
However, the point is this:
If APL has that sort of connection with his wife — whether it’s because he’s bisexual or for whatever reason (orientation isn’t 100% understood, after all) — then his situation is very different from that of the average gay person. [It’s also very different from the experience of the average straight person, for that matter. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be able to auto-suggest myself into falling in love with a woman, but, hey, maybe other straight women could. That doesn’t mean I should feel pressured to try it out…] Hence, he shouldn’t be holding up his marriage as evidence that gay men can (and should) build happy families with straight women (if that’s what he’s doing).
I would strongly discourage him from proposing. Depending on how close I was with him, I would even talk to his family to try to get them to stop encouraging him to marry someone he doesn’t love. If he isn’t sure whether he could love a woman, I would suggest that he find out before marriage.
In all things, I think he should pray about it. It seems like he is doing things to please his family, were (I think) he should be more worried about what God thinks. I was under a lot of pressure NOT to get married, but I did it any way because I don’t think it is a good idea to do things to please other people.
And most definitely he should be honest with his potential spouse. Depending on how close I am with the potential spouse, I might even talk to her about it if I feel she is being mislead.
I am definitely not saying anyone should get married to anyone, gay or straight. I think marriage is highly personal decision, to be made prayerfully. However, can is a different question. I guess part of it depends on how you define “gay” men. Alan pointed out earlier that we have a different understanding of homosexuality. The fact is this conversation has got me totally lost. You guys argue back and forth about whether I am gay or bisexual or something else, but if I don’t even know what those terms mean I can’t really begin to define myself for you guys. I also know that I have a very different interpretation of homosexuality than most people in Evergreen and North Star. (I do think the “detective work” in 90-92 about my beliefs is amusing, but inaccurate.)
If I understand you correctly, you don’t think I am gay, but that I was bisexual all along, and I just needed the right woman to come around and unlock my innate bisexuality. If that is the case, there seems to be a lot of bisexual men running around who think they are gay. Through Evergreen and North Star, I met a lot of men who totally thought they were gay but developed a deep love (including but not limited to a sexual love) for their spouse. Many people say I am an exception, but I don’t think I am that much of an anomaly.
Anyway, if I understand your definition correctly, I would say I am trying to do three things. First, let married bisexual Mormons know that they are not alone, and there are others like them. Second, let single bisexual Mormons who think they are gay but want to get married, that it might be a possibility if they are actually bisexual, but it should be done correctly and that first they need to find a right person to unlock their innate bisexuality, and it should only be done if they want to and not if their family wants to. Third, to let other people be aware that sexuality shouldn’t be confined to the boxes they like to put on them, and that people who they think are gay may actually be bisexuals who haven’t found someone to unlock their bisexual potential.
I would still encourage my friend to pursue the relationship if they want to, especially since not being sure whether they could fall in love with a woman might be an indication of innate bisexuality. It took me while before I was sexually attracted to my wife, so the same might be true for him. But definitely find out before getting married.
I think. Your definitions are confusing, but I am trying to fit my experiences into your vocabulary, which isn’t very straight-forward, especially since I am not convinced that sexuality is as static as you seem to make it out to be.
I didn’t say his feelings to his wife weren’t real. I just said he didn’t care so much about orientation — he might describe himself as “oriented to his spouse.” I tend to think all identity categories are performed, as there isn’t any essentialness behind any of them. Besides, if the phenomenon of straight men performing homosexuality (which the only context I can think of is gay-for-pay pornography) were equal to the phenomenon of gay men performing heterosexuality (which exists in every single conservative culture), then I’d be less tempted to “psychoanalyze” and point out the ways he’s performing for people other than himself.
I believe in the concept that people “fall in love with a person, not a gender.” But given APL’s life story, in which when it has been suggested to him that he can also be with a man, and his answer has been “I want to be in line with the Gospel of Jesus Christ” — well, that means he doesn’t believe he’s allowed to “fall in love with a person, not a gender,” since the Gospel he’s talking about includes “eternal gender.” So, it isn’t just “love to his wife” that’s driving him, but also a kind of performance of his culture.
As a case in point @100, he interpreted your question, as “to marry a woman or not to marry a woman.” He would never tell the guy, “Well, geez, if you know you can fall in love with men, then why don’t you try dating a man.” As much as he might advocate that his marriage proves that people fall in love with people and not genders (that people can “unlock their potential bisexuality with the right person”), he only lets the philosophy go one direction.
Alan @101 — I was just teasing you about the armchair psychoanalysis thing. 😉
I keep feeling like maybe I ought to just butt the hell out of this discussion (since I have no personal experience with MOMs). But I’m very much in favor of marriage. I think it’s like having kids: the rewards are more than worth the effort — if it’s what you want and you’re ready for it — but it’s also a huge responsibility that people shouldn’t be pressured into if they’re not ready (or simply don’t want to do it). Perhaps this perspective is tangential to the discussion at hand…?
