I had the following email exchange over the past two days, initiated by a friend who is concerned about Russell M. Nelson’s announcement on Sunday night that the recently introduced LDS Church policy on gay couples and their children has been elevated to the status of revelation:
[Friend] I am really struggling with this new exclusion policy. And now that Pres. Nelson has declared that the policy was direct revelation from God to his prophet, I’m kind of at my wit’s end. I’m wondering if you wouldn’t mind sharing your thoughts, if you have any, on how to remain in this church with good conscience while having real doubts about the veracity of the claim that this policy came from God. And what do I do? Can I really sustain the church leaders now? Can I pay tithing to an institution that I feel is harming people? Is it even possible for me to remain a member in good standing?
My husband and I are lifelong members and we are both returned missionaries. We have raised our children in the church. My oldest daughter, age 18 is also really upset by this new policy. I have been struggling and wrestling with my doubts about many historical issues, sexism and racism in the church for many years but more intensely the past couple of years. I have stayed in the church because it has been my whole life and I want to continue to have a spiritual home. I want God in my life and I have faith in Jesus Christ. But now I’m really struggling with this policy and I’m no longer certain that this church is the right place to be. But where would I go? It’s so interesting to me how so many people in my local ward have no problem with the policy whatsoever and have said, “of course it’s of God.” When my daughter brought up her concerns in her Laurel class, her advisor immediately shut down the conversation and said she supported the policy 100 percent. It leaves me wondering why I feel so differently. Have I been overcome by the adversary like so many would have me believe?
[My response] I suspect there are many people in this church who either have written or wish to write the kind of letter you sent me. Let me drop straight to the bottom line: the reason LGBT issues are splitting the LDS Church is that its leadership still clings to the belief—and some leaders cling to it with the tenacity of a death-grip—that homosexuality is a matter of choice, and that having made the bad choice at an earlier time, someone with “same-sex attraction” (a euphemism that I detest) can simply choose to be straight. All of our LGBT-related policies and doctrines are built on this foundation.
In earlier decades, the LDS position on homosexuality was consistent with that of most churches and most of society (and is still consistent with that of evangelicals, among others). The problem with that position is that science has increasingly had the say on what the basis of homosexuality is, and in a word it is this: BIOLOGY. The early “hunt for the gay gene” was a futile effort that sidetracked everyone and allowed some to declare victory over biology; but anyone who understood then the complexity of homosexuality—particularly the fact that there are many, many different flavors and they are not simply points along a line—should have known that its biological underpinnings would be equally complex. This is turning out to be the case, where the biology involves the interaction of genes (plural), epigenetics (the manner in which gene expression is regulated), and other environmental factors that are not yet completely understood, with the result being a biological imprinting that cannot be changed, no matter how violent and extreme the attempts. Yet, while science has pointed the way to biology, the LDS hierarchy has persisted in believing that homosexuality is simply behavioral. (The closest they have come to real movement is to concede that biology may be a factor, but then to say, “But that’s irrelevant, because you are still responsible for your behavior.” It’s like saying to an African-American, “You may not have chosen your skin color, but if you act on it you are a sinner.”)
I have never heard anything to substantiate this, but I suspect that deep within the psyche of some of the leaders resides this belief: LDS afterlife theology (at least as currently constituted) cannot accommodate gay. Period. If that is the endpoint of your worldview, then anything backtracking from there can’t allow homosexuality to be biological—that is, an imprinted, essential feature of one’s makeup. (One gay, LDS friend told me, “If it were only about sex, it would be easy. My homosexuality informs every aspect of my interaction with the world around me.”)
Although many or most of the senior church leaders are still of the Behavioral School, there are some who have come to accept the Biological School, and hence the mixed messages that continue to emanate from Salt Lake: Proposition 8 in 2008 (regressive); the Salt Lake City nondiscrimination ordinance in 2009 (progressive); Boyd Packer’s 2010 General Conference talk in which he attempted to canonize the LGBT-hostile Proclamation on the Family (regressive); Dieter Uchtdorf’s conciliatory speech two weeks thereafter (progressive); the Church’s silence in the face of same-sex marriage ballot measures in four states in 2012 (progressive when compared to its stance towards Prop 8); the January 2015 press conference announcing qualified church support for statewide Utah nondiscrimination legislation (mostly progressive); the March 2015 passage of SB296, a statewide nondiscrimination law in Utah (progressive, albeit with a large carve-out for the Church); the November 2015 announcement of The Policy (regressive); and now President Nelson’s proclamation (doubled-down regressive).
When you consider President Nelson’s options, it isn’t surprising that his tone is so forceful. Consider that any church has only two cards to play: truth claims, and moral authority. The Church largely lost moral authority on LGBT issues with the announcement of The Policy last November, so only the truth-claims card remains. President Nelson has played it with force, invoking apocalyptic imagery. Most of the church membership likely will accept his pronouncement without question, but others—and this is already apparent as one looks at the blogosphere—will not accept either it or the “Nuremberg Defense”: “I was just doing what my commanding officers ordered me to do.” I think there is still room in the Church for those who question, although not as much as in times past. Members stay for reasons beyond the men at the top, and those reasons continue to be adequate.
What lies ahead? I don’t know, but I can imagine two scenarios. One is that President Nelson will succeed in canonizing the policy, and then proceed to use it as a litmus test of fidelity—perhaps even inviting those who cannot accept it to leave. The other is that his colleagues will begin the lengthy and painful process of walking the policy back and getting the Church to a kinder, gentler place.
