In January, Mike Cammock wrote a guest post at KiwiMormon entitled “There are no gays in heaven?” Among the many thoughts he shared, Cammock wrote the following regarding LDS leaders:
Mormonism’s insistence that “practicing homosexuality” is sin, especially within the bonds of a loving committed monogamous relationship, is indicative of a theological reality that Mormon leaders clearly believe, but never directly articulate: There Are No Gays In Heaven.
This seemed obvious to me. It seems obvious to me that Mormons in 2016 believe that obedient gays will be turned straight in the afterlife in the same way that Mormons several decades ago believed that obedient black people would be turned white in the afterlife. And yet, in his title, Cammock included a question mark, as if he was uncertain about this. In his post, he not only was uncertain about that conclusion, but he was uncertain as to whether such a position could be consistent with any formulation of the Gospel.
Elder David A. Bednar probably has never seen Cammock’s post, but as if to answer his question and to directly articulate what Mike only suspected (or feared), Bednar has provided the provocative response: There are no homosexual members of the church.
The video linked above was posted on Biblioteca SUD’s Facebook page late on Sunday evening. It features Elder Bednar’s answer to a Q&A session given to a Spanish-speaking audience from earlier in February. This stark and shocking answer — similar as it is to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comments to Columbia University in September of 2007 that “In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country” — came as the beginning of a response to the following question from Chile:
“How can homosexual members of the church live and remain steadfast in the Gospel?”
Elder Bednar’s response has taken the Mormon internet by storm, and it’s particular become a fertile ground for use of Facebook’s new “angry” reaction. I will not decline anyone his or her anger, but I also wanted to provide some thoughts as dispassionately as I could about the sort of philosophy and theology implied by Bednar’s statement (or in his following comments).
Elder Bednar Employs Person-First Language (Sorta) to Sexual Orientation
The first thing I noticed from Bednar’s comments was that it struck me as a very “person-first” framing. In case you aren’t familiar, according to Wikipedia:
People-first language is a type of linguistic prescription in English. It aims to avoid perceived and subconscious dehumanization when discussing people with disabilities and is sometimes referred to as a type of disability etiquette. People-first language can also be applied to any group that is defined by a condition rather than as a people: for example, “people who live on the street” rather than “homeless.”
The basic idea is to use a sentence structure that names the person first and the condition second, for example “people with disabilities” rather than “disabled people” or “disabled”, in order to emphasize that “they are people first”. Because English syntax normally places adjectives before nouns, it becomes necessary to insert relative clauses, replacing, e.g., “asthmatic person” with “a person who has asthma.” Furthermore, the use of to be is deprecated in favor of using to have.
By using such a sentence structure, the speaker articulates the idea of a disability as a secondary attribute, not a characteristic of a person’s identity.
Person-first language has become relatively popular in certain accessibility circles, but it is not without its critics, of course. Some criticize person-first language simply on linguistic grounds — in English, adjectives characteristically come before nouns, and this isn’t meant to imply any dehumanization. And, one could certainly understand a social conservative criticizing this movement as another example of “political correctness” gone amok. And yet, there are some other opponents to this linguistic prescription.
As the wikipedia article also points out,
Critics of this rationale point out that separating the “person” from the “trait” implies that the trait is inherently bad or “less than”, and thus dehumanizes people with disabilities.
and would you guess who is also opposed to person first language? Turns out many disabled communities themselves oppose it. Deaf culture explicitly embraces “Deaf first language” as Deafness is seen as a positive identity and a source of pride. Additionally, there have been comments from organizations in support of blind people, autistic people, and so on.
It’s just as that wikipedia line says — person-first language often implies that a trait is bad or less-than.
And so, we can see what Elder Bednar is doing is something similar. He wants to establish a core identity as something of worth…like, say, being a child of God…and then separate traits that he views as inherently bad or “less than” (such as same-sex attraction) as non-core.
I recall telling people at several times that I didn’t think the “born this way” rhetoric would be effective at changing everyone’s mind…because ultimately, whether LGBT traits are chosen or inborn, the real distinction is whether one views these traits as good or neutral, or bad. If you’ve been in discussion on homosexuality on the internet for any length of time, you’ve likely heard people compare it to alcoholism or a propensity to violence — as much as this befuddles an LGBT person or LGBT ally, the disconnect here is that the person making this comparison views all of these traits as bad things. The LGBT ally cannot change this perception simply by arguing that sexual orientation is inborn.