I don’t have any personal experience with a MoM either. :p
A huge element of this indeed is D&C 132: 1617 (the wait-’til-your-ready, but-sooner-is-better-than-later doctrine).
Well, we have already established we view homosexuality differently. Certainly, you don’t expect your view to be the only view. I act and talk according to my view and you act and talk according to your view. It would be hypocritical for me to live my life one way, but tell someone asking what I think is right to live another way.
What would you do? Would you extol the virtues of my way of thinking, or your way of thinking? What if there is a guy who thinks he is gay, but hasn’t had much luck with men. If he is open to it, would you suggest that he might actually be bisexual, and to start trying it out with women?
I try to live best I can. If I thought your way of thinking was better, I wouldn’t be on this path. You can’t expect me to encourage people to do something I wouldn’t be willing to do myself. Now, he decides that he should just go with guys, I would wish him all the happiness in the world. It is his decision and I wish him the best.
But if he asks my opinion, I am going to give my opinion and not your opinion.
What do you mean “if he’s open to it”? If a guy thinks he is gay, then I would not suggest he start trying it out with a woman. If a guy thinks he is bisexual, then I might suggest that. I wouldn’t just assume the guy is “possibly bisexual” just because he’s had no luck with men and is looking for advice. That would be like telling a straight man who wants a girlfriend but has had no luck, “Hey, why don’t you try dating me? You might like it.” I would never feed him the possibility that he’s just looking at the wrong gender.
Bisexuals tend to be gender-indiscriminate. They are not “gay + my opposite gender spouse.” Your situation is a result of Mormon heterosexism, in which you discriminate based on gender to the extreme, and that affects your sexual choices rather than your own inherent sexuality. If situations like yours were due to “bisexuality,” then there’d be more people in the world who are “straight + my same-sex spouse.” Have you ever met a man who defines himself as “straight” but just happens to be married to a man? (And I’m not talking about “straight-acting” gay men.) Very likely not, because there is not huge social pressure put upon people to not be with the opposite gender.
If I detect that the gay guy who is wondering if he can pull off bisexuality has a nagging feeling that homosexuality is sinful or holds stereotypes about gay men or believes that only women can complement men — and that’s his “secret” reason for why he wants to try it out with a woman — then I will pounce on his internalized homophobia like a cat on a mouse. Internalized homophobia is a greater source of unhappiness than singleness, IMO.
If you have time, let me know what you think about this Tyra episode (there are 5 parts, about 45 mins altogether). It features young men who don’t like being gay, or don’t know how to be “gay” (had stereotypes/fears about gays), a gay man and a straight woman who are “happily” married, and so on.
This is the frustrating part. According to Chanson, if you have the potential to be attracted to someone of either gender, you are bisexual. Hence, someone who has only been attracted to someone of the same sex, but then falls in love and is attracted to a single person of the opposite sex, has really been bisexual the whole time, and others who haven’t found the right one might really be bisexual.
You have a different interpretation, which actually follows my original thinking, that gay + my opposite gender spouse” is still gay. Do I favor your vocabulary or Chanson’s when talking in general terms?
The part of “only women can complement men” does a good job of describing my reasoning, though I didn’t make it a “secret” that I believed that. I don’t think it is internalized homophobia, and it hasn’t proven to be a source of unhappiness for me.
There are people who don’t do it that way. I do know many that are motivated out of thinking they are less of a person if they aren’t in a heterosexual relationship, or that it will fix them, or they don’t like being gay, and so on. I think that is dangerous and a source of unhappiness, but believing men and women complement each other I don’t think is a source of unhappiness.
So this is where I am getting to. We each have our own view of the world. I’m not trying to change your view of the world, but trying to figure out what to do with people who see things differently. You think my view of the world is “internalized homophobia”. Likewise, I think your way is wrong. Where does that leave people who are trying to decide for themselves? Should we both “pounce on them like a cat on a mouse” if they don’t think like we do? Do we pounce on each other at every opportunity? Do we try to silence opposing views that don’t fit in our view of the world?
I feel pounced on by many people who identify as gay, and I don’t like it. You say you don’t, and I am imagining things, but fully admit that you will pounce given the opportunity.
If I understand you correctly, you’re suggesting that every gay man is compatible with at least one woman out there — to help them manifest their “inner bisexual.”
I think it’s more likely that a belief that only women complement men would lead a person to think this way.
If you take anyone in a same-sex relationship who says they are happy at their word (and I think deep down, you can’t do this — I take your suggestion of my eventual “misery” @84 as evidence), then the truth, for the species taken as a whole, seems to lean toward “people complement people.”
The belief that only women complement men sits on top of this reality, haphazardly at best. To integrate it with reality, you have to include other beliefs, such as gayness being repaired in Heaven. Forty years ago in the Church, the belief was “gayness is fully curable.”
