When Mormons speak of the Law of Chastity, they often define it as remaining celibate until marriage. In actuality, it would be more properly defined as remaining abstinent until marriage. Today, the words abstinent and celibate are frequently used interchangeably, but in practice they are quite different. Abstinence, as practiced in the Church, is the abstaining from all sexual activity until marriage. Celibacy, however, is the lifetime sacrifice to voluntarily forgo all sexual activity and to remain unmarried for the entirety of your life.
For most of us, we never make any particular distinction between abstinence and celibacy because there is no expectation for us commit to celibacy. For those that are LGBT, celibacy becomes the primary religious requirement that the whole of their religious devotion will be qualified by. In 2007, Elder Holland taught, “You serve yourself poorly when you identify yourself primarily by your sexual feelings. That isn’t your only characteristic, so don’t give it disproportionate attention. You are first and foremost a son (or daughter) of God, and He loves you.(1)”
Elder Holland’s quote is true on some levels and not on others. The characteristic of being LGBT is only one part of who you are. Yet acting on that one part will disqualify you from membership in the Church and from temple blessings that bind you to your family. The consequence of that one part is everything to a gay Mormon, especially for youth. The consequence of that one part is also experienced in how parents, relatives and friends react to them. High levels of rejection for gay youth can be devastating:
8x more at risk of suicide
6x more vulnerable to severe depression
3x more likely to use illegal drugs
3x more at risk to HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases(2)
In truth, not being able to reconcile this one part of you affects every other part of who you are. Our internal parts are all intertwined. In any other context, we would refer to who we are on the inside as our spirit or soul, but we balk at self-identifying ourselves spiritually as gay or homosexual. And yet most of us would categorize our heterosexual feelings of love and devotion to our spouse as divine gifts that will last throughout the eternities. With the stakes so infinitely high (eternal marriage on one hand and suicide and depression on the other), let us not minimize the significant theological and emotional war in the heart of our LGBT brothers and sisters.
The Family: A Proclamation to the World
You may be anticipating that someone supporting LGBT rights would be completely against the Proclamation. However, the teachings in the Proclamation contain many of my core beliefs. I was married to my wife in the Los Angeles Temple. Our five children (including my gay son) are sealed to us. I am sealed to my parents and their parents. Our beliefs regarding eternal marriage and families being sealed together throughout eternity is an integral, beautiful part of being Mormon.
Recently, a quote from Elder Eyring was shared with me, “It is important to recognize when we have received revelation. But it is equally important to recognize when we have not. (4) “ The Proclamation contains many truths, but it can also lead to more questions. For example:
“ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of Heavenly Parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. (3)”
This quote contains beautiful truths regarding who we are as spirit children of a loving Father & Mother in Heaven. It reveals that we have a divine nature and destiny. It also reveals that gender is a part of our spiritual identity. But what if a male spirit is born into a female body? Does our doctrine reject or confirm the possibility of a transgender person? It largely doesn’t answer the question, but belief in a pre-existence with pre-existing gender leads to some amazing possibilities and questions that are not precluded in the gospel.
Belief in a pre-mortal existence also brings into question what other spiritual attributes and identities we brought into mortality. Gender is explicitly identified. Orientation could easily be another. Belief in a divine nature and destiny implies purpose and an eternal identity that has some root in our Heavenly Parents. Our not knowing does not mean there is no answer, it simply means it hasn’t been revealed yet. As with many parts of the gospel, ‘we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.(5)’
Celibacy
Sometimes we make the mistake that our lived experience parallels everyone else’s experience. “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man. (6)” So we look at homosexuality and ascribe it to sexual lust gone awry or a temptation such that all can overcome because “God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it. (6)” Armed with scripture, we (heterosexuals) then begin to prescribe to our LGBT brothers and sisters exactly how God will cure them or provide a way for them to escape being gay. We prescribe a solution to a question for which we do not know the origin, we do not know the lived experience of, and of which we do not know the destiny.
Celibacy is the prescribed solution for the question to which we have no revelation. It is not mentioned in the Proclamation. It is not mentioned in the Bible. Neither celibacy nor homosexuality are mentioned in any work of modern scripture (The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants or Pearl of Great Price.) There is no modern apostle or prophet who has expounded on how to live a celibate life. There is no handbook, guide or Church website addressing the subject. It is just expected. It is what you are left with when the commandments leave you nothing else.
In the modern Church, there is a progression of both scripture, commandments and sacrifice. We begin in the Old Testament with Laws of Sacrifice and rigid religious structure. These are lower laws given to the Children of Israel who rejected a higher law. The New Testament embodies the Law of the Gospel. These laws embody spiritual laws such as to love God and to love our neighbor. We view these as higher laws. In many ways these laws are more challenging as they address thoughts and intentions above and beyond the letter of the law.
In the Doctrines and Covenants we are introduced to the new and everlasting covenant of marriage, an even higher law. And beyond that we are introduced to the Law of Consecration. Early saints tried (and failed) to live the Law of Consecration. It demands that we give all to the Lord; all of our means, talents and energy. Today we get glimpses of the Law of Consecration with missionaries that dedicate 2 years of their lives to the Lord. We read of pioneers that gave everything for their families, even as they died on the plains. I have a great grandmother who died on the plains and her last words were, “Tell John (her son) I died with my face toward Zion.”
When we look to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, we need to be more aware of what is being asked. We think that what is being asked of them is common to all of us. The Doctrine of Celibacy (if such a doctrine exists) is that they cannot be married to those they love. Even the pursuit and hope of that love is denied. They will never share the intimacy and bonding experience married spouses take for granted. Even expressing those feelings in any context is forbidden. They are forever denied a part of who they are, a core spiritual identity for many. It is all sacrificed on the altar of consecration to the Lord.
