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.
The Church is going to teach what it believes in. You really can’t expect it to teach what it doesn’t believe in. I believe in the things the Church teaches. I’m surprised that you think I don’t. I believe, and have experienced, that I am happier living the law of chastity than when I don’t. I am glad I have a place to go that teaches such things. I don’t think the Church forces anyone to do anything. You can leave the church at any time. If I don’t like what the church teaches, then you can go over to some other group where you like what they are teaching. The problem with saying everyone must teach like you think is that people who don’t think like you won’t have a place to go with like-minded people.
Let’s say the Church decided to embrace same-sex relationships. Where would that leave me? I would no longer have a church I can go to that teaches the values of my lifestyle. I have some friends through Exodus who were in the Presbyterian Church, where they are considered allowing same-sex relationships. They found that fewer teachers are willing to teach the values of their lifestyles, much less support them in the lifestyle choices. They are turning to other organizations that are more supportive of them and their choices.
I don’t want the same to happen in the LDS church, and I have faith that it won’t. Having choice entails having options, and having places you can go to support you in your options.
I think a lot of people from gay communities that embrace gay sex are under the misconception that gay people in gay communities that do not embrace gay sex only choose our values and lifestyles because that is what the church teaches. They think if they change the church, they can get us to change our lifestyles. They don’t take into account some gay people in gay communities that don’t embrace gay sex aren’t religious, and so their decision is unrelated to the church. For many of us who are religious, we are in the church precisely because of the values they teach, and if they were to change the values, we wouldn’t be there. I think this is more evident in other Christian churches were movement between denominations is more frequent.
It sounds more like you are saying there is only ONE such path legitimate and you believe all others lead to eternal damnation (that is, cessation of happiness and being honest). It seems the only solution you can offer is to eradicate our support because you feel it would force us over to your side.
Can you think of a solution that would satisfy people who don’t think like you? Forcing others to think like you just isn’t going to work. Gay communities that support gay sex have tried that, and it doesn’t work. There continues to be gay communities that don’t embrace gay sex, no matter how much they speak ill of us.
I imagine you would feel betrayed.
What you’re saying about “fewer teachers are willing to teach the values of their lifestyles” (the Exodus folks at the increasingly pro-gay Presbyterian church)…I do believe that to be a legitimate concern. For example, when the APA stopped considering homosexuality to be a mental illness in the 1970s, there were a lot of gay people who were upset with this, because they had built a life on the concept of themselves being sick. These people were legitimately upset.
Similarly, when a gay person builds a life on the notion of same-sex intimacy as sinful (which you keep coming back to), I can see how there would be legitimate problems in terms of where to feel at home if it seems like everyone around you is saying, “Same-sex intimacy isn’t a sin. You have internalized homophobia.”
But like I’ve said already, the gay rights movement has never said gay people must necessarily be intimate with each other. When you say
the first thing I thought of were gay folks who don’t really care about sex, but might instead care about belonging, love, family, friends, etc. Here you might see how non-Mormon gay and “faithful” Mormon gay interests intersect, without having to concentrate on the “sex” part.
I think I need a little detour about vocabulary again. You have frequently complain that many gay people in gay communities that do not embrace gay sex also do not wish to identify themselves with gay communities. According to you, there are many gay communities.
Do you see how identifying our interests as “anti-gay” and your interests as “pro-gay” serves to alienate our gay communities from your gay communities? You call us anti-gay and then yell at us for not identifying as gay. How can I identify with a gay community if most gay communities label me as anti-gay?
Back to the main point. The APA is different. What the APA does really affects everyone. I don’t think they should take sides. I think they do. I am extremely angered by that fact and hate the APA with a passion. But that is a different story. My point is that the APA is different because it effects everyone. If I disagree with the APA, I can’t just go to a different psychological association for therapy. I don’t have a choice.
The church is different. I want a place that preaches my values. You seem to say that I shouldn’t have that.
I do see where there is intersection. I think for the most part we all care more about belonging, love, family, friends, etc. I’m not sure why so many gay people in gay communities that embrace gay sex are so concerned with who I have sex with. The simple fact that I share with other people that I exclusively have sex with my wife gets me labeled as dangerous. Why do you care about who I have sex with?
If we focus more on what brings us together, rather than what brings us apart, and learn to agree to disagree one who we have sex with in our own private lives, I think we could do a lot to building bridges, forming a more inclusive group of gay communities, and do a lot more towards preventing gay Mormon suicide, since gay Mormons will free to choose whichever gay community they want to belong to without being labeled as “dangerous”.
You’re right that “pro-gay” was probably unhelpful in that instance. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of “pro-gay-families,” since prior to a few decades ago, the hundreds of thousands of gay couples in the country had very few welcoming churches to go to.
I don’t think you’re dangerous. I think people are interested in toppling systems of oppression, such as heterosexism and patriarchy. Sometimes I believe people go overboard in condemning others without taking into consideration the fact that “liberation” is more complex than sweeping resolutions. We all live in different statras with different internal logics. Often these logics overlap, but often they don’t. It’s important to work from the inside-out rather than vice versa. Let me just say that the internal logic of the Church that “every gay person should marry someone of the opposite gender or else be celibate” is dangerous. Since you represent this idea in your actions and affiliation with the Church, I can see how people might think you’re dangerous. But I don’t think it would be correct or helpful to label you as such.
Its interesting to see that all of your comments seem to focus on gay sex. However, I dont believe I ever did so. Thats not my main point anyway. The larger issue is that the church denies the fact, apparent to most others, that all the feelings of attraction and intimacy in a happy, successful heterosexual marriage can also exist in a gay relationship or marriage. This is just fundamentally dishonest and an effort to avoid reality.
As I said before, current Mormon theology denies that this is even possible for gay couples. It is obsessed with sex and nothing else. I think this is both deliberate and unavoidable because if the church took any other course, it would essentially acknowledge that such relationships can be every bit as legitimate and worthy of respect as yours is with your wife. But the church will go to almost any length to avoid that. But eventually it will have to acknowledge this truth.
Personally, I dont care who you have sex with, if youre happy with your wife, thats great. And I have no problems with gay groups that advocate chastity either. I think thats everyones individual choice. But in a sense, those groups are even more dangerous to the churchs stance. Because they prove that being gay is about far more than just sex. Its an attraction of the heart and soul and spirit, just as much as the body. Yet the church likes to pretend that its all about sex. Its not. Because if the church agreed that it was about all this other stuff too, itd have to really confront and consider the possibility that theres nothing to fix, that the gay doesnt go away after death, and maybe God really did intend to make us this way and Hes not going to change it now or ever.
You know who would really have cause to be pissed off then? Everyone who stayed in a mixed-orientation marriage because the church said just hold on for this life and youll get all the blessings afterward. What if both spouses found out later that they didnt have to do that after all? That they both would have been just fine if theyd gone and found their own Mr. Rights? That all the white-knuckling and the heartaches and lack of fulfillment were unnecessary? Most gay Mormons who vote with their feet do so because even the possibility of that being true is more fulfilling than staying behind and going along with what for them is total pretense. If you are the exception, then Im sincerely happy for you. But again, you are a microscopic minority. Most of the rest of us recognize that current Mormon theology and culture is hostile territory, because it denies us not only intimacy but legitimacy. Its not just about sex, its about respect and equality too.
