The Emperor shivered, for he suspected they were right. But he thought, “This procession has got to go on.” So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn’t there at all.
If there was one positive thing to come out of the recent policy kerfluffle, it was the opportunity for the LDS Church to show to the world how it has run out of spiritual and moral capital when it comes to its dealings with the LGBTQ community.
Simply put, the Church is bankrupt on this issue.
We knew this coming out of the Prop 8 fiasco, but it has been six long years since then, with a few token gestures by the Church thrown in, and the policy incident was a needed reminder that the leaders of the Church have much work to do.
“Know thy enemy,” as the saying goes. And the enemy here is bigotry.
Like the naked emperor, the Church stands in the waning light of the now-fading Mormon moment, exposed for all the world to see it for what it is – an organization led by aging, straight white men born in a different era and sheltered to the point where they still believe gay families are a threat to the world.
What’s most troubling to me personally is not just the open hostility, but the utter lack of moral and spiritual foundation on which to rest their argument as it relates to same-sex marriage.
I’ve compiled a short list of the ways the Church’s current stance on gay marriage and its views toward the LGBTQ community fall short of even basic scrutiny:
1) The Celibacy Policy – The Church espouses the familiar Biblical refrain that “It is not good for man to be alone.” It still actively encourages young single adults to marry as soon as possible and start families. It believes families are essential to God’s plan. It believes and teaches that our eternal destiny lies in forming everlasting bonds in holy matrimony, bonds that extend beyond this life.
The Church has also (finally) acknowledged, after years of openly and blatantly beating the “curable” drum, that being gay is not, in fact, something one can change.1 So here we have significant cognitive dissonance – it’s not good for man to be alone, except for gays. It’s better for you to be alone, even though you didn’t choose to be gay, nor can you do anything about it. The Church doesn’t even pretend to have an answer for this one, instead choosing to completely ignore the dissonance it causes through its celibacy approach.
This is all beside the fact that we have ample evidence to show that encouraging our gay brothers and sisters to live lives of celibacy or engage in mixed-orientation marriages is harmful to their mental health. Do we truly desire their happiness? Do we truly want them to live lives of fulfillment? Then let’s borrow from the already existing playbook and encourage them to form healthy, committed, legal relationships as is now afforded to them. That’s what leads to happiness.
The Church simply does not know what to do with gay people. It has no answers.
2) Implying Christ condemned same-sex marriage – One of the most infuriating parts of the recent policy episode was the Church Newsroom’s condescending diatribe about Christ’s approach to sin:
Of course the Savior’s love was never withheld from anyone and His words on the cross exemplify that. But, He also expressed love by teaching clear doctrine and standing firmly against sin with sometimes-tough lessons for which people rejected Him. That is where Church leaders stand today – holding firm to the doctrinal position of right and wrong, while extending love to all people.
President Newsroom is employing some skillful rhetoric here, but it’s not based on anything foundational. The fact remains that there is no “clear doctrine” here for the Church to call upon as far as Jesus and his words are concerned. Zero. The Church insists on a hard-line when it comes to same-sex marriage, but clearly fudges the literal line from the New Testament that Jesus draws in terms of divorce. Scriptural proof-texting at its worst.
The Church relied for years on scant doctrinal evidence for the priesthood ban. The evidence it had, it has now disavowed. It is now using similar rhetorical devices to support its stance on same-sex marriage. Reminds me of a quote:
‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’
It’s time for the Church – and Church members – to acknowledge this. We need, desperately, further light and knowledge in this area, and there is no indication the Brethren are seeking it. Instead, they seem to be content to retread the same old arguments.
3) The Hierarchy of Sin – The Church’s policies clearly and unquestionably place legal same-sex marriages above rape, incest and murder in terms of severity. The former requires an automatic “court of love.” The latter three? Church discipline is merely recommended. I served in a bishopric and co-habitating heterosexual couples didn’t even earn a bat of the eye from the bishop.
Not really much else to say here except to highlight the repugnancy of this approach.
4) Comparisons With Polygamy – With the adoption of the new policies, the Church laughably lumped same-sex marriage with polygamy. How an institution that still canonizes the practice of polygamy and that has among its current apostles two practicing spiritual polygamists can do this with a straight face is completely beyond me.
If the Church wants to use the polygamy card, it needs to be more willing to deal with the skeletons that come with that closet.
5) Utter Lack of Revelation – In a church that proclaims to set itself apart from the world thanks to its belief in continuing revelation, perhaps the most egregious thing to consider is how this battle against the LGBTQ community has been openly waged over the years without an ounce of revealed, canonized doctrine behind it. The best the institution has been able to pull together is a document, drafted by lawyers and conveniently not shared with the female auxiliary heads before announcing it to the body of the Church.