For those who do chose celibacy, I cannot express enough respect. You are living a law not asked of anyone else in the Church. You are living a commitment that is only paralleled by the Law of Consecration. It’s beyond the laws of sacrifice, the gospel and marriage, you have laid your hopes, dreams, future and family on the altar and given it all to the Lord. As my wife Wendy testified recently to our Stake President, “I don’t know the answer, but I know that the Lord will compensate my son for everything he not getting at Church or denied through the gospel.”
Some may assert that with enough counseling or through the Atonement, an LGBT individual can change their orientation and marry a woman (or opposite gender spouse). This hope is certainly born out of the desperation to make reality fit our current understanding. Marrying a woman (for gay men) was actually advised by bishops of the Church for decades. But in 1995, President Hinckley specifically discouraged the practice. Recent studies have shown that up to 80% of mixed orientation marriages fail (marriages with one gay spouse) (7). The APA has also concluded after decades of research that there is no conclusive evidence that someone can change their orientation. (8) In many cases, the therapy can be harmful. In recent years, reparative therapy organizations like Evergreen for LDS and Exodus for mainstream Christianity have been forced to close their doors over fraud and harm lawsuits. In multiple states, it is also illegal to use reparative therapy on LGBT youth.
To Bishops and Church Leaders
The vast majority do not chose celibacy. My purpose in writing is not that I have answers or that celibacy is necessarily the right choice. The sacrifice of celibacy does not parallel simple things like the word of wisdom or tithing. It transcends the gospel in that your love of God will deny you fulfillment in this life. It far transcends marriage as you are forgoing all the hopes and dreams of that commitment. In a family centric Church, this is denial of the Plan of Happiness.
I want every Mormon bishop to know what he is asking of the gay youth he counsels. I want him to lead with compassion and put his judgments aside. I want him to support these youth, whether they choose to stay in the Church or not. Don’t crush that youth’s hopes and dreams demanding a commitment to celibacy. Let them find themselves and work through complications that you haven’t even considered. Listen and allow the spirit to edify both you and the gay youth in front of you.
How about just letting gay youth accept the same commitment that other youth do: abstinence. Let’s level the playing field to what we expect of other youth. Let’s guide our youth to avoid the stereotypical ‘gay lifestyle’ just as we would guide our straight youth to avoid the ‘girls gone wild’ lifestyle. Let’s start with where each individual LGBT member of our ward currently is. Listen, empathize and show compassion. Leave the threats of discipline and excommunication aside and help them connect with the Savior. He knows far more about this child of God before you than you will ever be able to imagine.
When a bishop sits across the desk from an LGBT youth, he needs to know the commitment he is placing before that young man is more than he has sacrificed in the totality of his life. That bishop has no handbook for him or her. That LGBT youth will be lucky if he has the support of his parents. And we wonder why the conflict of an LDS LGBT youth multiplies the risk of suicide and depression. We expect these youth to choose celibacy, a doctrine for which we have no scripture, no revelation, no guidance, and no support.
Elder Holland said, “In this Church, what we know will always trump what we do not know. And remember, in this world, everyone is to walk by faith. (7)” Let’s be clear about what we know, but let’s be equally clear about what we do not know (or have revelation about.) Celibacy is not a doctrine. It’s just what LGBT people are left with. In these areas where we do not know, let’s learn to walk by faith. I believe we haven’t even begun to envision the potential and destiny of our LGBT brothers and sisters. Once we start asking our Heavenly Father the right questions (instead of thinking celibacy is only answer), He might be able to give us some answers.
1 Helping Those Who Struggle with Same Gender Attraction, Elder Holland, 2007
2 Family Acceptance Project, SFSU, Dr. Caitlin Ryan
3 The Family: A Proclamation to the World
4 Elder Christofferson, Personal Interview, 2014
5 1 Corinthians 13:12
6 1 Corinthians 10:13
7 http://ldshomosexuality.com, Bradshaw and Dehlin
8 www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/therapeutic-response.pdf
9 Lord, I Believe, Elder Holland, 2013
Thomas Montgomery
TOM MONTGOMERY has been writing on the intersection of LDS and LGBT issues since 2012. He was an active member of the LDS Church until 2016. His journey covers going door-to-door in support of Prop 8 in California to having a great love for the LGBT Mormon community. He says that his single qualification to be in this esteemed company of authors is the privilege of being the father of a wonderful gay son. This has been a very spiritual journey. His greatest priority is being 100% supportive of the health and well-being of LGBT Mormon youth and adults in or out of Mormonism. Tom has written articles for Rational Faiths (http://rationalfaiths.com/author/thomas-montgomery/) and No More Strangers (http://www.nomorestrangers.org/grace/).
All posts by Thomas Montgomery
Bravo!!!! You said everything that needs to be said. Expecting Celibacy of Gay members is just plain cruel. I wish every church leader would read this with an open mind and heart.
As my view is obviously different in certain respects on the issue, I still agree that much greater compassion and charity needs to be shown. I have believed for some time that this issue is both a test for those who are gay and choose to live the gospel and remain faithful and for us who are not gay who have the opportunity to increase the depth of our Christ-like love and understanding for those who have to experience this in mortality.
It is a hard test for both, but one in which we can both grow to become more like our Savior.
Yes, it's maybe more of a matter of poor word choice. Abstinence is the proper term and value expected. Until then go have fun with your friends of both sexes.
Thanks, Tom.
I have for a long time pointed out that it was inappropriate for Mormons to speak of “celibacy.” To be technically accurate, Mormons should speak of “life-long abstinence.” That would at least more explicitly name what is being asked of gay and lesbian members.