Rob, actually, I would disagree with this analysis. Perhaps on the membership level many folks still think homosexuality is just about sex, but I think the Church’s leadership has acknowledged [implicitly] that homosexuality is about more than sex. And I think their response to this “troubling fact” was the Proclamation on the Family that essentialized gender roles.
Interesting theory. You are giving them more credit than I would. I think the Proclamation is exactly what Pres. Hinckley said it was, a reiteration of Church doctrine on the points it covers. There’s nothing new there but the packaging and the popular veneration for it which I think represents collective thirst for new revelation that the Church otherwise seems to have lacked for lo these many decades.
I’m not persuaded that LDS leaders recognize what I’ve described above about the depth and range of gay attraction. I think the Proclamation is a defensive strike intended to persuade the rank & file that _only_ heterosexual feelings and relationships are normal or approved by God. And that anything else is a counterfeit. It’s not because they recognize that “alternatives” may actually be legitimate, it’s because they fear the world and some of the membership are falling for the fakes.
This is a very interesting statement in light of this other discussion going on here at the same time.
Sure, you can find a place that preaches your values, but you can’t necessarily expect that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will (always) preach your values. Some people in the other discussion wanted the CoJCoL-dS to be a church that teaches values they agree with — or at least allows a little room to voice dissent. And when they couldn’t find a place for themselves and their values in the CoJCoL-dS, they left. So you think you should get a comfortable, warm spot in a CoJCoL-dS that validates your values, but those other folks shouldn’t?
Keep in mind that the brethren reserve the right to change policy without notice. A lot of people who had been preaching in the late 70’s that a certain (supposedly moral) issue couldn’t ever change ended up feeling betrayed (and some left) in 1978. I’m not saying the church necessarily will one day preach that same-sex unions are OK (thereby taking away your warm place of values-validation), but it might. It’s theoretically possible that the CoJCoL-dS won’t budge on this issue in your lifetime, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it.
Rob@58:
This is where I’d say you’re giving them more credit than I would 🙂 There’s the politically mobilizing language in the Proclamation, which coincides with the litigation in Hawaii and the establishment of DOMA. If we think about this in terms of the gay-feminist-intellectual witchhunt a few years earlier, I’d consider the Proclamation to be an offensive strike.
Certainly, there’s the counterfeit aspect, the idea that gay couples aren’t “truly” happy, or at least are experiencing a “worldly” allusion of happiness. But this isn’t the same as saying church leaders think gayness is all about sex (other than Packer).
The other thing I’d say is related to what chanson is saying @59 in terms of the ordination of black men. Plenty of church leaders who were privately for black ordination couldn’t be public about it for reasons of correlation. I suspect the same will be true on this issue (if it isn’t already)… we might look to the leaders who refuse to maintain that gayness is “repaired” in Heaven, which became the schtick after “cure.”
Actually, I have one more question about this quote:
Would you be comfortable with a group that teaches that MOMs (like yours) can be happy and fulfilling for some people — hence shouldn’t be treated as inferior to matched-orientation-marriages — but that same-sex unions can also be as happy, fulfilling, loving, committed, holy, etc., as opposite-sex unions? Or — in order for the church to “preach your values” — do you require the church to preach that same-sex unions are nothing more than carnal lust, hence inferior to opposite-sex unions?
@Alan #60:
Defensive and offensive at the same time, I suppose.
From a big picture perspective, though, what’s ultimately dispositive for me is the decades of Keystone Kops style formulation of policy and doctrine in a church claiming to be guided by continuous revelation. I used to be able to accept some fluctuations in this regard, allowing for individual human foibles. But I’ve now studied enough, learned enough, seen enough history that I’ve passed the tipping point.
I can no longer accept that God, the source of truth (which is always consistent with itself) would lead any organization along a path filled with such gyrations, switchbacks, fluctuations and inconsistencies. Having reached that conclusion, lots of the other debates and issues become purely academic for me. Unless they lead the church to try imposing itself on others’ lives where it has no business doing so (e.g. Prop 8), or it continues to teach and do things that harm others’ lives (e.g. perpetuate shame and fear and staying in the closet and depression and even risk of suicide). Then I will object openly and fight back against such un-Christian behavior.
So my understanding is that church leaders teach against sex outside of that between a husband and a wife. I haven’t really heard them talk about gay people in general. It is usually about people having gay sex or about people who find their same-sex attractions to be a struggle. I don’t see where you are saying that they say being gay is just about sex or that same-sex couples aren’t happy because I don’t see them talking about gay people in general.
I am really trying to wrap my brain around the concept that Elder Packer doesn’t believe homosexual temptation is a sin, doesn’t believe homosexual orientation doesn’t exist, and that those who have it are bad people. I don’t get it.
The fact that we have a special term for it when it is between two people of the same gender versus when it is between a coworker doesn’t seem to make a difference.
It seems that whenever someone talks about gay sex, people interpret it to mean they are talking about gay people, and then say that they reduce gay people to gay sex. It seems circular reasoning.
APL — I take it you’re responding to Rob…?
Since you’re back, can you answer my question @61? Would it be sufficient for the church to preach that mixed-orientation-marriages can be a good choice for some people? Or — in order for the church to “preach your values” — would you need the church to also teach that two men in a happy, loving. monogamous marriage are committing a grave sin?
A temptation is not a sin. If it were, everyone would be sinning by default of being in the world, including Jesus who you mentioned was “perfect.”
Perhaps you mean “homosexual lust.” Packer does believe homosexual lust is a sin. But he also thinks all homosexual attraction qualifies as lust. Church leaders who wrote later on the subject don’t say this because the Church came to recognize it is unfair to demean people for things outside their control, such as basic attractions. If you insist that aspects of desire are voluntary, you’re gonna have to admit that some aspects aren’t.
Church leaders seldom use the word “orientation.”
Kimball, in The Miracle of Forgiveness, wrote: “Many have been misinformed that they are powerless in the matter, not responsible for the tendency, and that God made them that way. . . . Does the pervert think God to be that way?” (85). Here, Kimball is talking about the “tendency to be attracted to the same gender” (or a possible “orientation”). He is not talking about the “tendency to have gay sex.” If you don’t believe me, I can pull out a direct interpretation by Oaks on Kimball’s meaning. Kimball thought the “tendency” could be cured. Packer thought the “tendency” could be cured. Therefore, both Kimball and Packer thought a homosexual orientation didn’t exist.
Church leaders today don’t think an “orientation” is particularly meaningful, since all sex and attraction is supposed to be oriented to a marriage with the “opposite” gender. Many Mormon therapists work with an assumption that a heterosexual orientation to one’s spouse is the only “real” orientation.
I thought it was established that Packer doesn’t think a homosexual orientation exists. Therefore he wouldn’t have an opinion on people who “have” it. He could have an opinion on people who think they have a homosexual orientation, and that opinion would be that they are “weak” or “misinformed.” Not “bad.”