Pouncing on homophobia is not the same as pouncing on a person. This goes back to “respecting a belief” versus “respecting a person.”
If you can demonstrate that, in reality, only women complement men, then I’ll be willing to take that belief and the ensuing homophobia and heterosexism that stems from it, more seriously. For now, I’m going to call it for what it is. A belief is not impervious to critique, especially if it does damage in the world. Just because you don’t feel it’s not a “source of unhappiness” or homophobia in your life doesn’t mean it’s not a source of unhappiness and discrimination.
Why do you think people leave the Church over this issue? Because they’re “selfish” or “idolatrous” (to use Packer-esque language)? Because they aren’t in touch with their “inner bisexual”? Could it perhaps be because the Church’s views about gender don’t have the efficacy the Church thinks they do? I find it strange how you’re unwilling to consider this, and would rather blame gay people or Satan for making “sin” seem somehow okay.
As an aside, my understanding of sin comes from Mary 4:25-27 (yes, Mary has a gospel, but a bunch of men removed it, annoyed at Jesus’s closeness to her):
The inner bisexual stuff was my attempt to understand Chanson, not my beliefs.
Why does complement equal happiness? By your hypothesis, single people can’t be happy since they lack a complement. I think there are a lot of same-sex couples who are truly happy, but I don’t see why that poses a problem to my belief that women are the complement of men.
Forty years ago in the Church, the belief was gayness is fully curable.
You and I have a very different interpretation on this.
Since single people can be happy, why does the Church insist everyone get married to be happy? That’s a good question.
The point is, when people do complement each other for the purposes of happiness, it isn’t just the male-female set up.
It sounds like what you’re saying is that “complementing” isn’t for happiness; it’s for duty. Why don’t Mormons just arrange their children’s marriages, then, if happiness isn’t really in the picture?
I didn’t say you’d necessarily unlocked your inner bisexual. I’ll explain a little more clearly what I mean. Have a look at Rob’s description of a relationship @91 (which I quoted @99). For the purpose of this discussion, I will call such a relationship a “soul-mate-type relationship” (others prefer the term “pair-bonded”).
Not every marriage is of soul-mate type, and people vary in terms of how much they need/desire to be in a soul-mate type relationship in order to be happy. For example, many studies show that single women are happier than married women on average, and there are people who choose to live their whole adult lives with a sibling or parent or other family member or with a platonic friend. Many marriages are not of soul-mate type, and that doesn’t mean that they’re necessarily unhappy (though sometimes they are profoundly unhappy if one or both partners long for a more emotionally-fulfilling relationship).
Some would say that the definition of “gay” is to be able to form soul-mate type relationships exclusively with members of your own gender, that “straight” (by definition) is to only be able to form such relationships with people of the opposite gender, and a person who can form such relationships with members of either gender is “bisexual”. By that definition (and assuming that your description of your personal life is accurate), you would be considered bisexual. Another possibility is that your relationship with your wife is not what you think/claim it is. However, different people use different definitions, and I’d prefer not to quibble over semantics. Additionally — even though you’ve chosen to put your personal life out there as a (politically-charged) example — I don’t like to be making guesses and speculations about intimate aspects of your personal and emotional life.
A lot of people change their minds at some point in their lives about what their orientation is. Some will look back on their lives and say “actually I was X all along, I just didn’t realize it when I was younger.” Others perhaps even change orientation during their lifetime. However, I think the current consensus is that most people don’t (and shouldn’t be expected to) change orientation.
With that as background, my main point is the importance of avoiding the “If I can do it, then anyone can!” fallacy.
If you feel that you are/were gay but you “unlocked your inner bisexual”, that doesn’t mean that every gay guy has an “inner bisexual” to unlock (or even wants to). Just because some people can be happy in a mixed-orientation (or other non-soul-mate-type marriage) doesn’t mean that everyone could potentially be happy in one.
This fallacy isn’t just confined to questions about orientation and marriage. Here’s an example from my own life of someone else making the assumption that anyone can discipline a two-year-old if they do it right (with the corresponding assumption that parents with unruly two-year-olds must be too lazy/stupid/incompetent to do it right).
@110 Alan:
I can agree with that, for the purpose of happiness, but happiness isn’t everything.
I think part of the problem is that people take what the other side is saying to the extreme. I would say complementing isn’t just for happiness, it is also for duty, as well as a great many other things. It isn’t one or the other. I get a great deal of fulfillment out of fulfilling my duty. Why do you assume because duty is part of the equation, that happiness is out of the picture?
We see things differently. I don’t see the law of chastity as stiffling sexuality, but enhancing it. To me, the commandments are the road to happiness. I realize that wasn’t your experience, and I respect that, but realize that is the experience of other people. I think we both project our own experiences on other people.