Nobody ever told me it would be easy to be a Mormon, but I had no idea how difficult it could become.
[Friend] I never expected being a Mormon to be easy either but I always expected that being Mormon would mean standing up for what’s right amid voices outside the church telling me otherwise. And even though that would be difficult it would be worth it because I would know inside that what I was standing for was right. I never dreamed that I would be in the church standing up for what I felt was right amid the voices in the church telling me that I am wrong.
Thank you Greg. It’s sad that leadership’s stubborn insistence on obedience to their authority as though it IS God will be the undoing of so many Latter-day Saints. The obvious truth is that which you have spoken.
Thank you so much for sharing this. It feels “spot on” to me.
I have to say I have some turmoil on my feeling of being very out of synch with many of my fellow brothers and sisters in the church. But I feel no turmoil over this with God. I feel calm when I bring it to God. The hardest part is that people are getting hurt over this.
This issue isn’t about sexual preference or race or anything else. At the heart of it this is about OUR identity- who we are. I find it particularly un-Mormon of us to be supposing eternity to be so rigid, so limited, so circumspect, so predictable, and so similar to life in this sub-telestial realm.
Joseph and other early mormons opened our eyes to the limitless possibilities and expansiveness of the eternities. Joseph once said (in the context of plural marriage), “Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive”. I believe that is true.
I find the lack of a caveat, the lack of a clear answer, and the insistence on the mortal model to not ‘feel’ Mormon-y. (I’m a multi-generational member.)
I’m also completely frustrated by the repeated fumbling of announcements regarding this policy. We own an entire freakin’ communications company and can’t use it to deliver news straight from God? Seriously, as a tithe payer, I say if we’re not going to use it for something as important as that, cut it! We’ll instead slip things in secretly and leak them to apostates, keep all details cloistered in the upper room, talk to gatherings of elite BYU-Provo students, and post corrections to the website. Boom. Done. No multi-million dollar overhanging fees.
Best commentary on currents events so far.
I want to be friends with your friend!
Best commentary on currents events so far.
I want to be friends with your friend!
Best commentary on current events I’ve read so far. Thank you so much for this!
I want to be friends with your friend!
“It leaves me wondering why I feel so differently. Have I been overcome by the adversary like so many would have me believe?”
Others are indelicate and like bulldozers when they should be treading more carefully. I’m long-winded, but I hope I can respond to this point and be tactful and delicate. The initial concern was how they struggle so much with this while others seem to take it completely in stride. This to me is nothing extraordinary, however. Because while others seem to have no problem with this announcement, I promise you there is another area of their life where the trials and struggles they undertake will be equal to this particular trial’s impact on you. Life was never meant to be a picnic. It was meant to test that faith in Jesus Christ, and test our commitment to the restored gospel. So many are indelicate in this, and shut down conversations that really need to be had. Maybe they’re scared they won’t be able to defend adequately their position beyond the declaration that they believe 100%. Maybe they’re doing it as a means of boasting about how they aren’t struggling in this area at all (while conveniently their struggles and hardships are quietly tucked out of sight). Maybe they just don’t want to entertain the question out of fear that they’ll find themselves wavering.
My point is, don’t be surprised to find it’s hard. Don’t be surprised if this is the trial that takes you right to that breaking point. It happens at some point to everybody. It does, however, and I know this is one of those phrases that opponents find so blindingly annoying, boil down to our testimony of the gospel and testimony and commitment to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (including its leadership). If we have received that testimony of its truth before, then it is still true today. Yes, even with this announcement added to the mix. It’s still true. This is where you draw on the reserves of faith you’ve stored up over a lifetime of discipleship. This policy shook me when I first heard it. I had that same moment of shock as I tried to come to terms with how I instantly felt about the policy. Then I remembered where this “leak” was coming from. I remembered all the things I had experienced on my mission, in my study and prayer, and as I’ve lived the gospel throughout my life. And then I knew the answer to the question, because it had already been answered before in my struggles and strivings earlier in life. I knew to trust in the inspired leadership of this church. When I came to that decision, I felt that same confirmation in my heart that came so many times before from the Holy Ghost. That’s the promised guidance that any confirmed member of the church is entitled to receive. Like the individual who shared the initial concern, I have other areas of my life where my struggle was equal to or greater than this crisis of faith in theirs (at least it felt that way to me). It just occurred in another area. It doesn’t do to compare yourself to others in how you weather this. You should, however, trust in the promised means of coming to answers and receiving guidance, with all the caveats and crucial components that go into the process (real intent, humility, fasting, prayer, pondering, temple attendance, counsel with leaders, study of scriptures and words of living prophets, etc., etc.) If you look only in online forums for answers, you’ll spin out into that limbo where man’s wisdom is substituted for God’s promised answers.
I’m sorry I’m so long-winded. I am sorry that this is such a trial and burden to so many. God loves us enough to answer us Himself. Look for answers in the way He promises to send them at least in equal proportion to the time spent taking in the opinions and discussions online, even if the answer is, “you already know the answer.” 🙂
I don’t mind a test if what I’m asked to do is hard, but morally correct. The policy is not morally correct.