According to Lance Wickman (2006 interview with Oaks), because society is so “saturated with sexuality,” people have trouble “looking beyond their gender orientation to other aspects of who they are.” This to me says that he thinks “being gay” is about sex (and/or sexual attraction) minus the “good, holy” stuff.
With that said, I don’t think Church leaders believe people in same-sex relationships are just in it for the sex. I believe they think love and happiness exist in these relationships, because I suspect many church leaders have family members in same-sex relationships and they see the love and happiness.
But they can’t touch same-sex couples as happy, because they’ve already decided that same-sex intimacy is fake or ephemeral happiness. They do this even when they see real happiness and aren’t positive about the afterlife in terms of what happens to “alternative” families. They suggest that “same-gender attraction will be repaired in the afterlife,” but then they won’t say, “same-sex couples will be separated in the afterlife.” Interesting. Basically, they will say anything to convince people in mixed-orientation marriages that everything will be dandy in Heaven, but then they can’t even make sense of what’s happening on Earth.
@65
I was trying to answer your question. It seemed your question supposed that our leaders teach that same-sex relationships aren’t loving, or automatically inferior to opposite-sex relationships, which I haven’t heard. I also know that we don’t believe those who are ignorant of God’s commandments are committing sin, so I would say that most same-sex couples aren’t committing a grave sin. Your question assumes things that I don’t believe are true, hence it is hard to answer.
I think society should welcome all values as long as those values don’t directly and unreasonably hurt other people. I don’t think that is religion’s role. I want a religion that welcomes everyone, but beyond values that don’t directly hurt other people, I also want it to teach values that I think will help everyone be better people. Chastity is one of those values. I will never belong to a church that encourages same-sex relationships. My values are that sex is only to be between a husband and a wife.
Outside of church, I think that basic human courtesy is to respect other people’s values and beliefs that don’t match up with yours. I don’t see that from the majority of gay communities that identify as gay.
OK, well, here’s my perspective as a happily married person:
I feel that marriage can and should be a source of joy and emotional sustenance for both partners.
When I see people claiming that marriage needs to be defended out of duty to God or for the good of society, I find that very sad. Maybe marriage is good for society, but it doesn’t need to be “defended” by people who need that sort of external motivation in order for their marriages to be worth the bother. Marriage is its own reward.
I support marriage equality not only out of general fairness, but also because I think marriage can be a joy. I see no reason to limit that joy to people who are [superficially] like myself. Many people find that they can’t connect emotionally/romantically with a person of one gender they way they can connect emotionally/romantically with a person of the other gender. C’est la vie. If your wife is your soul-mate and you are happy together, why begrudge others the same happiness of marrying their own soul-mates?
Re: “sex is only to be between a husband and a wife”: Which is more important for a happy, stable, successful marriage? That their hearts and souls match up, or that their plumbing matches up (according to some cultural standard of normalcy)?
Describing something as a “sin” — AKA “don’t do it” — qualifies as it as being deemed “inferior.” There’s an essential disrespect there.
@66 Alan
Let me start by saying that I am learning a lot from this conversation. I am starting to better see how other people are seeing things. While it is more clear, there are still some cloudy parts. As I write this, I sound argumentative, and I apologize, but I really am just trying to wrap my brain around this. I am sorry if this sounds like I don’t respect your interpretation. I do. I just don’t understand it.
I do think lust is a sin, even if it is with your opposite-sex spouse, but I don’t understand why you think that he thinks all homosexual attraction qualifies as lust. What do you think he was talking about when he was talking about homosexual temptation? He definitely believes there are people who are tempted, but do not give in. That is what I am having a hard time grasping. Does that mean there are people who are attracted to the opposite sex and have no attractions for the same sex at all, but are tempted with the idea that it might be cool to be attracted to the same sex? That doesn’t seem plausible.
He once gave a talk which likened thoughts to actors on a stage. He said we didn’t have control when an actor comes on, but we should get them off. Elder Holland recently gave another example, that we can’t control if temptation comes knocking at the door, but we shouldn’t invite them in for tea. It seems to me to be saying that the sin is in dwelling on thoughts, encouraging attractions, arousing emotions, but not on simply having them.
Elder Oaks has talked about the difference between evil acts and evil thoughts. Notice he doesn’t condemn all homosexual thoughts, just lustful ones.
He did a direct comparison between homosexual lusts and heterosexual lusts. If you argue that he believes all homosexual thoughts are evil, you would have to likewise argue that he believes all heterosexual thoughts are evil, which is absurd.
Our leaders have limited their discussion to avoiding gay sex in thought and deed. I don’t see any reason to assume that they are talking about anything else.
I would like to see that. I might broaden it from tendency to have gay sex to tendency to lust after gay sex. That is what I meant to say when I was talking about never having gay sex but yet having a tendency to have gay sex. I meant to say I wanted it really badly but have since been “cured” of that desire. A discussion on the definition of lust might be helpful.
Maybe a good question is what you think “being gay” is. Take out the thoughts, actions, and desires, and what distinguishes a gay person from a straight person. It seems to me to say that there is so much more to a person than who they are attracted to.
I don’t see this either. Why don’t you think they make sense of what is on the earth. What makes you think people in MoM are just holding on until heaven? It seems they say don’t get married until you are attracted, specifically because they are concerned about what happens here on Earth. If they only cared about everything being dandy in heaven, they wouldn’t push marriage in this life at all because everyone who didn’t have a chance here on earth will have one in heaven.
You keep coming back to this “gay sex” thing, over and over. You keep reducing same-sex relationships to “sex” as if actual people are absent from the “sin,” just as Rob said church leaders do.
If two guys court each other, they aren’t just “lusting after gay sex,” just like when a LDS guy and girl court, they aren’t just “lusting after straight sex” (presumably). So even if you wanted gay sex “really badly” and “cured” yourself of this desire, don’t act like this framing applies to anyone other than yourself and those who have been convinced that the most relevant aspect of homosexuality is the sex (whatever that means).
Both Kimball and Packer thought the “condition” of homosexuality could be cured. By “condition,” as they wrote about it in the 1960s and 70s, they are not referring to “the tendency to have gay sex” or “to lust after gay sex.” The tendency for them was the condition of “having attractions to the same sex.”
Oaks, in this 1984 memo (pp4-5), writes:
You can see here that Oaks’ interpretation of Kimball is that he is “obviously referring to the condition of sexual attraction to persons of the same sex,” a condition Kimball thought could be “cured.” Oaks later states what you quote above, that “condemnations directed at the condition of homosexuality are condemnations of persons who are sinners in thought,” but this is a change from saying that the condition can be “cured” altogether, which Kimball and Packer were saying in the 1960s and 70s.
The title of Packer’s “To the One” indicates that he thought homosexuality affected a minority: 1 in 100. However, this does not negate the fact that he also thought that it could be cured entirely, and that the person who couldn’t make the thoughts go away entirely simply wasn’t trying hard enough, or wasn’t smart enough, or well organized enough.
You already said somewhere above that you believe Kimball was ignorant in terms of “cure.” I find no evidence that Packer was not basically restating Kimball’s position when he was writing a decade later.
You can think of “cure” now to mean “a cure from a desire to have gay sex.” But to overlay this definition onto Kimball or Packer’s meaning would be historical revisionism.