I actually explored celibacy by spending time in a Roman Catholic monastery and talking to the monks about what celibacy meant to them, and how they came to embrace it as part of their life’s calling. Their advice to me was consistent across the board: Do not seek to live a celibate life-style because you are running away from your sexuality. It must be a positive choice embraced for positive reasons, not just a default.
You are quite correct in pointing out that the LDS Church has no “doctrine of celibacy.” We have scriptures (such as D&C 49:15) that explicitly condemn celibacy. When I was growing up, for instance, I heard Mormons frequently denounce and criticize Catholics because of their “unnatural” and “unrighteous” requirement of celibacy for ordained clergy. Ironic that in order to learn about celibacy, I had to leave the confines of my LDS faith tradition.
Wonderful post Tom! Thanks for your insight.
I do not accept as truth that gender is part of pre-mortal identity. The leaders of the LDS church really have no idea. The proclamation is not a revelation! When Boyd K. Packer referred to it as revelation, the church immediately turned around and edited that to NOT say “revelation.” Mormons are so hungry for revelation they treat it like one.
What I say is let’s give those who are LGBT marriage, and embrace them in the eternal family of God.
But the LDS church, from earliest days, has made its view of heaven so literal, that the plan of salvation hinges upon a man and a woman being able to have children by sexual relations. That’s why Brigham Young taught that God had sex with Mary in order to impregnate her with Jesus. (JD 1: 50-51)
That is literalism taken to extreme conclusion.
The LDS leaders, and most members defend the “Leave it To Beaver” family identity as THE American-Mormon-Accepted-Mainstream church.
It’s not at all clear what the premortal intelligences looked like. Do they have man and woman parts? If so…why? Why would they have them in the pre-mortal existence?
There no room for homosexuals in the church because being righteous=man/woman/babies (sacred sex)=heaven=CTR=everything’s hunky dory.
Stay in the boat.
BTW don’t rock the boat.
LGBT is looked upon a as a defect, by this church. I don’t believe this, and reject it whole-heartedly.
The “Brethren” have of late been trying to say that what they require Gays and Lesbians to do is no different then straight people. But this is not true. 100% of straight people will not be expected to abstain from sex. They have options of marrying in their temples. Now of course, in many places Gays and Lesbians too have the civil right to be married. Since Mormons have an article of faith, once used to disengage from Polygamy (and thus the law of consecration and all things in common as a result of that) yet, never disavowed the doctrine of plural marriage still believed and accepted, then it is not beyond the church to acknowledge now, the law of the land and honor gay and lesbian marriages fully at least within their congregations even if they never accepted them as New and Everlasting Covenant Marriages. If being Celibate/Abstaining, is so easy and righteous, then why do brethren like Dahlin Oaks take on 2nd wives, when they have already had families and are no longer procreating? Certainly, they are acknowledging how difficult it is to be single, and that having a companion is good for a person. This is a double standard.
In other words, it is better to have sex than to be obedient.
No, forgive my churlishness, I know that’s no what you said. In fact, in your 2,139-word treatise you didn’t use the word ‘obedient’ even once.
Yet all blessings are predicated upon obedience (D&C 130:20–21; Deuteronomy 11:8, 26–27). We came to earth to prove our willingness to obey (Abraham 3: 24-25; D&C 98:14) and we are expected to obey the commandments so that we can become more like God (Deuteronomy 6:24–25; D&C 25:15; 3 Nephi 12:48). Obeying God’s commandments is an expression of our love for Him (John 14:15, 21, 23; 1 John 5:3; D&C 42:29). Those who are obedient are promised great blessings (Mosiah 2:41; Leviticus 26:3–12; Deuteronomy 4:40; D&C 58:2; 64:34; 130:21) including advantage in the world to come (D&C 130:19), and obedience to divine laws makes us free (John 8:31-32). We offend God when we disobey His commandments (D&C 59:21; Ephesians 5:6) and disobedience brings serious consequences (Leviticus 26:14–32; Jeremiah 11:3; D&C 1:14; 56:3; 2 Nephi 9:27).
Nowhere in scripture is disobedience excused because keeping the commandments is hard. I think we can all agree that obedience to God’s commandments regarding sexual behavior is definitely harder for those who are attracted to the same sex. As such, members of the church should be more compassionate and empathetic toward gays, not less so. Unfortunately this is not always the case.
Nonetheless, we are not free to pick and choose what commandments we are to obey based on our feelings. The expectation is that we will learn to obey them all. Church leaders do not demand vows of celibacy from gay youth or anyone else; they teach obedience, which is a good thing.
Yet you write that for gays to obey the commandments of God “will deny you fulfillment in this life.” Is “fulfillment in this life” why we are here? I thought we were supposed to be striving for Eternal Life. Your entire argument presupposes that it is more important for gays to be in same-sex marriages than to be obedient; that same-sex marriage will add fulfillment, hope, love, bonding and happiness (all your words) to their lives. This, if I may borrow a few more of your words, is “a doctrine for which we have no scripture, no revelation, no guidance, and no support.” Perhaps you should figure this out before you take it upon yourself to lecture bishops on how to counsel the youth in their wards.
I just cannot wrap my head around this. I cannot even remotely, deep down inside me even begin to understand the thought of obedience being more important than love. It is even more impossible to wrap my head around it having grown up with a brother that is gay, and seeing the absolute Hell he went through from not just members of the church, but teachings (that have changed and softened over time.)
This idea of absolute obedience is just so abusive. It paints God as a megalomaniac that demands we love him over all else, or receive punishment for not. That is such an abusive relationship, devoid of love. So controlling, and so harmful, and even more harmful to those that are asked for even more sacrifices to be made in the name of obedience (LGBT people.)