Actually it’s pretty hidden but they is an official church website but on it it admits that the church says it’s not a choice anymore. I checked the bottom of the website and it says nothing has been updated on it in a few years so it will still be there. Otherwise I love this blog post. Similar to my feelings.
I feel your friend’s pain. Her pain describes exactly how I feel. I have been a member for 60 years, never been “inactive,” served a total of 20 years between bishoprics and High Council, paid my tithing most of the time and had a temple recommend most of the time. I wanted to serve a mission but did not pass the physical. I teach Gospel Doctrine class and love the calling. I have a testimony of the gospel and the Book of Mormon. However, I cannot sleep at night because I worry about how I am feeling and wonder where I went “wrong.” I reviewed Elder Christofferson’s “interview” (cannot find it on the Church website any more – had to go to youtube). The issue is mentioned 5 times in that interview as a “policy.” Now it is the “will and mind of God” which makes it scripture (not canonized but of the same effect). I talked with my Bishop about the issue at tithing settlement and we agreed that I could disagree with the decision because it was only “policy.” Now, after all the foul-ups with how it was rolled out, it is a revelation. I do not have an answer for your friend. I have not sorted it out yet. For me, I am wondering should I ask to be released from my calling? should I stop paying tithing but then I ask myself – what then? where would I go? what would I do. There is no other church that has so many good things to offer as our church. Further complicating the situation is all of the stuff that has been made public either by the church or others in the last couple of years about the racist character of Joseph Smith (blacks should keep with their own “species”), Brigham Young, N. Eldon Tanner, Bruce McConkie, George Albert Smith, etc. Then there is the polygamy issue with Joseph Smith asking his friend to provide a place where Joseph could meet one of his wives without Emma knowing about. It is all beginning weigh heavily on me.
Dear brother get ahold of this book by Robert Smith.
Teaching for Doctrine the Commandments of Men: Tradition in Modern Mormonism
By Robert Smith.
You can get it free in PDF form, or buy it at printers cost of about $12 on Amazon. Some answers may be awaiting you.
Regarding your suspicion about lds after life theology, there's this from the Oaks / Wickman interview:
"Same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence."
“I suspect that deep within the psyche of some of the leaders resides this belief: LDS afterlife theology (at least as currently constituted) cannot accommodate gay. Period.”
And this is a reasonable reading of our theosophy or theology of *exaltation*. It’s explicitly heterosexual, and (at a minimum) coupled. One could even say “breeder.”
But our post-mortal theology certainly has places in it for people who don’t for whatever reason end up in a heterosexual couple. We make jokes about single people ending up as eternal babysitters or ministering angels, but the basic theology seems to be that you’re *in heaven* — back in the presence of God, resurrected perfect body, celestial glory on top of the good stuff earth life has to offer, not a bad gig even if you missed out on eternal parenthood.
In short, we have a theology of salvation that’s broader than our theology of exaltation. And we’re explicit about that.
So… what is the actual incompatibility that the 15 see? I think you’re quite right that they see something that probably leads to the a difficulty in accepting the idea that orientation is not a matter of choice (at least at the ends of a Kinsey-like continuum). But I don’t know what it is.
Are we already having the fight over the theology of exaltation (tied to sealing)? Do we have to, when there’s already room in the theology of salvation?
I believe that there are underlying legal issues coming up in the future that the church is trying to protect itself from now. I have two more points of import regarding these policies. The first being the blind faith of the faithful. Many are taught to not question authority. This played into the Catholic Priest molestation scandal. Although it was a disturbing development, devout members often hold to their faith with the prayer and belief that these issues will be dealt with and that restoration will be accomplished through their leadership. The second issue is that denial of one's sexuality has led to many marriages built on faulty ground steeped in denial. The reprecussions I have witnessed personally can be harmful, abusive, and lead to lives led with cloaks and shrouds and deception as well. This is very difficult to reconcile.
You can never fully "stand up for what is right" while remaining in a religion so wrong.
Excellent response, Greg. And thank you again for hosting the periodic discussion groups in your home. I enjoy them immensely.
I agree with your prediction on the two directions the church could go, however looking at who’s on deck for the top chair (Nelson, Oaks, Holland, Bednar), I don’t have much hope this policy will be walked back anytime soon.
Can the church be “true” and the make doctrinal or policy mistakes? I think so. But not without examining the what this word “true” means. Can it mean that all contradictory doctrines, policies and supposed revelations are categorically and simultaneously true? Clearly this is impossible. Black banned from the priesthood and blood atonement prove that people in church leadership make serious, damaging mistakes. Is this one of them? Perhaps. And it’s nice to have the permission to pick and choose while moving along the road towards God.
Then who do you propose agitate for change from within mormonism? Those who feel strongly called to stand up for right boldly within the faith may be the only ones who can effectively achieve that end.
I don’t think agitating does much. I prefer to simply ignore and laugh about it and move on. Does agitating change much in Salt Lake? No. But, simply not doing or simply ignoring at the local level does.
I am sorry, I do not want to be rude, but to be honest this article is huge load of BS. This article and many like it present a false picture of the Church and its positon. Articles like this present their own ‘opinion’ of the motives of Church leaders at the ‘real’ reason behind the Church's positons. Let me quote the author here: “LDS Church…leadership still clings to the belief—and some leaders cling to it with the tenacity of a death-grip—that homosexuality is a matter of choice, and that having made the bad choice at an earlier time, someone with “same-sex attraction” (a euphemism that I detest) can simply choose to be straight. All of our LGBT-related policies and doctrines are built on this foundation.”