That’s right, we’re talking about the Family Proclamation. Pres. Packer’s now infamous slip of the tongue notwithstanding, the Proclamation has never been established as revelation, and until it is presented to the general membership of the Church, can only be insinuated but not officially accepted as scripture. That’s the closest the Church has come to declaring any of its positions on homosexuality or same-sex marriage as doctrine.
The Church has built itself a pretend set of spiritual clothes, with which it has cloaked itself and its membership. Members shuffle to the pulpit, speak out in Sunday School and post on social media and declare how beautiful the Emperor’s clothes are.
Meanwhile, the world stares in disbelief, and those of us who struggle to make sense of it all cry with Joseph:
O God, where art thou? And where is the pavilion that covereth thy hiding place?
How long shall thy hand be stayed, and thine eye, yea thy pure eye, behold from the eternal heavens the wrongs of thy people and of thy servants, and thine ear be penetrated with their cries?
Yea, O Lord, how long shall they suffer these wrongs and unlawful oppressions, before thine heart shall be softened toward them, and thy bowels be moved with compassion toward them?
How long will the Lord be patient with the leaders of the Church?
- Elder Holland’s recent conference talk also implied this same line of reasoning: “And, I must say, this son’s sexual orientation did not somehow miraculously change—no one assumed it would.”
James Patterson
James Patterson lives with his wife and two children in North Carolina. He makes no apologies for being an avid fan of both Duke basketball and Taylor Swift.
All posts by James Patterson
Members who believe the Church should accept same-sex marriage need to consider the implications. The Church could not simply “recognize” legal same-sex marriages without addressing a slew of other, interrelated concerns. The Church would have to say something about accepting a marriage arrangement that has been a non-starter for 6,000 years. The Church would also have to say something about the Temple. Here are some possibilities:
(1) “We recognize legal same-sex marriages as acceptable to God – but only in mortality. And because a legal marriage and sexual expression is traditionally considered a package deal, sexual expression within legal, same-sex marriages is no longer a sin. Such unions, however, will be dissolved by death and will not be reconstituted thereafter. Therefore, these unions will not be sealed in the temple.”
Related issues:
• Will same-sex attraction continue after death?
• Can these for-time-only same-sex marriages be performed in the temple?
• Will spouses in same-sex marriages be available to be called as bishops, Stake presidents, youth leaders, Primary and Relief Society presidents? If not, why not?
(2) “We recognize legal same-sex marriages as valid in mortality, and as we don’t know all of the conditions operative in the next world or in the resurrection we will not comment on that. We will accept legal same-sex marriages but will not seal such unions in the temple, and will wait to see what comes. Spouses in same-sex marriages will have to hang on and hope for the best.”
Related issues: See above
(3) “We recognize the validity of same-sex marriages in this life and because we don’t know what will obtain in the next life, we will go ahead and seal these unions in the temple anyway and let it all get sorted out in the next world.”
Related issues: See above, minus the temple restrictions
(4) “We have expanded our understanding of doctrine: We now hold that marriages in the Celestial Kingdom are of three types – man and woman, man and man, and woman and woman. Eternal same-sex unions are an exact analog to eternal heterosexual marriages in their rights, privileges and destinies. Being eternal, same-sex marriages have always existed, though we knew it not until now. It is on this new understanding/expectation that we will seal these unions in the temple.”
Related issues: Presumably, all issues above are resolved.
In recognizing same-sex marriages as valid in the Church, some form of the above would have to be considered. Policies and rationales would need to be articulated. Same-sex marriage doesn’t exist in a theological vacuum. Nothing does. And which policy would same-sex couples settle for?
How would such decisions be made? The LDS Church being what it is, and to be true to its claims, there can be only one answer: Revelation.
And here is the sticking point, the deciding line: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not run by a group of men in Salt Lake City. The head of the Church is Jesus Christ.
What if Jesus Christ says no?
To the obvious rejoinder, “Well, what if Christ says yes?” the only response can be: Accept God’s will and persuade everyone within earshot to do the same – the same response if Christ says no, right?
“The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not run by a group of men in Salt Lake City.”
Strongly disagree. I think the evidence clearly shows that true, doctrinally changing revelation from God (in the vein of revelation that came to Joseph Smith) comes along less that once a generation. Other than that, the Q15 are running the show.
James Patterson,
And therein lies the rub; for you, the Church of Jesus Christ is not run by Jesus Christ, which I would suggest is a much larger problem than the current issue.
To put it bluntly, if I understand correctly, according to the leaders of the Church, the only way in which an individual can consciously choose to experience an orgasm without avoiding sin is through sexual intercourse between a married man and woman. All others who consciously choose to have such an experience, either alone, with another person while unmarried, or when married to a partner of the same gender, are committing a sinful act. Does anyone see the inequity in this?