Indeed. Which is why it’s ridiculous that the Church is so focused on who people are attracted to. It’s sad that if two guys fall for each other in the LDS world that it can’t just be taken for what it is.
I didn’t say that MOMers are just “holding on.” I said that church leaders want to convince them that things will be dandy in Heaven, that the “problem” will disappear.
Because if we live in a world where hundreds of thousands (millions?) of people are in same-sex relationships and are forming families and cultures and interconnections, then it seems more than a little silly to express to a “struggling” Evergreen audience that “same-gender attraction will be repaired in Heaven.”
It didn’t seem like a change. It didn’t seem like he was contradicting it or saying it used to be this way and now it was that way. He quoted Kimball and said it applied to evil thoughts. He didn’t say it used to be all thoughts but now applies only to evil thoughts. You agree that homosexual temptation was never considered a sin, but I am still fuzzy what you think that means. You can’t use one internal document to trump several general conference talks. That is what the law of two or three witnesses is all about.
Courting sounds like they are purposely entertaining thoughts, encouraging attractions, and arousing emotions, which I think we agree that the church considers a sin. A married man sneaking off with his secretary may very well have non-sexual elements to it, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a sin. I agree same-sex relationships aren’t just lusting after gay sex, but take out the sexual elements. What do you have? Just two guys who are good friends. If things progress then they might even become roommates. Is that a sin? Of course not. The sin is the sex. We aren’t saying being gay is a sin because it is all about gay sex. We are saying gay sex is a sin. That part about being gay that isn’t gay sex isn’t a sin.
Put back in some elements of sexuality, but not sex. Put in romance and holding hands and kissing. Have our leaders ever taught about that specifically? Not that I am aware of. I know I would have a hard time doing that with a guy without arousing sexual feelings and starting to lust after gay sex, so it would be a sin for me because it would induce lust, but not for necessarily for other people. If some other guy can do all that without lusting after gay sex I’d say more power to him. I think most Mormons would condemn him, and I disagree with that. I would imagine many of our church leaders would teach against it, but they haven’t, and you can’t blame them for something they haven’t done. They taught against gay sex. They never said being gay is just about gay sex. They have likewise taught against straight sex outside of marriage, but they never taught being straight is just about sex.
That is the thing. There is no difference between how the church sees a straight married man’s relationship to other women and a gay man’s relationship to other men, yet you never complain that the leaders think being straight is just about having sex.
I don’t know what that means either. I am trying to figure that out. I don’t want to have gay sex. I haven’t ranked that among other aspects of homosexuality for relevancy. Other aspects of my homosexuality I have embraced. I have found a great community among other gay Mormons, for example. I think that is very important. But I think you agree with the need for a community where you fit in, so we don’t discuss it very much. Our main conflict is about the gay sex and the same-sex attraction, so that is what we talk about. That doesn’t mean that is the most important part of my gay identity, nor that my gay identity is the most important part of my identity.
And why shouldn’t they be? If they are dandy here, will they cease to be dandy in heaven?
While I see why might think they don’t make sense of what is on earth, I think this particular argument is lame. Are there not millions of people who are orphaned, handicapped, or otherwise have a condition that is repaired in heaven that are likewise forming families and cultures and interconnections? Does that belief mean I think deaf people are inferior? No, but the deaf community is not going to exist in the afterlife.
Oh come on, Peculiar Light. Really? REALLY?
The two gay guys who were pushed to the ground, handcuffed and hauled away by Church Security just because one gave the other a peck on the cheek on Temple Square? Dallin Oaks telling all gay Mormon guys to avoid gay friends, dress, situations, music, basically do everything possible to avoid anything gay? BYU prohibiting as “advocacy of homosexuality” ANY expression of homosexual affection, even something as innocent as holding hands? What do you think would happen if two guys kissed each other on the lips inside an LDS temple? No sex, so you think that should be okay, right? Really? I honestly can’t believe you believe what you wrote here.
This more than anything persuades me that you are at most bisexual, not really gay. Because if you were really gay, you wouldn’t say this. You would intuitively know that a gay guy loves his husband/partner with every type and depth of feeling a straight guy does his wife: physical, emotional, spiritual. He resonates with and is drawn to the guy he loves in every possible way, is inspired, comforted, energized, and made joyful by him. FAR beyond “just good friends.”
I don’t think church security speak for the prophet. BYU doesn’t speak for the prophet. For example, at BYU you can’t have a beard, but Mormon.org prominently features many members with a beard. Go to the University of Utah’s institute program and see how many of them think BYU speaks for the church. I bet you can get an earful of how BYU doesn’t represent the church. Elder Oaks said nothing of the sort. I have heard him talk about people who make inappropriate displays of their sexual feelings, but I think that is wise counsel regardless of the orientation of those feelings.
And can’t two friends have a physical, emotional, and spiritual bond? Can’t they be inspired, comforted, energized, and made joyful by each other? I’m pretty sure that our leaders haven’t taught that two guys can’t form a physical, emotional, and spiritual bond. Look at David and Jonathan. That was a very deep relationship between two guys, yet it wasn’t sexual. (unless you are one of those people that assume every deep relationship is sexual.)
Don’t mix culture with religion. If it happened in a Latin American temple, I don’t think people would care. If the kiss were completely asexual, I don’t see a problem with it. Culturally, two men kissing is considered sexual in America. I think that is a problem with American culture.
From the official Church publication “God Loveth His Children”:
“It is not helpful to flaunt homosexual tendencies or make them the subject of unnecessary observation or discussion. It is better to choose as friends those who do not publicly display their homosexual feelings.”
In other words, don’t talk about anything gay more than minimally necessary. And don’t hang around with anybody who shows any signs of being gay either. If an official Church pamphlet says that, how tolerant do you think the Church would be of two guys or two women actually hand-holding, or kissing, or flaunting the back-rubbing you constantly see between young marrieds in Sacrament Meeting? If you think anything like that in an LDS venue would go unrebuked (even if only privately) then you haven’t seen the Church I have.
And as to the bond between two guys, you’ve just confirmed my belief. You’re either hiding from yourself, or you really were never as gay as you thought. I suspect the latter. Because nobody who has ever experienced the kind of love I’m talking about (and I have) would EVER explain it away as friendship.
The two men on Temple Square were in a relationship, so “non-sexual same-sex friendships where two guys sometimes kiss, hold hands, or romance each other” is not relevant to what Rob was talking about.
He is talking about how a policy of “homosexuality as sin” is directly related to policing people’s bodies, whether you’re at Temple Square, BYU, or sitting in a pew with Dallin Oaks at the pulpit.
For example, if my partner and I were to go to an LDS meetinghouse in America (not Latin America), holding hands, people would assume we’re gay rebels and many wouldn’t want us there. I could say, “We’re just holding hands. Is that a sin?” If we keep doing this “not sinful” stuff — “inappropriately displaying our sexual feelings,” even though we’re not doing anything sexual — people are going to get more and more uncomfortable, thinking we’re influencing their children and whatnot. We’ll be made to feel unwelcome. Our bodies will be policed to leave the space, just like what happened at Temple Square.