What a load of BS! Church Leaders including Elder Nelson and Elder Oaks have both come out supporting the positon that biology plays a direct role in same-sex attraction. The point is not whether or not your biology leads you to be attracted to the same gender the question is whether or not you chose to act on that biology. Being gay is not a sin. Engaging in homosexual behavior is a sin. Being a kleptomaniac is not a sin. Stealing is a sin. Having biological tendency toward angry and violence is not a sin. Punching someone in the face is a sin. The first in each case is not a choice; the second is clearly a choice. The LGBT advocates do everything they can to whitewash over that point. Elder Nelson was a world leading heart surgery but I guess he needs this author to make him better appreciate human biology. You either believe the “natural man is an enemy to God” or you do not. You either believe that you can master your biology or you believe you are a slave to your biology.
While Elder Nelson was in fact a heart surgeon, that does not necessarily mean he understands the biological basis for anything. He may be exceptionally skilled at surgery without having the slightest understanding of molecular genetics, much of which was not known at the time he practiced medicine. In fact, his well-publicized views about evolution would suggest he is not familiar with the overwhelming evidence that now exists to support it. Similarly, he may not be familiar with all the data relevant to the biological basis for homosexuality.
Canyon, just read your reply and even if you seem to have a reason for this, you clearly do not get what it means to be LGBTQ+ Some of the described behavioural tendency’s like cleptomaninaism are unfortunate but just a small aspect of ones self. Being gay is a totally different story. I suspect you are not gay, to help you understand about what we talk here, just imagine by law being attracted to the opposite sex were the sin, and you would either have the choise to mary another man or stay celibate for the rest of your life. I suppose you would suffer and detest this, but exactly that is what it is to be gay for gay people and not acting upon it is not living, just enduring. I hope this helps to shed some light
Kenyon Mitchell,
The church leaders may say that homosexuality is due to biology but their actions do not show that they believe what they are saying. More importantly, this move towards saying that homosexuality is due to biology is recent. It certainly was not what the church leaders said for years. YEARS! There were aggressive and harmful measures taken at BYU to CURE people of their homosexuality. Gay people were counseled to marry members of the opposite sex and be cured. If the brethren believed that it was biological, those things never would have happened.
The church leaders also say that women in the church are equal but we continue to have a strict patriarchy and temple ceremonies with language that puts women beneath men. Saying and doing are different things.
How does one 'act' on being black?
To the friend…. You wont leave GOD OR CHRIST by leaving the,LDS church… Its not possible… You don't have to go anywhere either but inside to your own heart . Its,tough when u r born and raised in it. Took me yrs to reconcile fully and I am not gay, but still have high morals and loyalty to what i believe in. The church has violated my heart of hearts do many times I could not in good faith or conscience ever ever sustain those leaders. They go back and forth according to popularity and the numbers every time. That alone is a disgrace to me when they say "it was prophesied". How could it be when they change their minds in order to save face. Unbelievable how anyone with a sound mind and open heart would stay in such an organization.
So are you talking about sex or just getting married? Consider the following. Two older men who have been long time friends and who have no interest in gay sex decide that they want to guarantee for each other certain rights like inheritance, social security, medical benefits, etc. The only way to do this is to get "married' which they do. There is no romance or intimacy of any kind. Under the church revelation, they are per se apostates requiring mandatory church discipline and probable excommunication. I agree with your comment that "Engaging in homosexual behavior is a sin" assuming that your definition of homosexual behavior means homosexual sex. Unfortunately, as I see it, the church, with its new policy, assumes that same-sex marriage automatically means homosexual sex. So, using your argument that engaging in homosexual behavior is a sin, just the mere fact of getting married has nothing to do with sex so the marriage, by itself, is not sinful. Am I missing something?
Compare the above to a single gay man with a young child in his custody who goes out and has gay sex with a different partner every night. Which is worse in your eyes – two men who are married and live together with no intimacy or the single gay guy?
I am not sure what the prophet had in mind in seeking guidance from the Lord about the issue. Maybe there was the assumption that all homosexual marriages involve homosexual sex and it was just easier to make a blanket rule rather than take the time to look at the underlying personal behavior.
Before you read my comment understand this: it is my husband who has left the church. I am the one still praying, working on faith, listening to our leaders with an open heart and a contrite spirit. A kleptomaniac cannot be labeled as such until he steals numerous times. An abuser cannot be labeled as such until he hits and degrades numerous times. These people who have been given these labels were not born with a tendency to steal or hit. They made choices to do so and become that label.
(And regardless they can still change and become better.) People who are gay are just that – gay. It IS who they are. One who does not understand those feelings should never tell them to "just not act on it. To get over it. To recognize their same sex attraction but understand it's a sin." It's human nature to long for intimacy, for a human connection that is deeper and stronger than a friendship. We desire to intimately share our lives with another human. To tell someone that they can NEVER act on those innate desires, or they will be labeled as sinners and apostates, is just plain wrong. I thought the Savior atoned for us all. WHY then are we so overly concerned with this issue? God bless.
Allan West Tilting at windmills to think that such a juggernaut of trooth will/can change its course. The LDS church (the mind hive of the brethren… that they spread biannually) is built on an extremely top down ultimate model of authority. Many who have "stood up boldly" as you say, have been quickly shown the door. The only one who gets moved by your protest is going to be you – moved out.