I’m sorry, but this is a very sensitive subject to me personally and a huge struggle from a faith standpoint, because I would rather God punish me for being disobedient than help punish other people by supporting such harmful teachings. I just don’t see the value in throwing away understanding, or attempts at understanding and evolving our capability to love and include others in favor of “obedience.” There are just no blessings to be had in complacently accepting harm being done to others.
It’s not about something being difficult. It’s about something being wrong.
No Jim. It’s better to live an authentic life than to obey ancient writings; or directives of men. It comes down to anybody cherry picking scriptures to bolster their position.
Your kind of rhetoric concerns me as it’s what caused many to be burned as witches. Hmmm…what DOES one do with the scripture not to suffer a witch to live?
“Nonetheless, we are not free to pick and choose what commandments we are to obey based on our feelings.”
**No, we’re just supposed to decide the Church is true based on our feelings.
John 8:32 is about knowing the truth and the truth making you free. You make several missteps in your scriptural attempts.
It’s easy to be smug when you don’t suffer from loneliness and being an outcast in a church that constantly hurts you.
“No doubt another may also think for me; but it is not therefore desirable that he should do so to the exclusion of my thinking for myself.”
-Henry David Thoreau
Please see D&C 88: 118
“Seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom.”
BTW: Bishops are men and not above reproach. They make mistakes, and when it comes to our family, we can, and should, let Bishops know when they step beyond their authority.
Grace does not cause pain or shame. Grace is what Jesus offers us. His Grace is sufficient for is all, no matter our sexual orientation. No matter what.
I’m sorry for you want others to do all the thinking for you. This is too typical of closed minds.
I don’t think we even read the same post. He is not fundamentally making a pro-marriage equality argument. He is saying that the church and its leaders recognize what a big ask this is–to live without the hope of ever having romantic love in their life. As Boyd K Packer once said, “Romantic love is not only a part of life, but literally a dominating influence of it. It is deeply and significantly religious. There is no abundant life without it [emphasis added].” If BKP is right here, then the church is asking gay people to give up the possibility, even the hope, of an “abundant life” for the possibility that they’re right about what happens after you die. As far as the church is concerned, gay people have to wait for death in order to experience what is “literally a dominating influence of life.” In a church in which marriage and family can become a kind of familyolatry, is it any wonder that so many gay people decide just to hasten up the dying part? Shouldn’t the church do all it can to ameliorate this?
And, frankly, does a same-sex marriage add “fulfillment, hope, love, bonding and happiness” to the lives of those in one? Yes, it manifestly does. (Not to all, of course; there are dysfunctional gay marriages too, I’m sure.) Get out and meet some gay folks, man. If “wickedness never was happiness” how do you explain the happiness of so many gay couples? You either have to resort to the ridiculous argument that they aren’t experiencing “true joy,”–whatever that means–or you have to figure that since they’re happy, the relationship isn’t fundamentally wicked.
As a gay guy currently in a long-distance and, therefore, celibate relationship, if what I’m experiencing isn’t “true joy,” then to hell with true joy. I’ll take the fake stuff over it 11 days out of 10. All the “true joy” I experienced when I was trying to face mortality without the prospect of ever having romantic love in my life was effing awful. “True joy” led me to putting a loaded gun in my mouth.
The underlying assumption of your comment is that church leaders won’t ever decide that they were wrong in this instance. ‘Cause, like, that’s never happened before. [Cough–blacks and the priesthood, interracial marriage, never getting to the moon, etc. ad nauseam–cough.]
Hi, just wanted to ask you a question. Based on this entire post, is the author basically saying that the LGBTQ community should be obstinate until marriage instead of being asked to be celibate for life? I think I understood the whole article and I liked so much of it. I think this is the one part I wanted to clarify. I’m asking you because based on your article it sounded like you had a lot to say. Thanks much, looking forward to your reply.
I think you got to the heart of the matter Jim. For LDS theology, obedience to God is of utmost importance. Read Elder Holland’s talk “The Will of the Father in all things”. Obedience to God is of more importance than loving your fellow men. Of course, in most cases, they are going to be the same. But God’s house is one of order (D&C 132:8). There is no mistake that the 1st great commandment is to love God. The second one is love for others. How do we put God first? By keeping his commandments. “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments.” 1 John 5:3. “If you love me, keep my commandments” John 14:15.
If you do not believe the LDS Prophets and Apostles speak for God, that is one thing. If you do not believe in God, that is one thing. But if you do believe the LDS Church is true, that Thomas S. Monson is currently God’s prophet on the Earth, then it is unmistakable that obedience to God and His commandments should be first and foremost in our lives.
Dusty, this is the principle that Abraham understood when he was willing to sacrifice Isaac because God commanded him to. This is the principle Jesus was trying to teach when he said “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” Matthew 10:37.
We are all free to believe what we want, and choose our priorities. However, the only way to have lasting love, and to return spotless before God is to put Him first in our lives. The way to put Him first is by keeping His commandments.
I’ll have lasting love by giving lasting love. A just and merciful God would not take the ability to give and receive love away from his children, so there will always be more than one way or one path to having lasting love. Slavery to an ideal is not love. I’m sorry, there is just no inspiration in that, or that teaching that comes through. If obedience really is of utmost importance and the top priority that leaves us, the people, way too open to abuse and being taken advantage of. It gives no room for agency, and lack or restriction of agency reeks of a different plan. A darker plan. A rejected plan if the LDS narrative is all true.