So, basically, what is happening here is that straight, uncomfortable people are getting to decide what qualifies as “sexual” behavior. The gay couple holding hands is “acting sexual” (which isn’t allowed), while the straight couple holding hands is non-sexual.
You might not realize it, but the exact same oversexualization is happening in your own language with your constant referencing of “gay sex,” where a simple kiss with the “wrong” thoughts is something terribly egregious.
The “straight married man” is already in a relationship. The “gay man” is not. I fail to see how there’s “no difference” between the two.
Basically, what I get from your logic is that “gay sex” is when there’s more than one person involved plus (x) type of feelings. Homosexuality in the Church must be contained to individuals because “sex” can only be in the husband/wife dyad. But again, what is “sex”? “Certain thoughts” qualify as “lusting for gay sex,” while “these other thoughts over here” are “just friendship.” The point is that the Church does indeed treat heterosexuality and homosexuality differently, because it distinguishes between the two, and actively attacks one by trying to sequester it into an infinitesimal space, an aberration that disappears in the afterlife. The other is given the huge, celebrated space of “marriage” that is everlasting. How can you even begin to suggest the Church treats the two the same?
If a same-sex couple is together their whole lives, to suggest that their attraction to each other will be “repaired” in the afterlife (because their relationship is “broken” in some way) is highly offensive. This is what I meant about considering people inferior.
So much anti-gay-marriage rhetoric is about the central importance of being able to biologically reproduce with your spouse (which LDS doctrine extends to the afterlife). It absolutely reduces straight marriage to being not much more than sex — and is no compliment to straight marriage.
And (as Alan points out), sex between two men (or two women) in a committed, loving relationship is a whole lot more like a straight person having sex with his/her spouse than it is like a straight person cheating on his/her spouse.
[Aside: so you’ve compared homosexuality to adultery and to a handicap — have you remembered to compare it to alcoholism yet, so we can have the whole set…? I feel like we’ve had this discussion here on MSP before…]
That is NOT what it says. If you keep imagining additional injury, I can see why you are so upset.
I don’t care what a security guard did. He does not speak for the church.
Sorry if you find my religious beliefs highly offensive. There are other people who find my belief that drinking green tea is a sin highly offensive. I find many of your beliefs highly offensive, but I learn to respect your beliefs. I don’t expect you to change them, just because I find them highly offensive. What do you do if you find someone else’s religious beliefs offensive? Keep it to yourself.
The Mormon Church in Latin America was as much of the Mormon church as it is in America. That goes back to American culture, which I have never been much of a fan of. I think men should be more intimate, like they are in India. American culture does assume if men are intimate, such as holding hands, they are having gay sex, which is a bad assumption. If you and your partner are not sexual with each other, I don’t see a problem. Even if you were sexual with each other, I think you should be considered sinners to be loved and welcomed.
I believe all of us are sinners. I have my sins. I don’t think your sins are worse than my sins. Any amount of sin keeps us from heaven. That is why we need Christ. The fact that sin is universal puts us at an equal playing field.
Says who?
I didn’t say it was the same. I said sexual relationships outside of marriage were the same regardless of gender. I limited my comments to sexual relationships and you expanded it to be about homosexuality. That is not my fault.
I started off by saying the only sexual relationships should be between a man and a woman. You keep assuming that excludes homosexuality. I’m not sure why. Many gay people have made successful marriages.
Because man + woman = hetero. Not homo.
Including gay people married to their same-sex spouses. But then you don’t think these are actual “marriages,” do you?
Actually, no. Your freedom of belief does not equal freedom of action over others. If your beliefs are offensive to me and affect me, I have a right to protest them rather than suffer them. It’s the same logic as the Church protesting the movement in society toward same-sex marriage. The Church has a right to protest it. But it shouldn’t expect that its “religious beliefs” are suddenly off-limits. That would be like me saying that the Church doesn’t have a right to protest same-sex marriage because of my “religious belief” that gay people should have a right to marry a same-sex partner. That wouldn’t make any sense.
I thought we were talking about sexual orientation. If man + woman = hetero, then homosexuality is 100% changeable. You can’t switch context on me. Is homosexuality defined by a sex act or sexual orientation?
I didn’t say it did. I separated belief and actions. I haven’t even talked about the church’s actions. I am talking about my ability to worship with people of shared values. Has the church protested your belief systems? No. We firmly believe all men can believe what they want. Are we going to change our definitions to accommodate your beliefs? No. That is something different. We don’t protest your beliefs like you protest ours.
Well, I guess passing Prop 8 wasn’t really a “protest” per se, but you’re splitting hairs here to the point of being disingenuous.
Prop 8 was about what was on the books. It makes sense to protest both sides of that, since that effects everyone. Prop 8 did not control anyone’s beliefs. I really don’t want to get into a debate of Prop 8 here. As you know, not all Mormons supported prop 8.
I brought up Prop 8 because you suggested that your “religious beliefs” are untouchable in this conversation. Yet if we’re talking about welfare and happiness in the world, then one’s beliefs about what leads to welfare and happiness in the world have to be open to questioning. If you don’t want your beliefs questioned, then don’t participate in a public discussion.
Homosexuality is defined by its relationship to heterosexuality. Kinda like how “black” is defined by its relationship to “white” (both as colors and as races.) They were born in relationship to one another — and frankly, their contrast at birth was a degradation of one over the other (“the homosexual as mentally ill”). People in the degraded category took it and reshaped it, from “invert,” “pervert,” to “gay” and “queer.” The Church pedestals hetero and degrades homo under a false impression that body parts are what define a complementarity of souls for all people. The world proves this to be a farcical belief, and by “farce,” I mean you have to come up with a bunch of other beliefs to support it, such as the belief that homosexual attraction disappears in Heaven.
You seriously have to indoctrinate a queer child to think he or she is lesser the way he or she was born to “orient” the child to choose differently than they would ordinarily choose had he or she not been indoctrinated. By this, I mean, if you take 100 queer kids, and 70 of them go with the same gender and 25 go with the opposite gender (5 stay single), I’m not saying those 25 are “indoctrinated” — I’m saying that the idea that the 70 shouldn’t be with the same gender is indoctrination and is homophobic.
I feel like you have this belief that if you can educate people in the Church to be cognizant of people with the “struggle” of same-gender attraction, that homophobia can eventually disappear. You fail to see how homophobia is about seeing same-sex relationships as lesser than opposite-sex ones.
There is a difference between questioning my beliefs and respecting them. I question your beliefs too. I believe your lifestyle and your propaganda is dangerous. I believe it ends up recruiting people to live a lifestyle that is against the law of chastity and will eventually end up in misery. I don’t believe any of that prevents you from going into heaven. I believe my beliefs are pro-gay people. That is what I believe.
However, I respect the fact that you don’t believe that, and is one of the reasons I don’t think it prevents you from going into heaven. I respect the fact that you believe that my beliefs are inaccurate. I don’t feel like you respect my beliefs. But that is beside the point. I came here to better understand where you are coming from and I am accomplishing my goal. It seems you have some interpretations of what our leaders say that I haven’t considered before. I don’t agree with the interpretations, but I see where you are coming from. Do you see where I am coming from? I do believe that understanding and communication will help prevent gay suicides, which is what my main concern is all about. I think the argument and lack of respect from both sides contribute to the feelings of being torn, which contributes to suicide. If we could learn to respect them no matter what they decide, I think there will be less suicide.