“One question stands foremost in my mind, is this the will of God or the will of man?”
That’s the haunting question that ended this heartfelt 1967 letter to President David O. McKay. It still cries up to Mormon leaders today in new but equally haunting ways.
http://thoughtsonthingsandstuff.com/i-too-have-been-born-of-goodly-parents/
Believe me, the Brethren have much bigger fish to fry than SSM, modern scholarship/science undermining BoM historicity and BoA provenance to the point where these are no longer officially mentioned. Do the Brethren have any idea how this will erode the faith during this, the Information Age, an era that is only beginning? SSM should be WAY down their list. Their actions are those of sore losers amplified by animus.
Kenyon Mitchell,
Being LGBT has nothing in common with a tendency toward anger and violence. With counseling and exercising self-control you can actually affect a tendency toward violence and anger. Anger and violence are not who you are but what you do. Being gay is who a person is.
I challenge you not to act on your heterosexual tendencies. Don’t date, don’t hold hands, deny yourself a family. That “being gay is not a sin, acting on it is” line is really getting old and comes from a position that shows zero empathy. Elder Nelson acted on his heterosexual tendencies when he married–at age 80–his second wife.
As to Greg Prince, the author, he’s far better informed than you know.
Comment
I read the comments on this blog at http://rationalfaiths.com/biology-vs-behavior/, in response to a referral from one who thought it a reasonable discussion of a controversial issue. I am sorry that someone turned to a popular commentator who they trusted would help them understand it, but who was biased in the negative by his own mistaken perspectives. Rather than take issue with his discussion by rudely calling it a bunch of B.S. as one commenter did with little explanation for his opinion, I would like to explain fully why I disagree with major points in his post. He said:
“Let me drop straight to the bottom line: the reason LGBT issues are splitting the LDS Church is that its leadership still clings to the belief—and some leaders cling to it with the tenacity of a death-grip—that homosexuality is a matter of choice, and that having made the bad choice at an earlier time, someone with “same-sex attraction” (a euphemism that I detest) can simply choose to be straight. All of our LGBT-related policies and doctrines are built on this foundation.”
On the contrary:
The LDS perspective and policies with respect to gender and marriage are built upon the foundation specified in the 1995 Proclamation to the World which asserts that ‘gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity.’ And that gender is inextricably related to the potential for procreation within a God mandated marriage relationship. That gender is an eternal characteristic of individual identity may be peculiarly LDS, but the orthodox Christian view of marriage is rooted in the biblical creation story.
When the Christian God said it was not good for man to be alone and created a helpmate for him, it was clear he intended more than just a friendly, cooperative, congenial companion; he did not say it didn’t matter what the gender of this companion should be, but he intentionally created a complementary woman, both sexually and temperamentally.
When God performed the first marriage, he did not say that it was because Adam and Eve had a fundamental right to be bound in such a state, but it was formulated as a divine injunction that they be so, not so that they could feel comfortable in taking pleasure in a sexual relationship, but so that as help mates they could multiply and populate a society of humans (God’s spiritual children) in a responsible committed way by complementing each other’s male and female natures, not only sexually as progenitors, but functionally as providers, exemplars, and nurturers in a long term hopefully indissoluble relationship with their offspring. Adultery, fornication, and non-Platonic homosexual relationships, no matter how irresistible the temptation may seem or how loving they may be portrayed to be, are antithetical or disruptive to that concept of pledge committed, exclusive, potentially procreative marriage, and therefore not approved by the God who instituted it. One may mistakenly perceive this kind of disapproval as hostile discrimination, but it is kindly differentiation based on recognition of eternal truths and consequences. The complementary gender and temperament characteristics in the marriage requirement for the nucleus of a Christian family is the pattern for marriage even if biological or other factors incident to mortality result in a childless marriage.
Those who do not accept the biblical story are confronted with simple anatomical, physiological, and behavioral observations that statistically in a most overwhelming way show that nature made the same choice for the propagation and nurturing of human offspring. And according to a postulate of the theory of natural evolution, nature always arrives at the best alternatives.
So the LDS policy of religiously and sociologically recognizing the union of one man and one woman as the standard of marriage is not based on whether a non-Platonic homosexual friendship is a result of individual choice or whether it is a result of an irresistible immutable biological proclivity. Whichever it is, when acted upon, the result is a relationship that is conspicuously different than that of a non-Platonic heterosexual relationship in at least one significant way, and one does not have to be bigoted or hateful to recognize the differences, which may not be those of love, commitment, devotion or fidelity which can be evaluated only from long term observations. From the strictly religious standpoint one relationship (heterosexual marriage) is sanctioned by the Christian God and the other (non-Platonic homosexual friendship) is not for reasons I outlined earlier.
The LDS, Catholic and other orthodox Christian Churches became involved in the California Proposition 8 political referendum because the marriage issue is not solely a religious consideration but is also a national sociological concern. There is a high probability that procreation will occur in heterosexual marriages and zero probability that it will occur as a result of homosexual relations. In a sound self-perpetuating society, children and their education are significant factors in the marriage equation, and it is counter-intuitive to believe, even under the most ideal alternative conditions, that children are not to some degree disadvantaged by not having a male father and a female mother (be they biological or adoptive) as nature (or God, if you choose) intended. And that is the reason society has a compelling interest in fostering heterosexual relationships by giving them the distinctive and exclusive discretionary privilege (not a constitutional right) of having a marriage license with entitlements suited to encourage stable marriages fostering future citizens.