And I still can’t wrap my head around it. Just can’t wrap my head around this idea of having to put God first and this somehow being a loving thing, rather than a teaching of man using God to control people. As I have grown, and gained life experience. Become a parent myself, I cannot even begin to understand this notion of commanding a child to love me above all else, and put me first above all else. Because I love my child, I want to see her put others first and be a truly good person. To be humble, and allow her the freedom to choose whom she puts first, and hope for nothing more than her to grow and become a good person that willingly helps her fellow man without need or hope of reward. To serve one another I would argue is the divine example of Jesus without the agendas of man thrown in for their own purposes, that twist it into fealty and “obedience”. It all seems to come full circle anyway with the teaching of “If you have done it to the least, it is as if you have done it to me.” Seems to be no better way to love God then to serve and love each other, and allow them to love also.
Dusty, my guess is that you are not LDS, and that is fine. We can all follow what we believe to be true. My comments here were toward people with an LDS faith.
Thomas is practicing LDS, and Jeff, whom I responded to was espousing LDS doctrine. If you do not believe that doctrine, that is fine. To each their own. But in an LDS perspective, and according to scriptures in the Bible and Book of Mormon, as explained by current Prophets, what you are saying is contrary to how God works.
Note that it is not obedience to the Church or the Prophet per se. It is obedience to God that is first and foremost of importance. God is love. He is perfectly loving. When we are obedient to him, we will be exhibiting perfect love. We do not truly understand love until we can understand God. And understanding God means walking in his shoes, doing as he does, and loving as he loves. Which means keeping his commandments.
Truth be told I don’t know if I am LDS anymore or not. I was born and raised LDS, I still go to church, but I certainly don’t feel welcome anymore. I was taught many wonderful ideas about the church as a child. Love one another. Families can be together forever. Be a good person. As I grew to adolescence and adulthood these teachings slowly started to become more about obedience, and lost much of their beauty and that good feeling they brought started to leave. The most beautiful teaching of families can be together forever started to feel like a gun being held to your head, because it can only be so if you are all faithful LDS people, so you must do everything the church says or you lose that. I started to have tough questions. When I asked them, the result was always the same. Being treated as though I was mislead or misguided for even asking. The words “apostate” and “apostasy” being thrown at me so easily when all I sought was truth. I wasn’t trying to question God, I was trying to question the church, the prophets, and certain teachings or certain not so faith promoting truths that were not taught to me as a child. Anyway that is a much longer, far too off topic subject.
In your last paragraph I think you hit the nail on the head for me. It seems like these days we are expected to be obedient to the church and the prophets, and everything they say with how infallible we hold them up to be, and they even teach (such as Oaks statement of it being wrong to criticize them, even if that criticism is true.) I can get on board with your statement that God is love (as also stated in the scriptures, book of John I believe.) And the idea that he/she is perfectly loving as I was taught as a child. I am not so sure about not being able to truly understand love until we understand God. Love is fairly straightforward and easy to understand, it gets muddled by other emotions at times, but those aren’t love itself. God on the other hand is something I am not sure we can truly comprehend and understand. All knowing, all powerful etc. just don’t seem to be traits we can truly relate to. Which brings me to the final part which I don’t think I have expressed clearly. To me, it appears the teachings about homosexuality are not commandments of God, but prejudices of men that have been passed down and just continually adopted. We can go with other teachings of “by their fruits you shall know them.” and the fruits of these teachings about homosexuality have brought nothing but harm. Kids being kicked out, suicide, high depression rates, etc. What good has ever come from these teachings about homosexuality? That’s not to say we should abandon the law of chastity altogether. I don’t regret following it, and waiting till marriage to express certain acts of love… but it is completely wrong that I should have that door open to me based simply on being lucky enough to be born the way god made me (straight), when gay people have that door permanently closed because they were also born the way God made them. Just seems to be no justice, no mercy, no love there. And as you say, God is love.
AMEN!!!
Jim, I wanted to say that I appreciate what you wrote. I agree with you 100%. As someone who delights in words and their meanings, I too lament when certain words or phrases are used that connote something other than what is intended. It is unfortunate that “celibacy” and “abstinence” are used interchangeably, but I very much doubt that the majority of those guilty of doing so have done so with any malice aforethought, or in an effort to hold LGBT individuals to a higher standard than heterosexual individuals. No; while perhaps in practice things may appear to be more difficult or less fair, we are all held to the same standard.
Yes, it’s hard to wait. It’s even harder to wait when you don’t know how long you’ll have to wait…to think maybe you’ll have to wait your whole life and beyond…but Mr. Montgomery, do you know what’s even harder? Being ridiculed by the world for forgoing romantic fulfillment and choosing to obey God’s commandments. Do you know what’s hardest of all? Being ridiculed by one you love for refusing them in order to seek the highest blessings, even if they never come in this life. To not be able to admit to feeling lonely sometimes, because that person (and countless others) will say, and have said, “well, it’s your own fault.” To be dismissed, to be told my pain can’t possibly be as keen because I’m heterosexual woman who “could” get married “if I wanted to.” Oh, I’m a victim of infidelity? A divorced single parent? Who cares? I’m a dime a dozen. I’m not even close to real tragedy, am I? At least I’ve had love, right? At least I have hope of finding it in the future, right?