Elder Bednar does not employ person-first language to gender
![Face-to-Face-with-Elder-and-Sister-Bednar-517x286[1]](http://www.wheatandtares.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Face-to-Face-with-Elder-and-Sister-Bednar-517x2861.jpg)
There are quite a few wrinkles in the previous section that complicate everything. For example, in a person-first linguistic setting, one’s worth is tied to their personhood…and everything other trait is an appendage that can neither upgrade nor degrade that basic worth.
But as was pointed out several times (and Elder Bednar emphasizes this several times in his answer, and even has a followup answer on this), in Mormonism, one’s basic worth isn’t as a person. One isn’t simply a child of God. Rather, one is always a son of God or a daughter of God, and this has theological and practical implications in Mormonism.
In this sense, gender roles and expectations relating heteronormative family ideals are baked into one’s core identity as a child of God, and any departure from those gender roles is dismissed as a trial of the flesh or is set up as an opposition to God’s order. This isn’t just LGBT, this is intersex. It’s not even just those things; it’s a failure to live into the sorts of role expectations that the church has for men vs. for women…men as fathers, husbands, and priesthood holders…women as mothers, wives, and…(what was the parallel equivalent to priesthood holder, again?) It could even be remaining single. As Bednar says:
Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God, and the family is central to the Father’s plan for the eternal destiny and happiness of his children. That plan is halted in anything but a marriage between a man and a woman.
So, what about gays…err…those experiencing same-sex attraction?
Through Bednar’s rhetoric, a lot of other things that the church has done or advocated in the past make more sense. If we see the church as an organization that promotes an ideal for all sons and daughters of God — without respect for whether that ideal would fit someone or not — then it makes sense for the church to advocate for mixed-orientation marriages, even though we now know how much heartache this has caused (and continues to cause).
Quite simply, from Bednar’s logic, he cannot really offer anything to LGBT (err…those experiencing same-sex attraction) members other than assurance that they should remain obedient (or hope that in the afterlife, they will be able to participate in that most central aspect to the Father’s plan (the heteronormative family.)
Do Elder Bednar’s comments imply that every member is heterosexual deep down, or even that the Atonement will make people straight in the afterlife? Or does the church’s answer that people are agents to act and not be acted upon even make heterosexuality irrelevant? Why would anyone want to have an eternal heterosexual marriage unless, here or in the hereafter, they became straight?
Hopefully, this won’t be too much of a downer quote, but fellow W&T coblogger Mary Ann pointed me to this quotation from Robert Millet:
“In general we could say that men and women, in and out of the Church, have been taunted and titillated with views concerning man, woman, priesthood, and family that are at odds with the revealed word and thus with ‘things as they really are, and … as they really will be’ (Jacob 4:13) …. No person who revolts against the divinely established role and calling he or she was given before the foundations of this earth were laid can be happy or find real fulfillment, not here or in eternity.
I can only hope that vulnerable people will listen to their own senses of worth and value and do whatever they must to be OK with themselves before they listen to messages like these and come to internalize such hopeless messages.
Wheat & Tares 
A great analysis Andrew. I’ve gotten in trouble for using the “blind man” analogy with homosexuality, but this is the equivalent of Elder Bednar insisting that a “blind man” is actually a “seeing man suffering from darkness attraction.” The church already admits that same-sex attraction sometimes CANNOT be overcome in this life, so it is the equivalent of blindness, at least in non-bisexual cases, because we all know that some gays can’t become strait any more than blind people can become seeing.
Calling a blind man a “seeing person suffering from darkness attraction” is offensive in two ways. First, it diminishes the reality of blindness by insisting that the person still is actually “a seeing person.” Such a person will feel diminished, misunderstood, and frustrated. Second, “suffering from darkness attraction” insinuates that blindness is wrong, a curse which will be overcome in the next life, which focuses the individual’s life on what they lack, on the tragedy of their state, and on the hope that after death or suicide, they will be changed.
The question: “How can homosexual members of the church live and remain steadfast in the Gospel?” is an extremely important one. Tragically Elder Bednar offered no advice for this, instead, he only added to the burden homosexuals already face by insisting homosexuality doesn’t even exist in the church, and comparing their trial to the trial of a pretty person who has trouble becoming “deep.” I thought we had at least somewhat moved beyond this after the church came out with a website called mormonsandgays.com, which right there in the name of the site, actually admits that gays exist.
Nate,
I think that there is absolutely colloquial evidence for your analogy. Remember that BYU poll that went around in 2014: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/28/byu-survey-straight-heterosexual_n_5227529.html
What is your sexual orientation, it asked?
And the two answers were:
1) I am heterosexual, but I struggle with same-sex attraction.
and
2) I am heterosexual and do not struggle with same-sex attraction.
To most of us, it seems incredulous that this could even have made it into a poll (although I have seen some really bad polls created by students, my understanding is that this poll was distributed by the church, not by some student.)