Unfortunately, divorce, death, and abusive behaviors interfere with that marriage ideal being realized in all too many cases. Adoptive parents, Grandparents, uncles, aunts, siblings, and close friends can step in to such adverse situations and try to replicate or at least approximate the ideal; but the fact that the ‘impossible dream’ is not achieved in all situations is not a reason to abandon the ideal and to teach children that there is no reason in our society to favor the potentially child bearing relationship with the distinctive and exclusive title of marriage. It also does not justify branding as bigots those persons who wish to hold on to that ideal, govern their non-antisocial discretionary choices by it, and vocally advocate it. And there is no compelling political reason and no constitutional mandate to nominally equate heterosexual marriages with homosexual relationships, in spite of what 5 out of 9 Supreme Judges may have said.
By imposing his personal interpretation (progressive or recessive) on the motives behind the involvement of the church in several political and religious actions and the intent of some pronouncements as expressed, or not voiced, by different officials of the Church at various times, he claimed that there are divergent perspectives and mixed messages about homosexual relationships among the leaders of the LDS Church. because some of them lean to the view that same-sex attraction is biologically determined and others are fixated on the view that same-sex attraction is simply a matter of choice. He missed the mark in every instance he opined was either progressive or recessive. For instance, “the Church’s silence in the face of same-sex marriage ballot measures in four states in 2012 (progressive when compared to its stance towards Prop 8)”.
The church stance has been set in concrete in the 1995 Proclamation which was the basis of support for the retention of the traditional definition of marriage during the Proposition 8 referendum. Silence in subsequent litigation involving other parties did not connote any softening of that concrete position or any change in perspective. Lehi after admonishing Laman and Lemuel concerning their misbehavior multiple times ceased talking to them about it; if they concluded by that silence that Lehi had mollified his opinion of their behavior, we know they were grossly mistaken. The latter-day position of the Church and its leaders on the marriage issue has never been either regressive, progressive, or digressive; it remains as it was ordained in the beginning in Genesis and as it was reiterated in the 1995 Proclamation on the Family.
Most orthodox Christians on the basis of their Bible based theological beliefs consider homosexual behavior as sinful, but by obedience to their own precepts they should be kind, respectful, courteous, and loving in their social interactions with homosexual brothers, sisters, and children, who are equal in their status as children of God and have equal entitlement to accepting or rejecting the benefits of Christ’s Atonement. From my reading and listening that is unanimously the view and practice of the leaders of the LDS Church. Hence, their support for some non-discrimination statutes for public housing and employment for persons identifying as homosexuals, at the same time not consenting to the infringement of the freedom of religious organizations to make choices consistent with their beliefs when they consider homosexual behavior as incompatible with their doctrine and hiring standards.
There are some professed Christians who do not follow the golden rules and they verbally (passively by snubbing them or actively by deriding them) mistreat homosexuals contrary to Christ’s teachings, but not one of our LDS leaders has sanctioned this kind of unkind behavior, and not one of them, from my observation, has vacillated in his view on retaining the heterosexual definition of marriage espoused in the ‘Proclamation’ as God’s view. The proclamation enunciates some truths in God’s plan of salvation as he has revealed it to us. It does not promote hateful, disparaging, or stigmatizing attitudes toward any persons. It is hostile to the LGBT agenda on religious and philosophical grounds only because it warns of the sociological harm that will result if the God given standard of marriage and its meaning is downgraded; and we are counseled to politically and civilly oppose such a change in a non-belligerent democratic way.
I have no personal experience with same sex attraction, nor do I claim to be an expert in the origins of it. I have read many so called scientific studies which claim to prove its causes one way or another, but from my observations there may not be any one universal cause; the only published study which I consider honest is one that states exactly that, but does say that overall observations do not tend to support the hypothesis that it is inborn. I know personally of homosexual behavior and propensities that have been engendered by traumatic as well as seemingly harmless post birth experiences. This is not to say that same-sex attraction is a matter of any simple conscious choice for an individual; in most cases it is most likely an unwanted orientation or disposition imprinted not by biology but by early traumatic or subliminal social interactions. I know of no widely peer reviewed before publication studies that claim to prove that same sex attraction is fundamentally genetic or biological in origin or that it is immutable, as claimed by this ‘trusted advisor’ without authoritative citations. The APA report states only that it is highly resistant to change, not that it is immutable. And testimonies of a few that have changed, not just suppressed, their orientation is evidence of that. The psychological impedance encountered to making that change is evidence that the extraordinary attraction is not a recognizable conscious choice and in many cases may not be overcome in this life, and that is what is acknowledged by LDS leaders.
I have only opposite sex attractions and I will admit that I must exercise some degree of choice in not indulging them in thoughts or behavior outside of the bounds of marriage. I cannot say from experience, but only by observation and deduction that the same kind of choices can and should be made by same sex attracted individuals.
Consider the trusted advisor’s statement:
(The closest they have come to real movement is to concede that biology may be a factor, but then to say, “But that’s irrelevant, because you are still responsible for your behavior.” It’s like saying to an African-American, “You may not have chosen your skin color, but if you act on it you are a sinner.”)