Pardon my show of cynicism. Actually I am grateful for my past experiences in a way; I have learned empathy for those who live without love, who endure betrayal, through no fault of their own. While I haven’t experienced being gay (just as I haven’t experienced addiction, or developing-world-level poverty, or what have you), I have experienced crushing loneliness, rejection, marginalization, despair, depression, and so on. I absolutely agree that we need to treat one another with love and compassion, and be more circumspect in our choice of words. I am also certain that there is still a great deal of uncertainty relating to this specific topic. I don’t claim to have some, most, or even any answers at all about why this is or what lies ahead. But there are two things I know to be true with every fiber of my being: first (and of lesser importance), no one’s trial is greater than that of another. Mr. Montgomery, you alluded your bias against this when you said “The sacrifice of celibacy does not parallel simple things like the word of wisdom or tithing.” For some, sir, these things are decidedly not simple. We may be predisposed to be more understanding of circumstances we are more familiar with, but what may be a molehill to one is a mountain to another. Let us not diminish our sympathy for and kindness toward one in favor of another. Which brings me to my second, more important point, and why I support Jim’s comment: obedience is the key! We ALL struggle, we know not how deeply; but we ALL have to obey the Law of Chastity, we ALL have to obey the Word of Wisdom, we ALL have to obey the Law of Tithing, and so on, and so forth, IF we want the promised blessings that ONLY obedience to the commandments brings. We have a loving Heavenly Father who blesses us far beyond anything we could hope to deserve anyway, but being a perfect God He will not go contrary to His own laws and reward disobedience.
Finally, regarding “fulfillment in this life.” Sure, dating and the (successful) pursuit of romantic love and marital & familial bonds is wonderful, and our highest goal. But even when achieved, those bonds are only a hollow shell of what they could be without God and the Gospel. If a couple doesn’t put God first and live in accordance with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, their union’s highest potential — one might say, their ultimate fulfillment — won’t be realized. At the risk of tooting my own horn, as a single person, I can truthfully attest that without the direction of God and the restored gospel I wouldn’t have made the sacrifices I have…and be HAPPY about it. I love my Heavenly Father and my Savior more than anything in this world, and while I’m far from perfect, I’ll stick with them because nothing the world has to offer even pales in comparison with what they promise me. To turn around the phrase you quoted from your wife, “I don’t know the answer, but I know that the Lord will compensate [me] through the gospel [and] at Church for everything [I’m] not getting or [am] denied [in the world].”
It sort of seems like the obvious answer here would be some sort of new revelation to clarify, right ? It's awesome that we have prophets, seers and revelators don't seem to be getting any new answers . Great article
Wow. Only one thing to add. And LGBT Adults too. Thank you.
Many great words were said. For practical purposes of further research and statements (on my own and other), is there a source for President Hinckley's 1995 statement that he discouraged the marriage of one straight spouse with one gay spouse? Thanks.
President Gordon B. Hinckley has declared that “marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.”
Reverence and Morality,” p. 47
Great post, Tom! I think you make an excellent point that we have no doctrine of celibacy: it’s just what gay people are left with when we can’t fit them in.
I strongly disagree with your post. I believe you are painting the LGBT community with a cross that is unbearable. If you are going to talk celibacy then What about those whom never marry? We have many individuals in the church who never marry and are told if the blessings don't come in this life then to hold on and things will be made full in the next. Though you are sharing your opinion I would strongly caution how you use quotes and share your feelings on the subject. I strongly feel that the adversary can use our emotions to justify and minimize things. My brother just told our family he is gay. 10 years ago he was married in the temple and now has two young boys. He stated that he wants to leave his family because of his gay tendencies. Over the last several years he has fed his desire towards the same gender by viewing male porn. He has read blogs like yours and believes the church is very wrong on their stance towards the LGBT community. He has basically lost his testimony and has been deceived. My brother has allowed himself to be deceived because of how he has chosen to deal with his tendency towards his same sex attraction. I do not agree with your post. And I believe you are trying to justify and minimize due to an emotional appeal to the subject.
I am deeply sorry that a family with children has been broken by your brother being gay. Perhaps you should explore why your brother has kept this knowledge from you and your family since he was a child. Perhaps turning your heart to your brother who has been suffering for decades would be appropriate. Perhaps educating yourself to understanding that marriage to a woman did not cure your brother of being gay, nor will any other amount of therapy. Perhaps you could lead with compassion today to make sure that he is not suicidal, curb the depression and conflict within him through unconditional love. You are very sure you know how he feels, why he acts and why he has made the decisions he has, but you do not.
As a gay man currently in a mixed orientation marriage, it is crushing. Thank you for your compassionate response and wise recommendations.
Alex-Molli Torres,
You claim another to be minimizing and justifying by doing the exact same thing? You justify your belief by minimizing your brother, and a part of who he is and minimize homosexuality in general. It isn’t a tendency. It isn’t a choice. It isn’t a lifestyle. It is quite simply just part of a person. Have you ever considered that the deceived one could be you? Have you considered that your brother lost his testimony not because he is gay, but because of the way the church and it’s members minimize people like him and treat them? The way the church views them?
Also those who never marry are not asked to live a celibate life. The door is open for them to date and possibly experience attraction and whatnot. Due to other circumstances marriage may never happen, but the door is not shut and locked to them. That is the difference. Gay people are being told they can never go anywhere near that door, and it will never be open to them.
I think the emotion the adversary likes to use most is pride. Pride in believing we or our leaders can’t possibly be wrong. If caution must be taken, shouldn’t it first be taken there?
“Recent studies have shown that up to 80% of mixed orientation marriages fail (I believe these studies show that those for who were “celibate” before these “marriages this number is significantly lower.
It would also be relevant to discuss the topic of celibacy in one of the largest LDS demographics: active single women.
Please re-read the article to appreciate the distinction between abstinence and celibacy. However, to your point, the same holds true for traditional marriage although I am not sure if that is statistically true even for traditional marriages.
I am the grandmother of a gay grandson and I love him dearly. I want him to have the civil rights that he has a right to his beliefs are not mine. I respect his right to live the life that he wants to live, however with that being said and not addressing the premise of this article I would like to share what is happening in my own state right now…because of the marriage equality law. I stand here as a faithful member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I am worried for our society as a whole. Thomas please read this article and respond to it. Is it right for one group of people to force another group of people to go against their sincerely held religious beliefs to protect their beliefs and to destroy through the court of law the livelihood of another? http://dailysignal.com/2014/10/18/government-ordained-ministers-celebrate-sex-wedding-go-jail/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social
Rochelle, the article does not explain why the local government thinks their chapel is public property or public business. It sounds like the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel is a business, not a Church or religion. If someone wants to rent or lease their facility, they can’t discriminate. They have been profiting off marriage for a long time. However, they should not be forced to officiate the wedding if they have contrary religious beliefs. I imagine this article intentionally leaves out a lot of relevant facts.