What can I do to drive this point home more clearly? I have repeated time and time again that I never thought everyone can do what I am doing or that they should or anything like that. I have said some can, which is different than everyone should, whether they unlocked their innate bisexuality, or were some of the few that changed or what have you. I think what happened to me was a miracle, just like when Jesus healed the blind man. Because I believe Jesus healed the blind man does that mean I think everyone who is blind is unfaithful because Jesus didn’t heal them? No, it is a miracle that we can celebrate without putting others down.
It seems that many LGBT people are so sensitive to the idea of people telling them they should be with someone of the opposite sex, that they quickly turn on their own if they step out of line and actually have a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. Does my mere existence threaten you in some way? Do I have to stay in the closet for fear that someone might interpret my story as an example of what people should do?
My idea of equality would be that all lifestyles would be acceptable, even mine and yours. That no one has to hide in the closet for fear of people who feel threatened by their existence. I hate the closet, and no one should be forced inside, even if their existence is political.
I just want to existence and be accepted. I don’t want to hide or lie anymore. I’m sick of it. I’m not accepted in the Mormon community and I’m not accepted in the gay community.
I just want to be me. I am Mormon and I am gay or bi or SSA or something like that.
Also, regarding this advice (@100):
Two things:
1. I agree that marriage is not something to be entered into lightly because of social pressure, however prayer is not a necessary component of a successful marriage. Atheists get married too — and, indeed, have a lower divorce rate than religious people.
2. Your advice especially reminds me of MoHoHawaii’s teen marriage analogy:
(Needless to say, I agree with MoHoHawaii on this one, as well as with Alan’s suggestion that the guy might consider dating men.)
@113 OK, but it appears that you are actively affiliated with some websites and organizations that tell young LDS gay people that they can change their orientation and/or should try to enter into mixed-orientation marriages.
Do I have a choice? It’s not like there are any organizations out there without dirty laundry. Do you want me to be completely isolated? These organizations accept me, which is all I really am looking for. Perhaps if the gay community started being more accepting I wouldn’t be forced to find a place in the fringes. Towards the beginning of this conversation, I cited this quote from a recent Report of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation:
So maybe SOCE has some problems. I am looking for a refuge, and that is what I find with these organizations.
There are lots of other gay Mormons in those organizations who aren’t big fans of everything they say, but are in it because they don’t know where else to turn.
For example, you could join an organization for bisexuals. They would completely relate to your experience of marrying a person of one gender while still feeling some attraction to people of the other gender.
APL @ 112, 113:
And why do you assume that everything I say is about your marriage? Are you suggesting that for all gay men married to women, it could be both “happy” and “dutiful?” If not, if you’re only talking about your own marriage, then I fail to see why my question is “to the extreme.”
Aren’t most people sensitive to being told who they should be with? History is littered with stories of people not wanting to marry those their families or communities think they should marry. It’s not other gay people’s fault that you don’t mind being told who you should be with.
People are interconnected. You’ve already said that your opinion is that a man shouldn’t be with a man, and that if a gay man came to you asking for relationship advice that you would refrain from speaking about the possibility of him being with a man. So yeah, a lot of gay people find that kind of thing threatening, and since it comes from a gay man himself, even more so.
So, your idea of equality would be that “homosexual lifestyles” would be acceptable to the Church? Just so you know, “equality” isn’t just about secular spaces.
I’ve already told you that I don’t consider you a threat. But I consider the principles/beliefs under which you operate to be threatening, because cultures like the Church perpetuate them in society without any real evidence.
Anytime I try to move the discussion to a questioning of your beliefs, you go spastic about me attacking your choices or your personhood or your existence. Do you not think the idea of “gayness being repaired in Heaven” is questionable or amendable?
Some other faiths have decided that God actually doesn’t mind gay stuff since He created same-sex desire. What kind of desire do you think God created? Do you think He only created heterosexual desire, and that Satan creates same-sex temptation? I’m trying to understand what you actually believe on the subject in order to debate you for the purposes of mutual understanding, rather than “attack” you.
I don’t think you understand me. Of course people should be sensitive when other people tell them who they can or cannot marry. What I am saying is that they are so sensitive, that they are jumping at shadows. I say I am married to a woman, and they think I am telling them that they should be married to a woman. They get defensive and say I shouldn’t be telling them what to do, and try to silence me and push me back into the closet. They hypocritically tell me who I should be marrying, all the while convinced that I am the one telling them who they should marry. They cry wolf when there is no wolf.
See, you totally have this backwards. I married who I wanted to be with, and are upset when gay people tell me I shouldn’t be with my wife.