The way you use homo and hetero, it makes it sound like you think homo is just about sex. I honestly don’t understand how you accuse me of making being gay just about sex. The church does not pedestal hetero nor does it degrade homo. Both gay and straight people alike are equal before God. It pedestals opposite sex marriage, and within the religion degrades other opposite-sex and same-sex relationships. It does not degrade homo.
This is false. I never was indoctrinated that I was lesser. I don’t think I am lesser in any respect than straight people.
Again, you are the one making it about sex. I think homophobia is more about the people themselves, regardless of who they have sex with.
I have followed, more or less, this string of comments. I have run out of patience and, against my better judgment, am driven to make a comment.
The foregoing statement by APL is both the most coherent as well as the plainest statement that he has made that reveals what he truly believes. It also reveals the ridiculousness of his “position.” How he can assert that his beliefs are “pro-gay people” is utterly beyond me unless he is implying some sort of patronizing religious arrogance.
Ultimately, what bothers me the most is APL’s bizarre hijacking of the word “gay.” I will not comment on whether he is truly gay, as he self-identifies. But what is obvious is that he is trying to use the word “gay” in a sense that is totally contrary to what 99.9% of the world considers the plain meaning of the word to be.
APL, please just go back to using the terms the Church prefers: call yourself SGA or SSA, but please stop using the term “gay” in such bizarre ways, arguing back and forth about sex, sex, sex. YOU are the one “making it about sex.” Your comments about the “law of chastity” make this abundantly clear, as if your multitudinous comments about sex don’t. Just please give it a rest.
I frankly have found your constant assertions about “understanding”, etc., extremely disingenuous. You have frankly come across at times as deliberately obtuse. It is obvious that you are engaged in this “discussion” in a sense of Ballard-esque missionary zeal, believing that you can go forth, Don Quixote-like, and bring the world your ‘truth.’
Alan and Rob, I admire your patience. Like I said earlier, I’ve run out.
Weren’t you just upset a bit ago about being called “dangerous?” And now you’re going to hurl the same word at me?
If you think I’m still going to [possibly] go to Heaven, then how can you be sure I’ll be “miserable?” Is Heaven a miserable place?
Weren’t you just upset a bit ago about people saying your marriage will end in misery?
I can’t respect the idea that gayness is “cured” in Heaven. It would be akin to me respecting the idea that black people will be “lightened” in Heaven. Not all beliefs are worthy of respect. All people are worthy of respect. But not all beliefs.
Let me ask you this. Why does the Church pedestal opposite sex-marriage?
I’m not just talking about you. In my equation, you were one of the “25,” and I specifically stated that the source of the indoctrination did not lie in the choices of those 25, but in the degradation of the choices of the 70.
It’s not my fault that when you read the phrase “same-sex relationship,” you seem to read the word “sex” more than you read the word “relationship.”
You are 100% right. I am wrong. I do want to understand, but I let my emotions get the best of me. I apologize. I will readjust. Feel free to point out when I do it again. I am a very emotional person and sometimes I let my emotions get away from me. I am sorry. I should take more time to think before I respond.
That is probably a good way to put it. I respect you. I think I respect your beliefs too. I might be confused on what that means, but okay, we will go with the need to respect other people regardless of their beliefs.
I think I am starting to understand this a bit better. It seems that you think a huge part of being gay is about whom you can have fulfilling relationships with. I also see the need to have relationships with guys in order to be fulfilled. To me, I don’t think it needs to be romantic or sexual to be fulfilling.
The problem is that I guess we assume that same-sex relationships are romantic or sexual. Technically, a father and son relationship is a same-sex relationships, because both are male, though it usually isn’t romantic or sexual. As you know, a father/son relationship is a relationship that can be sealed in the temple.
So when you complain that I read sex into same-sex relationship, does that mean that when you are talking about same-sex relationships, that you aren’t talking about sexual relationships at all? Or are you upset that I am more concerned with the sex part than the relationship part? The church teaches against sexual relationships outside of marriage, but not against platonic relationships outside of marriage. I think the relationship part is great. I could certainly use a few more same-sex relationships myself.
Anyway, I see homophobia about the people, rather than the relationships they choose to participate in.
Alan, you are a paragon of restraint. I admire your ability to respond rationally, directly, yet politely to a DANGEROUS zealot whose mission is to preach self-hate and loathing to young gay men who are teetering on the edge of life and are seeking only to understand and learn to accept who and what they are.
APL’s unhealthy pre-occupation with homo-sex acts while vociferously exclaiming otherwise, makes me think, “APL, thou protestest too much.” His inability to discuss issues from an objective position concern me. It is obvious this boy is in way over his head and is actually struggling to stay above water. Based on my experience with young men like him, APL is a train wreck waiting to happen.
APL, I honestly ask you to please seek therapy before it is too late. I would hate to see you do harm to yourself as much as I hate seeing you do harm to others. My heart goes out to you, young man.
I think a person can “cheat” on their spouse by engaging in a platonic relationship, and by “cheat,” I mean, make the spouse feel like they’re in second place. The only difference I see between a “very strong platonic relationship” (which is supposedly not sinful by church standards), and a “platonic + sexual relationship” is a given set of cultural ideas, like what a person does with their genitals or whatever.
Personally, I think the boundary between “homosocial” and “homosexual” is blurry. Not all gay men will agree with me on this. I’ve had straight male friends who get really affectionate when they’re drunk (or sad), so that the difference between “homosocial” and “homosexual” is often contextual. We’re much better off using Kinsey’s scale of 0 to 6.
A lot of gay couples will sometimes have sexual relationships outside the relationship (or have a threesome), but then if “very strong platonic love” gets in the way, then that is cheating. Or, alternatively, platonic love is fine, as long as it doesn’t “get sexual.” The point is, people think differently about the relationship between sex, love, their bodies, and so on, and these things get worked out on an individual basis. The Church doesn’t have a monopoly on how these things are interpreted.
When I say you keep talking about “gay sex,” it seems like you’re very strongly asserting a particular set of boundaries that you’ve worked out for yourself to be comfortable and “chaste.” And so you keep forcing the conversation into those boundaries when I clearly don’t think about homosexuality the way you do.
You mentioned Jonathan and David. I read them as a “gay couple.” I know they wouldn’t have called themselves that, but I don’t think it is unreasonable to believe that they slept in the same bed together and “made love” by cuddling, kissing, or whatever. Is this “platonic” or is it “sexual?” Did they engage in “sodomy?” Who knows. They were a couple….a “same-sex relationship.” I don’t think it’s “ugly” to view them this way. In fact, I’m happy the Bible includes gay love (or to believe it does), because if it didn’t, then I wouldn’t trust it.
There were a lot of Mormon therapists in the 1980s who argued that the problem of homosexuality is that it is “inappropriate bonding with members of the same sex.” It is a “heterosexual friendship that goes too far.” Their idea of therapy was to get gay men to play sports with each other and do other stereotypically masculine things. To “massage” each other on the boundary between “platonic” and “sexual,” so that they could better control their “impulses.” (I’m pretty sure this ridiculousness still happens today; I remember seeing an ABC report).