My understanding of the law of Chastity is that it is God's law and there for cannot be changed by man it is not a law that man can change to suit their lifestyle choice it is an eternal law to have equal force upon all men and women no matter what their sexual preferences may be
Please reference the Old Testament for any number of hundreds of God’s laws that have changed. Please review the Church’s own history on polygamy for laws that have changed.
It isn’t God who changes. It is our understanding of God’s law that does. I recommend this article relevant to the challenge we have understanding God’s words:
http://www.nomorestrangers.org/what-words-cant-define/
Very well written and it very much echos much of my experience as a gay Mormon. Also, in other news, we appear to be related via your (and my) great-grandmother.
I loved this! I have thought of the same questions that you posed, and it's refreshing to know that I am not the only one who has had those questions. Looks like we're cousins, too- we have the same great-grandmother. Do you have the Clark Kelly Price Painting of Wee Granny? My Dad (Ken Merrell) wrote a book about John that was published by the U of U press: http://www.amazon.com/Scottish-Shepherd-Murray-Murdoch-Pioneer/dp/0874809312
Thanks for the great post!
You lost me. What is the difference between being celibate and abstaining for life? Are you trying to suggest that someday the prophet might someday receive a revelation stating that same sex marriage is ok and these people can get married, possibly even in the temple? But now is just a waiting period so abstain until that revelation comes. ???
Thomas, Do you have evidence that Evergreen was sued for fraud? If not you sir have lied and may have broken the law. Unless you have such evidence, Iwould ask that you remove this claim in this piece.
Jim Merrell,
I was intrigued by your question, as I had no idea who Evergreen was. A 3 minute Google search and I came up with this.
http://radiowest.kuer.org/post/gay-conversion-therapy
Thomas, your entire article is actually only based on one thing…homosexuality is naturally inborn, and as such is from God. And yet, there is no evidence that homosexuality is inborn. In fact, as the APA has stated publicly on their site, there is no Gay gene and epigenetics are not at all conclusive. There is so much evidence, scientific and anecdotal, that strongly indicates homosexuality has a cause and effect nature (usually during childhood). Compassionate correction, if true, is always an act of love, albeit tough. The position you're taking is not true, but it doesn't mean homosexuals should receive any less compassion that anyone else. My belief is that it is extremely difficult to base your beliefs on this issue when there is no proof of its foundation, therefor an indication that your view needs a second look through the eyes of inspired scripture.
David Pickup,
Although there is disagreement on the cause of homosexuality, that does not change the consensus that it is not a choice and that reparative therapy or other conversion methods are ineffective at changing or otherwise influencing sexual orientation. Uncertainty as to cause does not necessarily mean uncertainty as to the effect itself.
Take gravity for instance. We’ve known for millenia that objects fall to the earth. We’ve only begun to understand the cause of gravity recently (something about electromagnetic fields and warping of the space time continuum) and it is still being explored. But uncertainty as to the cause of gravity doesn’t change the fact that we know apples fall, and there is nothing we can do to change it.
Likewise, some people are gay, and for whatever reason, there’s nothing we can do to change them. It is not a disease or illness, as the LDS church leaders have instructed its members. No inspired scripture addresses the question of the cause of homosexuality. The only logical explanation is that it is God’s will that some people remain homosexual. That much we know. What follows then is the question of this article: is it also God’s will that we forbid them from having romantic relationships for life? Do we pray for new revelations that can help us satisfy both the demands of justice and mercy? Are we asking God for more understanding? Or are we content to condemn our gay brothers and sisters to a life of abstinence when “it is not good for man to be alone.”? Are we content to simply tell them that life’s tough all over, and everyone just needs to suck it up and obey? Is that Christlike? Is that the kid of attitude you want to be armed with when you have to face your Maker who decreed that charity never faileth? I fear that too many members are too susceptible to casting their spiritual laziness at best and stiffneckedness at worst as so-called obedience. You may be content with following orders, but I am certain that obedience on its own is not enough, if anything, to God. As David O. McKay said, if you’re going to err, err on the side of mercy.
David, I have some close friends that were never abused as children and had great parents. They say from the earliest time in their life they just remember always feeling like a girl even though they were a boy. They were confused why they felt strong feelings for the same sex. This led to guilt and so forth. The bottom line is, although there are varying degrees of understanding even at this level, there was something different from birth. No one can argue with someone who says this. We may search for answers to satisfy our confusion, but this is the way it is. No research has shown it is a gene, and no research has shown it isn't. There are numberless situations that await understanding. Some of your comments were slightly ahead of the game.
Alex, I wish you wrote more about what you specifically disagree with. You have more to say, but didn't say it in this post. I am a curious party willing to see differing views, I wish you just wrote more.
That’s what countless teenage girls have though moments before they got pregnant. And this is the thought rationale of many men use when they have affairs. Emotions and feelings are fickle and unreliable. Unrestrained by higher principals, romantic love can turn cruel and destructive, leading to betrayal, broken hearts, torn up homes and more. Obedience to laws is what differentiates living in a free society and living in anarchy. Romantic love is wonderful and important, but it cannot be the overriding concern.