But I think it’s much worse…when Bednar emphasizes agency vs being an object, it seems that he believes agency overpowers ALL forms of “being acted upon,” including internal forms (such as genetic predispositions and so forth.) The moral agent has the free will to choose what is right REGARDLESS of their inborn attractions. Bednar isn’t asking people to overcome same-sex attraction, but he is asking people to live the Law of Chastity regardless of what their attractions, inclinations, and desires are, out of sheer will and agency.
What if someone doesn’t want to do that, because they aren’t attracted to people of the opposite sex? Well, that’s just too bad, because that’s the plan.
I think that one of the challenges is that as humans, we often do view disabilities as undesirable things. For example, you mention, “suffering from darkness attraction insinuates that blindness is wrong, a curse which will be overcome in the next life,” but to many if not most people, blindness *is* wrong. Blindness is an imperfection of mortality, and what good is the Atonement if it can’t heal that?
This is why I’ve been intrigued by Deaf culture. Capital-D Deaf culture openly asserts their Deafness as a positive culture, and resists implications that to be hearing is the only “correct” way for a human to be.
Additionally, I tend to like the social model of disability, which argues that disability is not in whatever impairment that an individual has, but disability is the discrimination of society in failing to accommodate for that impairment. So, from this social model, someone who has a wheelchair is not disabled in a society that is thoroughly wheelchair accessible. Someone is only disabled by an impairment where they do not walk *if society discriminates against them for this by not accommodating and making things accessible for them.*
In Mormonism, though, it is absolutely the case that Mormon society does not accommodate or make things accessible. There is one right path, and everyone must conform to that, regardless of what “struggles” they may have.
I don’t think MormonsandGays is that much of a comfort. To the contrary, I think it’s the church realizing that for SEO purposes, if it wants to reach a broader audience, then it has to use terms like “Gays” or even “Mormons”, when it would prefer to use “those struggling with same sex attraction” and “members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”.
The ultimate fact is that MormonsandGays is ultimately very consistent with Bednar’s message, using same-sex attraction multiple times and “gays” very rarely. And near the end it says:
For a long time, I have assumed that this meant “gay people will become straight in the afterlife.” (See also: the post “There are no gays in heaven?”)
But with Bednar’s comments and a closer reading, I am left suspecting something else.
In this quotation, the church never says, “one will become straight” or even “one will have opposite sex attractions.” Rather, he says that in this life, some folks will never have the opportunity to marry a person of the opposite sex in this life, but that in the next life, there will be ample opportunity.
This leads me to suspect again that the church really believes *agency* and *action* are far more important than anything else, including genetic predisposition, neurology, personality, and so on. An obedient person can act obediently, regardless of whether it fulfills them or not.
You are right Andrew, it’s about pretending that we are entirely “agents to act” without any part of us that might be “a thing to be acted upon” unless it’s that we gave ourselves over to be slaves to Satan. An overestimation of the power of free-agency, and a delusion we use to judge people who have to swim against the current, when we swim WITH the current.
Interesting post and comments. This seems to be further complicated by the belief that we all leave this life with the same thoughts, tendencies, and desires that we had while alive. I have heard this used to talk about why it is so important in our earth life to change our thinking, habits, etc. to be more like God. But if a person can’t change their sexual orientation here, which the church concedes, then how are they supposed to “work” hard enough to change it in the next life? Is there a miraculous transformation that will happen? I suppose there are mixed thoughts on this since I’ve heard the opposite idea used to tell me why I’d magically be ok with polygamy in the next life, that my thoughts and feelings will change once I’m in the next life and be more perfected. Either idea seems problematic, implying that God changes your will regardless or that you have to use your agency and work hard in the next life to want what God wants.
With all these gender issues (LGBT, feminism, etc.), the message seems to be clear, “We don’t care what mental health or medical experts say because gender is a spiritual issue, not a temporal issue. We’re the experts on this. Things are done the way they are because God wants it that way, and it’ll never change.”
Andrew this is a great response. And while technically nothing he said is a surprise because that’s been the message from SLC for quite some time….. For all the reasons you pointed out are why people are so unhappy with it.
I have a friend in a MoM who recently told me the she couldn’t imagine loving a straight man because she loves him perfectly for who he is now, i.e. She thinks his homosexual traits are the reasons why she loves him so much – she doesn’t WANT him to be someone else or to lose who he is in the next life.
With Bednar’s line it doesn’t work to tell the LGBTQ+ that you love them entirely, 100% who they are. To leadership it’s a defect, and I wonder if in an effort to not have his messaging be “homosexual=defect” Bednar equated it to being born very attractive and having to choose not to be shallow. Because that comparison made it worse, it showed a fundamental lack of understanding/empathy of the issue.