I think church should accept everyone for who they are, but I see one of the purposes of church is for people to rally around one moral standard. Society shouldn’t expect one moral standard. If one church wants to not wear red on alternate Thursday, I should join the church and complain they are discriminating against me because I want to wear red every Thursday. However, I think they should keep their practice in their own church and not prohibit other people from wearing red. You can’t say a church shouldn’t teach any morals, or it should only teach the morals you agree with. That doesn’t make sense.
Wait. In the scenario the guy was asking me about marrying a girl. Are you saying that by refraining from advising someone to do something that he didn’t ask my opinion on and that I wouldn’t do myself is threatening to a lot of gay people? Yeah, I call that jumping at shadows.
I think it is questionable, but you move from questioning my beliefs to attacking my motives. You accuse me of telling other people what to do just because I have a different belief than they do. I think sometimes you expect me to act against my beliefs, like telling someone to do something I don’t believe in. It is almost like the very fact that I believe differently than you do is oppressive, which just isn’t fair. I can support people in choice I don’t believe in without advising them to do it.
I believe there is opposition in all things. I’m not sure how that opposition got there, but I think opposition is one of the central purposes to coming to earth. We need it to grow. Different people have different weaknesses. God gives us weaknesses (or allows them to happen) to humble us, so we will turn to him.
Almost everyone is sexually tempted to do something. Lust is rampant in society, and expresses itself through pornography usage, cheating and other manifestations. Both gay and straight people have a problem with pornography and cheating. The gender doesn’t really matter. It isn’t that heterosexual is good and homosexual is bad. I think both need to be conquered so that we can learn to act and not be acted upon. I think that is the purpose. Sometimes, it seems like you think I think that all heterosexual desire is good or desirable. That isn’t the case. I am glad I am gay.
Beliefs have consequences. They don’t just exist in your head. Beliefs are linked to motive, because we are driven to act by them. If a person believes all homosexual intimacy is sinful, but some heterosexual intimacy is holy, then that person is going to treat same-sex couples differently than opposite sex couples. You might say, “No, I treat them the same! Everyone’s a sinner.” But you are not the world. I’m talking about institutions — namely the Church and the State.
We all live in the same world. Church leaders tell Mormons to not be shy about their beliefs so that Mormons can affect others in the world. There’s no reason why non-Mormons shouldn’t be allowed to do the same to the Church. People who critique the Church aren’t doing so because they want to be part of the Church. It’s because non-Mormons share the same spaces with Mormons.
I’ve read how the ex-gay movement considers the opposite of “gay” to be “holy” and not “straight.” Unfortunately this little wordplay does little to actually overturn heterosexism. It’s like how Mormon men say things like, “Women are our better halves.” They say this because there’s an actual difference of power between men and women in Mormon culture, and rather than focus on fixing it, they degrade themselves or talk about women’s roles as extremely special.
I see something similar happening in your logic. According to you, we should forget about how the Church treats homosexuality and heterosexuality differently, because everyone is a sinner. Gay people should just “naturally” have to struggle in a heterosexist culture.
What if I believe ultimate frisbee is better than football? I fully support my friends who play football, go to there games, congratulate them and so forth, but deep down I really think ultimate frisbee is better. In my spare time I play frisbee. If people find out I play frisbee and ask me for some pointers, and I fail to encourage them to play football, is that threatening to football players?
Am I not allowed to have my own point of view on which activities I prefer? I prefer not to have gay sex. That is my preference. It doesn’t matter why, I just do. I don’t force my beliefs on others. I congratulate my friends who get married to someone of the same sex, and put their announcements on my fridge, and in all other ways try to support them. But you are right, there are times when my belief drives me to action. I respond accordingly. You have your beliefs too, and you act accordingly.
I think we all gravitate towards people who think like us, so in a way, any thought could be considered discriminatory, because we use it to discriminate who we gravitate towards. This mind police stuff seem oppressive in and of itself. I don’t think like you. I couldn’t if I tried.
Let me see if I get this right. My marriage is problematic, not because of who I have sex with, but because it reflects a belief system that will invariably lead to treating people with a different belief system differently, particularly when the belief system is incorporated into an institution like the church.
Where does tolerance come into play? When should a person be tolerant of people who disagree with them, versus challenging those who think differently? Should I work against your lifestyle, because it reflects a belief that causes you to treat me differently?
For some reason, you keep assuming everything I say is about your marriage and your sex life, when I’ve said very little about your marriage and your sex life, and have focused almost exclusively on a bigger picture. Can you explain why you keep doing this?
It seems that your position is “If you’re Mormon, these are the morals.” I was under the impression that LDS morality isn’t just for Mormons, but is understood as what is best for humankind, since your God is my God, so to speak. If it’s just for Mormons, then what’s the whole missionary endeavor about? At what point should a Mormon downplay the Third Article of Faith in order to make room for the Eleventh? When they want to attend their friends’ same-sex wedding?
