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.