This is a clumsy attempt to equate the outward, conspicuous, immutable genetic characteristic of racial skin color with generally non-race correlated inner, invisible proclivities of sexual attraction, and the propensities to lie, steal, misjudge, or harm another for personal advantage or revenge, which are manifest only when they become evident in ones outward behavior as he chooses to yield to them, act on them, and sin. The only way one could act on one’s skin color would be to try to cover it up or hide it in some way. If that was a pernicious deceptive action then it could be tantamount to lying and might be a sin. If it was a temporary camouflage action for self-protection, it might be considered justified.
The birth attached conditions of race, ethnicity, origin, gender are not matters of choice in this life, but how we worship or fail to worship God and how we treat and interact with our fellow men and women are choices we make when faced with or tempted by the ‘natural man’ urges and proclivities which often are in conflict with the moral spurring of the spirit of Christ and his precepts. The moral and reasoning weaknesses of the ordinary natural man, most of which cannot clearly be attributed to biology by science, can be subdued and eventually eradicated. If not, then there is no reason for the Ten Commandments, repentance, an Atonement, and a just Judgment.
(One gay, LDS friend told the trusted advisor, “If it were only about sex, it would be easy. My homosexuality informs every aspect of my interaction with the world around me.”)
If that is the case then this friend is living in a very narrow world. Gender and sexuality were designed to put complementarity and diversity in a marriage companionship and to facilitate procreation; the fact that sexual relations can be a source of great pleasure makes it an adhesive in a wholesome intimate marriage relationship, but that is only one aspect of our beings and God’s creation, and if sex is the only adhesive in a relationship there is a high probability that it will crumble. I know people who have lived and are living very satisfying, productive lives without having had to, outside of dreams, satisfy their sexual yearnings which have been put into a secondary position among their priorities in an eternal perspective. Not that they have given up all hope for such relationships, but that they have decided to hope, and not mope, irrespective of gender identity or attractions.
Just out of curiosity, how long did it take you to write this thing?
Good question. I did not keep track of the time; but this much I can tell you. The person who referred me to the discussion was a very close friend of mine. The fact that they thought it was a reasonable statement concerning the homosexual marriage controversy and I promised to read it, obligated me to do more than just give it a cursory perusal. I read it carefully and thoughtfully, and tried to be unbiased, although when the opening comment was so far off the mark, I had a hard time doing that, never-the-less, I read the comments on the whole blog, and can empathize with all the commenters and can understand their emotions and reactions, although I disagreed with some of their statements and logic.
My response to the ‘trusted advisor’ and my friend had to be more than a quick retort, a personal jab, or a smart quip that are typical responses in most blogs. I thought I should spend at least as much time, if not more, writing my response as the initiator of the blog spent in writing his response to his friend.
I do apologize for the length of my post, but I tried to present my views and what I consider to be the facts and truths related to the issues broached as thoroughly as I thought appropriate. The response was not off the top of my head. I did make an effort to address all the important issues and make my perspectives as clear and comprehensive as I could; and that did take some time. I did not respond to the comments of every commenter, but would be happy to if I were asked.
Comment
Good question. I did not keep track of the time; but this much I can tell you. The person who referred me to the discussion was a very close friend of mine. The fact that they thought it was a reasonable statement concerning the homosexual marriage controversy and I promised to read it, obligated me to do more than just give it a cursory perusal. I read it carefully and thoughtfully, and tried to be unbiased, although when the opening comment was so far off the mark, I had a hard time doing that, never-the-less, I read the comments on the whole blog, and can empathize with all the commenters and can understand their emotions and reactions, although I disagreed with some of their statements and logic.
My response to the ‘trusted advisor’ and my friend had to be more than a quick retort, a personal jab, or a smart quip that are typical responses in most blogs. I thought I should spend at least as much time, if not more, writing my response as the initiator of the blog spent in writing his response to his friend.
I do apologize for the length of my post, but I tried to present my views and what I consider to be the facts and truths related to the issues broached as thoroughly as I thought appropriate. The response was not off the top of my head. I did make an effort to address all the important issues and make my perspectives as clear and comprehensive as I could; and that did take some time. I did not respond to the comments of every commenter, but would be happy to if I were asked.
How anybody who endured the theological nonsense promulgated by the Brethren regarding Blacks and the priesthood (see 1049 First Presidency letter on Negroes and the priesthood) could willingly swallow even more nonsense, directed at an equally innocent subset of human beings, is simply beyond me. Such a person’s critical faculties are not fully engaged.
How you presumed to know what my perspective on Blacks and the Priesthood is by what I had written in my post, is beyond me. But I thought I was clear that what you consider as ‘nonsense’ is not directed against any person or subset of persons, but is concerned with concepts and ideals that apply to every child of God and are clearly elucidated in the scriptures in multiple instances and upheld by leaders in the Church in today. I did not expand on this related issue in my post, but let me say, I can fully understand the newly announced Handbook homosexual relationships policy of the Church, and even accept that it came as instruction from God in these times. It is not inconsistent with His former revelations and teachings and in no way is intended to be uncompassionate or punitive toward any of His little children or to deny them the ordinances of salvation in their lives. I have wrestled this out in my mind and could give a full account of my conclusion, but that would mean you would have to read another three or four paragraphs.