Personally, if I had friends whose marriage announcements were on my fridge, and there was no possibility that they could be wed in the church I attended, because my church considered their relationship to be an “abomination,” then I would see this as a conundrum. I perceive you as doing rhetorical acrobatics to make this (and related) conundrums supposedly nonexistent. But then I guess a “mind police officer” would notice that. =p
Maybe this a question of a differing view for absolute versus relative morals. I do believe in a series of absolute morals, though I don’t think I have to sacrifice the 11th in favor of the 3rd. I can be a missionary without forcing people to the waters of baptism. I can preach my message, and those who like can join, while those who don’t remain just as deserving of my love and friendship.
Aren’t you being a missionary for relative morals, preaching the evils of absolute morals? You say preaching a right and wrong means there is a wrong, which means people doing that wrong are inferior. I don’t believe that. That would negate the role of the Savior.
I think that is something I am having a hard time getting my head around. You are being very absolute with your relative morals, even more than I am with my absolute morals. I teach, but without expectation for change. It seems you are upset if we don’t change.
D&C 82:22
You know what, I do things that are abominable according to the scriptures. I am a sinner and fall short of the glory of God. Christ did for me and my sins, so that if I believe in him and obey him I can be saved. The scriptures tell me not to judge. I don’t think I have to judge. I do what I know is right, and share what is right with others, but I don’t make it a practice to judge others. I must admit I am not perfect in that respect, which proves my need for a Savior, but I try. Even my conversation on here has demonstrated that I fall woefully short.
Why does having an absolute moral code necessitate that I judge people? I don’t view same-sex couples as inferior. I believe many people in same-sex relationships will make it into heaven. So why not support them the best way I know how?
Joseph Smith once said:
“If I esteem mankind to be in error, shall I bear them down? No, I will lift them up and in their own way too, If I cannot persuade them my way is better; and I will not seek to compel any man to believe as I do, only by the force of reasoning, for truth will cut its own way.”
I need to lift up people in same-sex relationships “and in their own way too”. I don’t think that means I need to boycott their happy celebrations of marriage.
I think that the term “relative morals” is generally a pejorative. That is, the only context I’ve ever heard it used is when religious people are criticizing the non-religious (or the less fundamentalist). (Alan, correct me if I’m wrong on that.)
I think many people here would instead say that one’s ethics should be based on the consequences of one’s actions. That is, you analyze the possible effects of your actions, an you use that information to decide which actions are right/good/ethical and which actions are wrong/bad/unethical.
I didn’t mean to use it as a pejorative. It sounded like the concept that Alan wanted to express, and has been expressed about absolutes stiffling sexual expression. Alan talked about how I think that my morals are morals for everyone. That sounds like absolute moralism. Do you think differently? If so, what would you call it if not relative moralism. If not, why point it out?
So I do think that I analyze the possible effects of my actions, and use that information to decide which are right and which are wrong. I just happen to incorporate praying about it in my decision making, but even praying about comes down to what makes me feel at peace. There have been a lot of comments about “you dont mind being told who you should be with.” It seems you think I base my opinions on what other people think, not what I think. I’ve said before I am this way because I feel peace this way, and I don’t feel peace the other way. When it boils down to it, that is all I care about.
So what happens when two people look at a situation and come to different conclusions, like Alan and I have done? Does that mean we HAVE to judge each other because we didn’t come to the same conclusion? I don’t think so. I think I can come to the conclusion that the law of chastity is a good principle, without judging those who don’t agree. Christ taught principles and taught against judging. Likewise, I think that you can come to the conclusion that the law of chastity isn’t a good principle, without judging those who think it is.
It seems Alan is saying any diversity of thought is bad because that leads people to come to a conclusion that other people don’t come to which will lead them to treat them differently. It seems the solution is to adopt his thought process, which will make it so everyone will treat everyone the same, since we all think alike. Anything else would be a conundrum.
Saying that homosexual intimacy is okay is not equivalent to moral relativism. I happen to believe that there is a transpersonal morality; it just doesn’t include the idea that heterosexual marriage is a requirement for salvation or the idea that only women complement men. Those beliefs strike me as absolutist and hurtful to maintain.
This whole thing about “not judging people” is really beside the point. From my perspective, recognizing “sin” as “sin” qualifies as “judging.” If Mormons didn’t “judge” people in same-sex relationships, then same-sex relationships would be welcome in the Church. The whole “I don’t judge you” phenomenon is just a moral absolutist’s way of coping with a pluralist world; plenty of moral absolutists simply ostracize those that don’t “choose the right” (or more appropriate, “choose their right”). The fact that some Mormons invite their gay friends over for dinner just shows how different people have learned to share the same spaces in 21st century America; it doesn’t point to any kind of “non-judgmentalness.”