Anyhow, this is heterosexism. And it’s pretty stupid on its premise, because of what I said above about how “sexual” and “platonic” is relative. Basically, the premise these therapists held is that these men “weren’t really gay” and that they needed to learn to “act like men.” Unlike Invictus @ 85, I actually see you as having some sense in saying, “I’m gay.” You recognize this about yourself, whatever it means.
But the truth of the matter is, the Church doesn’t want you to call yourself gay — it wants you to concentrate on being a “son of God,” who in Heaven will be “repaired.” This gay thing will go away, the Church says. If you want to talk about homosexuality in the Church, then it ultimately needs to be about how to better concentrate on being a “son of God.” Personally, I think you are eating up the heterosexism just as much as those men playing sports to be “masculine” did. Just a different manifestation of it, where a gay man can be “gay,” just as long as he doesn’t think his soul is.
Okay, I’ve done a little detective work on you. I see that you were at Journey into Manhood (that thing I was just saying was “pretty stupid” to make men “masculine”…oops.) I read your life story here.
Anyone interested in MoMs, I would suggest reading his story. Chanson, you might like this line: “I think there are some women out there that just need a gay guy, and my wife is one of them.”
Or this one of him quoting his wife:
Lol.
(Actually, the whole book looks great…released a few months ago. It’s a collection of gay Mormon profiles, many of whom are women.)
So….the other people on this thread are saying I’m “patient.” Perhaps that’s because I don’t find you to be a threat. I once had a Mormon boyfriend who acted like our intimacy was “intoxicating,” but then he couldn’t commit due to a “loss of peace” (words you use). I wrote a novel about our relationship — which you might be interested in (my website also has a comparison of my novel to Langford’s No Going Back)… sooo, my point is, I have a place in my heart for people like you. “Son of God, who walks and talks a little effeminate, but is in charge of himself”… heh, describes my ex exactly.
Although, my patience also probably comes from the fact that I see the Church as “losing the battle.” Maintaining a belief that everyone’s soul is straight in the afterlife in the face of the right to happiness of same-sex couples and families here on Earth… well, concreteness tends to win over abstraction. I’m not sure what I can do for you in terms of helping you figure things out. Are you seriously most interested in “stopping suicides?” It’s a noble goal, but my reading of you if that you’re still trying to figure things out for yourself.
@ APL #87:
Aha. OK APL, thanks to Alan I now know who you are. Ive seen your stuff before. And now everything falls into place. So I too will share some conclusions Ive drawn from your own writings.
You are not gay. You are at best bisexual, and on the Kinsey scale you are sufficiently hetero to make a straight marriage work (so far). I accept as true all your statements about your relationship with your wife, and they confirm this conclusion.
In addition, one of the most revealing things in this whole conversation is your apparent failure to comprehend the emotional and spiritual depth of a committed gay relationship or marriage. It doesnt even seem to have occurred to you that this could match or even exceed those aspects of a straight marriage. This also tells me you are at best bisexual. Otherwise, you would have understood this intuitively and nobody would have had to tell you about it.
Because being gay is ultimately NOT about sex. Its about who you are attracted to in every respect, not just erotically. Who your soul most deeply resonates with, right down to the deepest, most visceral gut level. The level where you feel a connection, a love, a completion that goes right through you and satisfies you to the ultimate degree. The level where you could look God in the eye and say without hesitation or reservation that being sealed to a woman for eternity would NOT be heaven for you but something else entirely, and you can only be happy with another one of His sons. Sounds like you could or would never say that. Sex is only one facet, one expression of that depth of conviction. So if you think its purely the sexual attraction that constitutes being gay or not, then youve got things backward.
I note that youve spent time with Jeffrey Robinson. If you think he was able to help you stick closer to the task youve chosen, and it works for you, then thats fine. Ive talked to a number of guys whove been through his therapy and they say things quite different. I did my own analysis of the therapy he describes in his writings, if you care to read it: http://scrumcentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/danger-jeff-robinson.html. You say that you lost your sense of peace when pursuing gay sex but found it within marriage to your wife. Well, I and lots of others pursued that sense of peace for years in marriages to women but never found it until the marriages were over and we were free to pursue a relationshipNOT just sexwith another guy. I accept that your experience is different. But I also firmly believe it disqualifies you from being able to call yourself gay.
If you also acknowledge that your and my experiences are different, and we legitimately find peace on different paths, then you must also concede that this is the crucial problem with the one size fits all insistent LDS approach to this whole issue. Because despite your earlier statement, the church DOES put straight marital relationships on a pedestal and it advocates the eventual abolition of all other models, at least as a qualification for exaltation, which is the only result the church seems interested in. Its another facet of the all or nothing approach the church seems to inculcate, e.g. Pres. Hinckleys statement that its either all true or its the biggest fraud ever. LDS theology has painted the church into a corner on this and allows it no alternative.
And that just doesnt make sense to me or to countless others whose experience is that people and life are far more complex than that. Such a straitjacketed model for heaven just doesnt line up with the reality we see all around us. For God to shut someone out of all possible blessings simply because of who their heart cant help loving seems remarkably cruel, and certainly not characteristic of a God I think would be worthy of worship. You may say thats why LDS theology contemplates the three degrees of glory, but to me thats not good enough. Why should someone be excluded from every possible blessing just because of who their heart and soul tells them they love? If God is love, and a guy finds the greatest happiness and fulfillment in life loving another guy, and is just as faithful to that other guy as a straight man is to a woman, how is it fair to say it doesnt matter, you still cant get in to the top tier?
Sorry, doesnt wash with me anymore. And this is why I think LDS theology is incomplete (as the 9th Article of Faith confirms). And why should I or anyone else put our lives on hold and sacrifice all hope of happiness just because those who claim to be Gods mouthpieces seem to resist even thinking about asking God for further instructions? Nope, not gonna do that anymore. Dallin Oaks said his responsibility is to teach general principles, and if someone thinks an exception applies to them, then they work that out with God themselves, directly. If ever there were a good reason to do just that, this is it.
I don’t think it’s necessary to draw this conclusion. To me APL is putting on a “good performance of heterosexuality” and the “performance” is what is more important to him than the “orientation.” Whether he’s “gay,” “bisexual,” or “straight” is less relevant to him than the performance.
Here’s an interesting quote from a couple Mormon therapists, of the Journey into Manhood variety:
So, regardless of what his body says, he believes, “My body is less important than my soul. My soul is attracted to my spouse of the opposite gender.” This is why I don’t think it’s necessarily helpful to place a label on him, since he’s pretty deep into this sense of performance. And an actor on a stage often loses a sense of what’s real and what isn’t. And if all the world’s a stage, then well…who’s to say what’s what?
The best thing he can do, in my opinion, is learn to get out of his own head and not judge others for the ways they refuse to perform like he is, because they don’t believe that every soul is straight. He might investigate the Church’s ideas about “gender” and see how they compare to outside views of gender. My opinion is that the Church’s obsession with gender dualism will be its weakness in the 21st century, and the reason “gay people” are supposedly “dangerous” is because their very existence as happy and well-adjusted and accepted makes the Mormon obsession obvious. Gosh, it was so much easier and clearer when American society considered those homosexuals sick and deviant.