Blacks and the Priesthood is another issue for which there are few if any scriptural references, but a lot of speculation and personal opinions, which I have a right to agree with or disagree with. I am not bound to accept every opinion or statement uttered or written by any authority who I have sustained in the church when he is acting on his own agency as a fully fallible human capable of having perspectives colored by personal impulses and reactions where knowledge is not complete, just as I am.
In my post it is clear what perspectives I accept and fully sustain in our latter day leaders who I believe are unanimous in their teachings on the doctrine of marriage, its meaning, and purpose. I tried to explain why I believe as I do without resorting to my critical faculties. I slipped up a few times, but thank goodness they were not fully engaged. I am sorry that my perspective is beyond you. It is my failing, I cannot express it more clearly.
Don’t you think that during the long history of LDS Negro Exclusion that the Brethren declared it also to be the “will of the Lord”? (for starters, read the 1949 First Presidency letter I referenced earlier.) And are you really going to tell me that there are more scriptural references & directives for homosexual exclusion than for Black exclusion? No, your critical faculties are not fully engaged on this issue and instead of challenging a challenged leadership you cheer as they paint your church into a very tiny corner.
Let me just say that I had several very close friendships with colored members of the Church before the Priesthood was rightly extended to them and with others not members. We have colored brethren in our Priesthood quorums in my ward today and several mixed marriages. I have heard their testimonies of the Gospel and have been stirred by them.
There are no scriptural references or directives for homosexual ‘exclusion’. It is clear that we have a semantics problem and a difference of perspective on the meaning of exclusion verses loving disapproval on this same-sex marriage issue. As long as we have this problem, we are not likely to have a meaningful discussion.
Comment
Grant Porter,
For behold, they had hardened their hearts against him, that they had become like unto a flint; where fore, as they were white, and exceeding fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people, therefore the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. And thus saith the Lord God, I will cause that they shall be loathsome unto thy people, save they shall repent of their iniquities.–2 Nephi 4 (1830 Edition)
Let me just say that I had several very close friendships with colored members of the Church before the Priesthood was rightly extended to them and with others not members. We have colored brethren in our Priesthood quorums in my ward today and several mixed marriages. I have heard their testimonies of the Gospel and have been stirred by them.
There are no scriptural references or directives for homosexual ‘exclusion’. It is clear that we have a semantics problem and a difference of perspective on the meaning of exclusion verses loving disapproval on this same-sex marriage issue. As long as we have this problem, we are not likely to have a meaningful discussion.
Was it also “loving disapproval” that kept priesthood from Negroes, or (speaking of semantics) was it just “exclusion” pure & simple? – because, honestly, the results are exactly the same.
You know that I do not consider same-sex attraction to be analogous to skin color and I am not sure why a discussion of homosexual behavior was diverted into a discussion of Blacks and the Priesthood. I am not sure why the Negros had to wait for the priesthood, could have been loving disapproval, but I doubt it. I am quite sure that it applies to homosexual behavior. The issue of Blacks and the Priesthood has been resolved by the Lord according to his discretion and perhaps impatience waiting for us to resolve it ourselves. In the case of same-sex marriage, I do not think the reasons are the same nor are the results to be seen the same unless you are looking through a very limited ‘field of view’ monocular.
I am quite sure we are not going to see this issue in the same light and see no positive end to further debate. Please do not be offended if I do not respond to any further negative comments or consider my silence as a sign of agreement with your viewpoint.
Deep breaths, buddy …
Jane Adams Kennedy,
Exactly.
I have responded at some length to Greg's piece in an article published last week in Meridian Magazine and posted here. http://ldsmag.com/the-real-foundation-of-the-lds-churchs-lgbt-policies-a-response-to-greg-prince/
I offered it the article to Rational Faiths first, but never received a response to several messages . . .
Gene Schaerr,
Comment
I am so sorry. I totally dropped the ball on this. I was writing a response to your email and then I just plain forgot to send it. I feel so dumb.
– Mike
Nailed it.
Once you cross the "it's not a choice bridge" anything and everything that is not 100% full acceptance and equal participation becomes instantly untenable.
Once you cross that bridge, everything falls into place, makes sense, and the road forward becomes so clear. Once you cross that bridge, there's no going back either.
Once you cross that bridge, and endorse full acceptance and equality, it becomes unimportant and unconsequential whether it's a choice or not.
For example, take the case of loving committed infertile married couples, of which all married gay couples are.
There is no chance that God or Jesus is remotely interested in what their genitals look like. And further, should LDS Bishops and Stake Presidents be put in a position of inspecting couples genitals before issuing marriage recommends or before holding disciplinary courts?
As I said, the LDS position is untenable and there is no going back.
The above quote cannot be considered doctrinal. There is no foundation for it whatsoever.
Furthermore, if a loving committed couple wishes to remain together in the hereafter forever, whatever their gender, why would the Almighty or Jesus care and forbid it?
Wonderful thoughts expressed. Given that science today has clearly shown that homosexuality is from birth by both genetics and epigenetics we would have to conclude that homosexuality is indeed created by God. If God creates, He must have a purpose in mind. That purpose surely is not to suffer a lifetime of loneliness, bigotry, hatred, and patronizing. I firmly believe that if Mormon leadership was truly inspired they would drop this pretense of following the other religions, truly ask God his intents and then open their hearts to true Christ like loving embracing behavior instead of what has been happening for decades. Their silence is deathly, their pandering dogma has killed 1000’s of young people giving them no hope no love in this life.