So you’re irritated that I’m not treating you like an individual? Actually, if I weren’t treating you like an individual, I wouldn’t push you to question beliefs that seem to not relate to reality. There is a phenomenon of Mormons who think same-sex attraction is “repaired” in Heaven. Mormons believe in gender dyadic marriage as the route to salvation. Are you not part of these groups?
Just because I didn’t say “Let’s agree to disagree” @ comment 3 or comment 45 as others have, and been done with it, and instead have chosen to engage with you further does not mean that I think a diversity of thought is bad. In fact, it proves the opposite. But because of my moral principles (rather than my relativism), I’m not just going to say, “Oh, it’s fine that the Church considers same-sex intimacy an abomination, because a diversity of thought is good.”
Which probably explains why you always make the topic about your marriage and your sex life.
So I guess I am having problems seeing the difference between transpersonal morality and absolutist morality.
It still sounds like you are saying that if you have morals, you are judging others.
No, I think sexuality is totally different in Heaven to the extent that the lines we draw here will be unrecognizable in Heaven. I actually don’t think sexual attraction will exist much at all.
It seems like you are saying that having an absolute opinion on morality leads to judging. Is it not bad to judge?
The former is grounded in reality on Earth and is based on a debated sense of what Heaven or nirvana or a utopia is like. The latter requires conformity to a fiat based on beliefs of what Heaven or nirvana or a utopia is like, debate not allowed.
I can see why a gay man married to a woman would believe this. What does your wife think about the matter?
Think of a judge in a courtroom. The judge evaluates whether the person broke the law or not. Is this a bad process, or a necessary one? I’d say it’s necessary. You can’t just let murderers roam free in society.
The problem here isn’t the act of judging. The problem is a broken law, which leads people to judge wrongly.
How do you determine whether or not the law is broken? Doesn’t it just come down to a difference of opinion? I think my opinion is based on reality on Earth, which includes the reality of a Supreme Being. Like I said, I have felt peace for myself. I really can’t judge what other people have felt, because I don’t know.
Is there any scenario where a difference of opinion on morality is a permissible? Because one way or the other, it leads to someone working under a broken law causing them to judge wrongly.
A massive difference of opinion on a law generally means a law is broken — or at least inapplicable without force. There’s a reason why secular law is not static — because people aren’t.
I don’t believe in a top-down deity who says the ways things always need to be, down to minutiae about who sleeps with whom. If anything, I think God would be more annoyed about global warming and overpopulation, two subjects Mormons don’t really concentrate on.
There is a massive difference of opinion in both camps, which by your logic means that either way the law is broken or inapplicable. I don’t think massive difference of opinion should matter to your internal moral compass. I would say other people’s opinions are generally inapplicable to how I view the world. I can listen to their reasons, but if they can’t persuade me by the force of reason, then I generally ignore them. An exception would be if I were causing someone harm, in which case the secular authorities step in. I wouldn’t classify having a difference of opinion with someone the same as causing them harm.
I think relying on massive difference of opinion to identify whose opinion is superior leads to the oppression of minorities.
I would also classify the source of knowledge as a difference
It is true that a generation of young men suffering from same sex attraction were influenced by the church’s 1970’s concept explained at the beginning of this thread. I know of a RM that married a nice innocent Mormon girl in order to cure himself. He finally came out to her a few years into the marriage. He varied between stating that he was gay, to that he is “cured”,.. to that “he never was” gay. The emotional roller-coaster was intense for his spouse. She stayed with him because she was so devoted to her Temple marriage and doing “what is right” and didn’t want to see him turn to the gay lifestyle. She sacrificed her happiness to “save him”.
The gay husband vowed that he never acted upon his attractions, but through the years things would leak out such as she would discover very painful journal entries that he had written that described in graphic detail his fantasies about men in his life, or about a same sex sexual encounter he had before marriage. He would defend himself by stating that they were “therapeutic” writings to help “cure” himself. At one time he confessed that he viewed homosexual pornography, but used the excuse that it was “therapeutic towards his cure”. It was devastating for the wife.
The gay husband was unable to be close emotionally to his wife but used the excuse that she was at fault and that she was just as “broken” as himself (blaming the way she was raised etc.) Because she always was wanting to be humble and improve herself and become more Christlike, would believe all that her husband was accusing her of. He would sometimes say that if she would “just accept his gayness that everything would be fine”… essentially, he was saying that it was all on HER shoulders that the marriage relationship was nearly impossible. The husband used his wife as an emotional “whipping boy” to make himself feel more manly. He would be puffed up and happier after yelling at her and berating her to the core. (this Mormon sister was a wonderful person!) It was his way of releasing all of his own feelings of inadequacy. Other times, he will come across as mild mannered, that is, until the next time he got mad about something again in a few weeks . She walks on “eggshells” to keep the peace.