Tom D, no, all the heterosexual Mormons see no inequity with this whatsoever. Seems perfectly fair to them. 😐
“What’s most troubling to me personally is not just the open hostility, but the utter lack of moral and spiritual foundation on which to rest their argument as it relates to same-sex marriage.”
One could say the same about the proponents of same-sex marriage, in particular those who didn’t even take the time to thoughtfully consider or understand the new policy before fighting against it. The open hostility astounds.
I don’t know how one could still believe they have authority after this.
Tom D,
It’s called the Law of Chastity, and it has been operative for 6,000 years. It is still mandatory with the LDS Church, Catholicism, Islam, and a host of other traditions. And it gets even more pointed, Tom. Per Christ himself: “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matt 5:27-28)
Violations occur all the time, and are of differing severity. The fact that chastity is “impractical” or “unrealistic” or “unsophisticated” has impressed God not at all over the centuries. When a society finally abandons even the pretense of chastity, bad things happen. Such is the situation today, where increasingly across the world chastity is a joke. The entertainment industry thrives on its demise.
Only thing I have ever that Jesus said possibly relating to homosexuality was in Luke 17:34 when Jesus mentions 2 men in a one bed.
Temple says Law of Chastity is defined as: “Sexual relations only with your husband or wife to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded”…so if in a union legal under the law with complete marital fidelity such a union would conform to the Temple definition of the Law of Chastity.
Handbook says Law of Chastity is defined as: “The Lord’s law of chastity is abstinence from sexual relations outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage.” and “Sexual relations are proper only between a man and a woman who are legally and lawfully wedded as husband and wife.” My read is the add on is a personal opinion.
Tim Bone. Yes, there have been long-standing customs regarding sexual activity and how sexual desire should be satisfied. In some cultures the clitoris of young females is cut off so that these individuals will never experience sexual pleasure. The satisfaction of sexual needs of LGBT individuals, singles, widows, widowers, has been generally ignored or forbidden, since these needs are only to be satisfied between a married man and woman. This position seems unrealistic to me, given our current understanding of gender identity and attraction as well as the various circumstances in which individuals can find themselves. Within marriage, circumstances related to sexual interest can change, and sexual needs of one spouse not satisfied. For others, there may not be an opportunity to marry. And then there are all of the LGBT individuals. To require that they all remain celibate and denied sexual satisfaction seems wrong, at least to me.
Sorry Mr. Patterson, but I stopped reading your post after the opening paragraph wherein you state that the church “continues to be committed to open hostility toward the LGBTQ community.” Either you’re a man of low intelligence or a venom-filled man willing to state obvious lies in order to rally the troops for your cause. Which is it? There’s no other explanation for making such a spurious statement.
Spartacus II,
That’s your prerogative, Spartacus, but I have outlined within the post the ways I feel the Church has been, and continues to act with hostility toward the LGBTQ community.
Many are quick to point out the Church’s support for anti-discrimination laws in Utah, but we have documentation that shows the Church sees this not as an actual olive branch to the gay community, but a strategy to help it weather the tide of poor publicity. Poor publicity which comes as a result of…wait for it…its hostility toward the gay community.
Yes, if someone disagrees with me, they’re either ignorant, idiots (of low intelligence, as you put it) or evil (venom-filled and willing to lie). It’s as simple as that.
Except that Elder Uchdorf even addressed this in a talk once saying this is a fallacy for which we should repent. There’s an amazing TED talk that addresses this problem.
Needless to say, there are many other explanations for why someone would disagree with you, but I absolutely wish you all the best and happiness in your life. I truly do.
Tim Bone,
I addressed Christ’s teachings on morality within the post, and made sure to point out that the Church blatantly violates the letter of Christ’s law in regards to divorce.
So, it’s okay to bring nuance into the picture when we’re talking about Christ’s teachings and modern day divorce, but it’s not okay to bring nuance into the picture when we’re talking about Christ’s teachings and homosexuality?
The Church is clearly cherry picking here.
Don,
Your point about hostility is a fair one. There are plenty of emotions on both sides.
At the end of the day, though, I see the Church being exclusionary, and that’s just not an attribute I find in Christ.
If you sincerely believe that the leadership of the church is ‘committed to open hostility’ against gays (or as Dehlin recently put it – “out to hunt down, humiliate and excommunicate” gays) then there’s no reasoning with you. I just think it’s bizarre that you teach primary in a church that you think is run by uninspired bigots committed to open hostility against gays.
This country is being divided by people who take far right and far left positions and believe anyone who believes differently from them have some evil motive or aren’t as smart as they are. It’s so unproductive.
Someone has to teach the children.