It is Jesus – who is generally regarded as the living epitome of love and compassion, not of megalomania and abuse – who said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15), not me. We believe that commandments are given by a loving God who knows what behaviors lead to the greatest joys and what leads to misery and despair, despite how things might appear in the short run. You might disagree with that, and that’s your right, but in my experience, those who align their behavior with God’s will (i.e. obedience) are far happier throughout their lives than those that do not.
Your examples are way off of what I was mentioning. Though you bring up a point of feelings and emotions being fickle, and in a sense unreliable… yet isn’t it through feeling and emotion that we are supposed to come to know the church is even true? Seems like a conundrum to me.
Jesus taught many things. Said many things. Said far more than just a single example, and single passage pulled to make a point. We look at the narrative of his works and yes, we will see examples of obedience. We will also see examples of Love. Examples of extreme disobedience to the law in favor of love at times.
It has been my experience to have had a different life experience than you. I’ve seen people be incredibly happy by living authentic lives. Loving others, serving them regardless of which God they believe in, or lack of belief in a God. Sometimes they followed their LDS faith and found happiness. Sometimes misery. The following of “God’s will” didn’t seem to be a common thread to happiness. The loving of others, and all that encompasses (being patient, kind, charitable, quick to forgive etc.) seemed to be the common thread to the happiness I have seen in peoples lives. My brother, for example, became a far happier, far healthier person upon leaving the church and the abuse he suffered from being a part as a gay man. He has found love, happiness, and found such a greater fire for life since leaving such harmful teachings behind.
I’m sorry; I thought this was a forum for hammering “out some of the idiosyncrasies of Mormonism.” I don’t recognize the doctrine of authentic life in Mormon theology. In fact, I don’t recognize it as being remotely Christian in any way. This sounds like pop culture new age-ism and it runs counter to Christian tenants of obedience and losing one’s self in the service of God.
These aren’t arcane cherry-picked ideas; they are foundational Judeo-Christian concepts. To dismiss the doctrine of obedience to God’s commandments is to dismiss perhaps the most discussed topic in the entire LDS canon, ancient and modern, from Adam and Eve to the sacrament prayer. Every Sunday, Mormons promise “that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him and keep his commandments which he has given them.”
Within the Mormon construct, you cannot deal with the issue of homosexuality without reconciling to the core issue of obedience. Homosexual actions are sinful or they are not. That is the unavoidable issue and everything else is sophism.
Sorry, I meant Jim.
David, regardless of where sexuality comes from-genetics, socialization, or a combination-does not change that it is a real part of who we are. Many, if not most, of the attitudes, demeanors, and beliefs that people ascribe as "part of who I am" are socially learned. Just because scientists have yet to find a "gene" for sexuality does not make it any less part of who they are eternally or mortally.
We need to have little more faith in our Heavenly Father and his promises. Celibacy is not doctrine but the choice is not celibacy it is will I keep the commandments or will I not. What happens beyond this point is between Heavenly Father and his child. Heavenly Father is a loving Father and my understandings is that joy and blessings accompany those who keep all his commandments. We know that
1. thou shalt love thy neighbor as thy self
2. we should "trust in the Lord with all thy heart and lean not unto thy own understanding in all thy ways acknowledge him and he shall direct thy path for good.
3. "I the Lord am bound when ye do what I say but when ye do not what I say ye have no promise."
There are a lot of questions concerning a persons choices and what path they must take this becomes a very personal decision between a child and his father in heaven.
We can only have Faith in a loving Heavenly Father who knows all and encircle our brothers in sisters with love.
What about many LDS members of the church and non members who never have the opportunity to be married? Maybe more have never been married then there are those who are LGBT. How is it that they have to suffer through this life without being married and are asked just as much. I feel like this is biased. I also disagree with saying that Elder Holland is "wrong" and you are right. I am sorry but as members of the church we learn that as the Prophets/Apostles speak the Lord speaks. Also, if you believe in personal revelation and priesthood blessings I believe that each person can come to why and what to do in their given situation. However, the time is the Lord's and not ours.
They are not asked just as much. Other circumstances may cause them to not be married or find that loving partnership (through disability, or just the right person or opportunity not presenting itself etc.), but the door is not permanently closed to them. They have the choice and option to seek out companionship, or at the very least hope for it, but those options are permanently closed off to gay people in this life and the next as currently taught. They may not have, or express the feelings they currently feel. Ever. They aren’t even allowed to go near those feelings and act on any of those feelings which straight people can do. (Date, hold hands, even kiss etc. We largely don’t consider these sins, but if it is a gay couple that does even these minor things we view it as such dangerous transgression.)
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2010/10/cleansing-the-inner-vessel?lang=eng
http://mormonsandgays.org
Mermaidmood makes a valid point when she states “It’s not at all clear what the premortal intelligences looked like. Do they have man and woman parts? If so…why? Why would they have them in the pre-mortal existence?”
Author Paul Nolan Hyde shreds a small beam of light on the topic by first quoting Joseph Smith “God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them” (TPJS, p. 354).
Did you read any mention of gender? And it was God HIMSELF, not themselves or herself.
His second quote is by Spencer W. Kimball, “Our spirit matter was eternal and co-existent with God, but it was organized into spirit bodies by our Heavenly Father” (The Miracle of Forgiveness
he Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 5, Salt Lake City, 1969)
Does a Male God need a Female to organize a spirit body? Not according to Kimball.
And finally, Bruce R. McConkie wrote “Abraham used the name intelligences to apply to the spirit children of the Eternal Father.”
There is no reference to a female God….or should I say no REVERENCE to a female God (as the tradition of the members of the church would have us believe)
Great post Mermaidmood
http://eom.byu.edu/index.php/Intelligences
Mermaidmood,
Journal of Discourses is second hand transcription and NOT a recognized source for doctrine. I don’t know any lds who believes a physical pairing took place.