The couple went years at a time with less and less physical intimacy until all physical touch was eliminated from their marriage. They now exist platonically together with zero love and are just roommates, but the husband still expects the wife to “appear” to others as if they are together as a couple. Strangely, the husband even demands that the wife sleep in the same bed to show togetherness in front of the children. He doesn’t even turn to say goodnight, yet alone give a hug or kiss, or even touch. (He has not kissed his wife for years.) The wife has constant insomnia and internal stress and is uncomfortable sleeping there because of the coldness and controlling nature of her spouse. She feels it is a kind of psychological torture to have to sleep in the same bed, as well as share a bedroom and bath, but she doesn’t express it because of his anger and how he uses his full control of all finances to punish her if she doesn’t keep her mouth shut and quietly act her part. The husband has controlled all finances as well as prevented the wife from working because he prefers her to cook meals and clean the house for him. He expects her to be a dutiful housewife. She is honorable and faithful to the marriage, but yet has NO fulfillment or love. She feels like a employee of the spouse and even somewhat like a prisoner. It is the saddest thing.
The wife is deeply scarred and wounded from staying in this unfulfilling marriage for so long. She is scared to leave the marriage because of her deep belief in the Plan of Salvation. She is now middle aged and doesn’t feel hope for finding love again, as well as has no financial means. She suffers a lack of self esteem after years of psychological abuse from the gay husband. He has threatened that if she divorced him that he would work less so that she would not have much spousal support. However, he expects her to cook for and host his visiting family or attend family events and to act as if everything is perfect. He expects her to look nice for social events but doesn’t give her much money to do it. He in turn acts as if it’s a normal marriage to everyone and even to the wife. He has an important church calling. His sexual orientation is a secret to all.
The wife in turn is questioning the validity of prayer because she confided that she prayed for so many years for help and nothing changed (she didn’t get support from her church leaders either) she has lost a measure of her testimony. She finds it very difficult to attend the temple, knowing that her marriage is so bad as well as feeling depressed (sometimes nearly suicidal) thinking she will have to spend eternity with her husband or…. that her temple marriage is not going to be valid. Her Stake President, when confided in privately, even told her that she was not living the Gospel fully because she was not having a physical relationship with her gay husband and that she needed to fix that.
She has settled into an existence of a life of being married but not really being married but not knowing the joy of having a man love her. It’s truly a tragedy. People who are gay or lesbian should NOT marry and create mixed-orientation unions. It is wrong to do that to the straight spouse. This wife was deceived when she married this man. She has continued to be deceived and abused from the situation. Her life was basically ruined because of the SELFISH actions of this man who was himself a product of a theological philosophy that encouraged this kind of marriage. I am glad to know that the church is changing their policies about this issue and hopefully future tragedies can be avoided. Who knows how many LDS marriages are heartbreaking just like this one. They keep it private and secret except to their most trusted family members such as a sister or Mother. I just hope that these kinds of unions stop. It’s wrong.
@134 Wow, that is a tragic story!
I can’t help but notice how opposite-of-helpful the church is in her case:
“Her Stake President, when confided in privately, even told her that she was not living the Gospel fully because she was not having a physical relationship with her gay husband and that she needed to fix that. ”
Holy crap, I don’t think I could come up with a more horrible/hurtful thing to say to this lady if I were trying to hurt her!
If she were to come to me for advice, I would recommend two things. First off, join the Wildflowers community to connect with other Mormon women in the same situation who can give her real help and support. (It’s apparently a private Facebook group that was recently recommended on a feminist Mormon housewives thread by a woman in a mixed-orientation marriage — I think there’s more info there on how to join them.)
Secondly, I’d recommend that she learn a new skill and get a job. If she hasn’t had sex in years, then her kids are probably getting to be independent enough that she is probably finding herself with more free time. This free time will do her more harm than good if she expects to derive fulfillment from being a homemaker in a dysfunctional marriage. Once she shows herself that she can rely on herself, that will help her rebuild her self-esteem.
It’s very possible that she may never find new love, as you mention, but she can absolutely be happier than where she’s at now. If she’s middle-aged, then she’s still got half her life left that’s worth living! It’s too early for her to write herself off as nothing more than a tragic, cautionary tale. She should be encouraged to get out there and find the support she needs.
To Chanson, you speak wisely. I’m glad that I shared this story because I can pass on this very helpful advice as well as the information for the support group. I know that she will be very grateful for the supportive and thoughtful counsel as she feels very isolated and alone.
In defense of church leaders, I believe that they are not equipped sometimes with a true understanding of the nature of this issue. It is just too difficult for them to counsel people effectively until more “real” instruction is given to these “volunteer” ministers who really are trying but just don’t always say the right thing. The bad thing is that devout church members look at their Bishops and Stake Presidents as being representatives of the Lord and believe that they are inspired. They probably are most of the time, but can still make mistakes in difficult areas such as counseling mixed orientation Temple marriages. It can have devastating effects on the recipients.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.