Tim Bone,
So the solution is, rather than deal with these tricky issues and actually bring some answers to the questions you pose (which, by the way, are agonizing questions that LGBT members of the Church ask themselves on a daily basis) it’s much easier to just reject the entire enterprise wholesale, right? Regardless of how much pain and exclusion that may cause to others, because that’s the Christian thing to do, right?
Blake L,
The Christian thing to do is to follow Christ, however easy or difficult this may be. I do not reject the issue wholesale. The question is what counts as an “enterprise.” The issue is straight-forward: Does God accept same-sex marriage as a valid marriage? The Church’s clear position is that God says no, and not only no, but that the world can do nothing about that “no”.
There are many in the Church who believe that the Church leaders are in fact accurately conveying God’s will in this.
Opponents say the Church has it all wrong – God is perfectly willing, anxious even, to recognize these marriages and therefore, so should the Church be willing. The world is a different place now, and the Church can/should/must follow suit. Yet this doesn’t seem to be happening. And so this, in turn, can mean only that Church leaders are not in harmony with God’s will, either through recalcitrance and spiritual lethargy or (more charitably) are just not ready yet. The subsequent issue is how to get Church leaders in harmony with God’s will. They hope/expect social pressure will do the job.
For many, it is clearly the case that anything short of full acceptance of same-sex marriage isn’t going to cut it. What the Church has been doing is reaching out in love to all members with same-sex attraction and offering support in the context of what counts as an acceptable marriage. I’m sure reactions to this outreach stretch from contempt to appreciation. I’m sure it won’t be enough for many. It’s a difficult situation to navigate. I do believe the best thing you can do for yourself or for anyone else is to stay in the Church. I’m sure many will part company with me on this and think I and others like me are the problem.
The problem with the Church’s idea of reaching out to LGBT people with love is it is the equivalent of a politician’s double speak seeking to win votes to it’s side. It lacks the heart, it lacks the feel, it lacks the charity and compassion that we have always been taught is true Christlike love.
Tom D,
Tom D,
Pretty sure the only authorized orgasm outside of hetero sex in Mormondom would be the wet dream
Tim Bone,
What if Jesus says no, what if Jesus says yes, etc. It’s all speculation until Jesus says anything. So far, He hasn’t said anything. There hasn’t been a genuine revelation about homosexuality – ever.
In the absence of revelation, the Church is making assumptions, and is hurting people.
This post while thought provoking and I’m sure sincere from the author’s point of view is full of half-truths and baseless assertions about Church leaders. In the authors first point, The Celibacy Policy. He states that there is ample evidence to show that encouraging our gay brothers and sisters to live lives of celibacy or engage in mixed-orientation marriages is harmful to their mental health. This is still being debated and studied as to the overall and long-term mental health of these individuals.
In point #2, Implying Christ condemned same-sex marriage. The writer says that there is no “clear doctrine” for the Church to call upon as far as what Jesus said on the subject and asserts that the Brethren are failing to seek any guidance about it. In the absence of Biblical proof as was stated that Jesus never addressed same-sex marriage who’s to say that it is not a sin? Also, what basis does the author have to know just what the brethren are seeking guidance and inspiration about? Still the Church, along with the vast majority of Christian faiths believe that the Bible teaches in its admonitions from the Savior against same-sex (homosexual) relations.
On point #3, The Hierarchy of Sin. Just because the author has served in one Bishopric and the Bishop he served with chose not to “bat an eye” over non-married cohabitating heterosexual couples isn’t a basis to make a blanket statement as to Church policy in judging the entire Church. I know for fact that many Bishops excommunicate heterosexual couples also, (depending on the circumstances) for cohabitation.
In his point #4, Comparisons With Polygamy. Here the author makes reference to “among its current apostles two practicing spiritual polygamists” without naming names or offering any proof. In any court of law they would refer to that item as baseless speculation and hearsay.
And finally point #5, Utter Lack of Revelation. The author refers to “The Family: A Proclamation to the World” as being drafted by lawyers and stating that it was not shared with the female auxiliary leaders prior to President Hinckley announcement of it 20-years ago. Where is the proof to backup this innuendo? The Proclamation is not a legal document and does not read as such. It is however a formal announcement, an official statement regarding the Church’s doctrinal beliefs regarding the importance and eternal nature of gender, marriage and families. While not officially referred to as being “canonized doctrine” as referred to in the post, I personally believe it to be an inspired document just the same. Also, just as in his point #2 by what proof does he have to know just what the brethren are seeking guidance and inspiration in? Could it be that the Brethren have in fact taken up this question, as to same-sex marriage in fasting and prayer, sincerely seeking inspiration and were given divine revelation that it was, is and always will be a sin in the eyes of our Heavenly Father and The Savior? Have you ever considered that it might be you (individually) who need to humbly find out through personal revelation if Heavenly Father truly approves of same-sex marriage?