@89
I think you are onto something. I think I force the conversation into those boundaries because that is what I know. I am starting to see that you don’t think about homosexuality the way you do, much more so than I originally thought. I came here to learn how you think, and I realized I have some preconceived notions that aren’t necessarily true.
Let me see if I understand. The church draws a clear line between actions, thoughts and desires that are acceptable and those that are not. You seem to think that the line is arbitrary, and doesn’t really reflect reality. While you agree it may fit for some gay people, there are many for whom it does not fit. These sharp distinctions about appropriate and inappropriate sexuality interfere with other desires, such as companionship, love and other attributes that have nothing to do with gay sex. Picking that one part of same-sex relationships to fixate on makes it seem that is all we think same-sex relationships are about.
It almost seems that it is more of a difference in how we see rules and regulations. I have a good friend who I supported in her marriage to her girlfriend. She grew up in the church, but left it. However, she still maintains many of her ideas of sexuality. She has similar bounds of what is appropriate and what is not, but just applies them to her wife instead of to a guy. I have heard other gay people who don’t have sex before committing as much as the law permits. On the flip side, I have seen straight people who seem to have a version of sexuality more similar to what you are describing, where they don’t place arbitrary boundaries that makes sex the focal point.
I do see this as a conflict of ideologies on sex, much more so than gay and straight.
Am I understanding you correctly? The idea that you think Mormons think being gay is just about sex is something that had been confusing me, but I think you cleared it up.
That’s a decent summary. I don’t think LDS rules and beliefs on sex and gender are arbitrary, though. I think they exist to maintain a particular structure to the culture — men here do this, women there do that — which is arbitrary.
Great. The thing is that there are lots of same-sex couples in various states and countries who are every bit as legally married as you and your wife are. So by your definition, they’re not sinning.
So, all we need to do is work to expand marriage equality to all countries, and every couple who wants to marry will have that right — problem solved.
I also agree that it’s not necessary to question APL’s self-identification as “gay” or to armchair-psychoanalyze him as caring more about performance than about his feelings. If he says his feelings for his wife are as profound and emotionally intimate as any happily-married couple’s emotional bond, then I’ll take him at his word.
However, APL, the problem isn’t simply that it’s upsetting or inconvenient to feel attraction to other people in addition to your spouse. A huge part of the problem (in many MOMs) is that people often find they are unable to build an emotionally-intimate soul-mate-type relationship. And so both partners are trapped in a constant state of emptiness and longing.
If that’s not your situation, then you must understand that your situation is simply not applicable to many gay people. I’m sure they will be happy for you in your happy marriage if you would show them the same courtesy and be happy for them in their happy (same-sex) marriages. That’s how I feel about families that are different than mine.
I am happy for happy same-sex marriages. I also agree that my situation is not applicable to many gay people.
The problem is I feel that since my situation is not applicable to other situations, people want to invalidate my experiences, or get upset when I share them. I am not trying to force my situation onto others. I just want to help bring awareness about people in my situation and help others in my situation feel less alone. I know many people in MOMs do feel very isolated, and that doesn’t help.
That is why I think it is important we all respect other people’s lifestyle choices, even if we don’t agree with the genitalia of the person they are having sex with. I do think the respect should go both ways. I just don’t feel it from the other side.
OK, sounds good. I’m not going to second-guess people who report that they are happy with their personal life choices.
One last question:
Suppose a young Mormon man says to you: “I know I can fall in love with men, but I don’t know if I can fall in love with women. I feel like I love my girlfriend, but I’m not in love with her (the way I’ve felt for some guys). My family says to propose anyway because through the years of raising a family together in the church, we’ll grow to love each other.” He wants to do the right thing, but isn’t sure what the right thing is in his case. What do you tell him?
p.s. to Rob — I agree with what you’re saying @91. The reason I suggested @96 not to second-guess his self-identification is simply on the principle of respecting people’s self-identification.
However, the point is this:
If APL has that sort of connection with his wife — whether it’s because he’s bisexual or for whatever reason (orientation isn’t 100% understood, after all) — then his situation is very different from that of the average gay person. [It’s also very different from the experience of the average straight person, for that matter. I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t be able to auto-suggest myself into falling in love with a woman, but, hey, maybe other straight women could. That doesn’t mean I should feel pressured to try it out…] Hence, he shouldn’t be holding up his marriage as evidence that gay men can (and should) build happy families with straight women (if that’s what he’s doing).
I would strongly discourage him from proposing. Depending on how close I was with him, I would even talk to his family to try to get them to stop encouraging him to marry someone he doesn’t love. If he isn’t sure whether he could love a woman, I would suggest that he find out before marriage.
In all things, I think he should pray about it. It seems like he is doing things to please his family, were (I think) he should be more worried about what God thinks. I was under a lot of pressure NOT to get married, but I did it any way because I don’t think it is a good idea to do things to please other people.
And most definitely he should be honest with his potential spouse. Depending on how close I am with the potential spouse, I might even talk to her about it if I feel she is being mislead.
I am definitely not saying anyone should get married to anyone, gay or straight. I think marriage is highly personal decision, to be made prayerfully. However, can is a different question. I guess part of it depends on how you define “gay” men. Alan pointed out earlier that we have a different understanding of homosexuality. The fact is this conversation has got me totally lost. You guys argue back and forth about whether I am gay or bisexual or something else, but if I don’t even know what those terms mean I can’t really begin to define myself for you guys. I also know that I have a very different interpretation of homosexuality than most people in Evergreen and North Star. (I do think the “detective work” in 90-92 about my beliefs is amusing, but inaccurate.)
If I understand you correctly, you don’t think I am gay, but that I was bisexual all along, and I just needed the right woman to come around and unlock my innate bisexuality. If that is the case, there seems to be a lot of bisexual men running around who think they are gay. Through Evergreen and North Star, I met a lot of men who totally thought they were gay but developed a deep love (including but not limited to a sexual love) for their spouse. Many people say I am an exception, but I don’t think I am that much of an anomaly.
Anyway, if I understand your definition correctly, I would say I am trying to do three things. First, let married bisexual Mormons know that they are not alone, and there are others like them. Second, let single bisexual Mormons who think they are gay but want to get married, that it might be a possibility if they are actually bisexual, but it should be done correctly and that first they need to find a right person to unlock their innate bisexuality, and it should only be done if they want to and not if their family wants to. Third, to let other people be aware that sexuality shouldn’t be confined to the boxes they like to put on them, and that people who they think are gay may actually be bisexuals who haven’t found someone to unlock their bisexual potential.
I would still encourage my friend to pursue the relationship if they want to, especially since not being sure whether they could fall in love with a woman might be an indication of innate bisexuality. It took me while before I was sexually attracted to my wife, so the same might be true for him. But definitely find out before getting married.
I think. Your definitions are confusing, but I am trying to fit my experiences into your vocabulary, which isn’t very straight-forward, especially since I am not convinced that sexuality is as static as you seem to make it out to be.