I know that Bednar’s the Trump of the 12 though. Out of everyone he doesn’t care about making a blow land softer – so I suppose anything he says most accurately reflects the positions of leadership.
I fight against the narrative of gay is a trial for this life/you’re broken but will be fixed later; mostly because it leads to self loathing and suicidal thoughts.
Our leadership seems to be pushing back hard against the notion that LGBTQ+ could be harder or more complex than any trial. To them they have full knowledge of the plan (to me it’s obvious we don’t) and they force all of the pieces of the puzzle into the plan. Even if they don’t fit. To do anything else for them is to admit they might not know everything, there could be further light and knowledge, or they are wrong; and to them any of those options are impossible.
The church’s homophobia is an established fact. However, I think this is part of a larger trend/picture. Remember that the church makes no distinction between culture and the gospel, meaning that our leaders and a fair amount of at least American church members, I suspect, believe that 1950s American culture is the same thing as the gospel: Nuclear families, heteronormative marriages, lots of children, the husband working, the mother staying home and Eisenhower in the white house. The mistaken belief that marriage is somehow fixed, unchanging and stable, not only eternally but also culturally/historically also plays into some of this.
After trying very hard to listen to what our leaders say about homosexuality without prejudging them or being snarky, I have come to the conclusion that our leaders pretty consistently (at least in the current moment) see homosexuality as a kind of disability or “challenge of the flesh” to be overcome. This is, just in my opinion, profoundly offensive and dismissive, not to mention potentially damaging. I find it ironic that a church that can’t make any distinction between culture and the gospel in one sense (i.e. traditional marriage), is, on the issue of homosexuality, making exactly that distinction and doing so wrongfully and harmfully. The church teaches that homosexuality, like other “disabilities” is a temporary, worldly challenge, one that will supposedly be “fixed” when one reaches the other side. It gives no credence to the notion that homosexuality may be an eternal, essential part of one’s nature. This is understandable on some level, given the church’s essentialist stance on gender, but it nonetheless strikes me as a harmful teaching.
Frankly, Bednar’s example of a beautiful person not achieving depth just doesn’t seem to make any sense to me regarding the issue of homosexuality. Further, since I’ve never really seen any concrete, specific descriptions of the celestial kingdom, what we’ll do there, what it will really be like (we get the general “we’ll be with our families and with God” but that’s it), I’m a bit skeptical when I hear folks who usually only give us the most vague, general description of the afterlife all of a sudden sounding so positive about the lack of homosexuality in the next life. Challenging times indeed.
I really appreciate your analysis, Andrew. I think Elder Bednar is just articulating Mormon doctrine and taking it to its logical conclusion. In Mormon theology, the plan is to progress towards becoming gods and godesses in heterosexual celestial sealings having our own spirit offspring. In this theology, homosexuals do not exist, only heterosexuals. So homosexuality must be an earth-life trial/temptation, but gender is eternal. In that paradigm, it is kinder to say, you are a man or woman suffering from same-sex attraction and if you are faithful nothing will be lost to you, than it is to say, you are a type of person that will not exist in eternity. But that doesn’t lessen the actual harm it causes.
This is not the first time that the LDS Church has argued for certain language usage to more closely align with their theology. There is the love-hate relationship with the label “Mormon,” which the Church’s own members will not give up because of its convenience and utility (not to mention the Church’s PR department). But we keep trying to make Latter Day Saint work, or worse, member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Conversely, there is the insistence on being called “Christians,” despite the theological distance between Mormonism and much of the rest of Christianity (yet we rarely call ourselves Christians unless we are responding to someone saying we are not).
I think the Church is fighting a losing battle on this one. Person-first language is awkward and, in this case, insulting. Kids these days are not going to start using “person with same sex attraction” or stop using “gay.” The vast majority of members will not go along with it. And that’s probably going to affect attitudes among members. It’s harder to sell a policy discriminating against a group of people than it is to sell a policy discriminating against a trait or behavior.
re 4
Mary,
That is absolutely the thing that both intrigues and scares me. I really was struck by the lines from the MormonsandGays website that I quoted in a comment above…it doesn’t say that they will become straight. It says that people without the opportunity to marry (an action) will have ample opportunity in the afterlife.
It’s exactly as you say: either possibility is very problematic. Either one will be radically changed to be OK with things they were not OK with during life…or one will be confronted to have to do those things in the same mindset they have.
However, the saddest part for me is that I have seen this idea before in other religious traditions. I have seen a view that Hell is not the absence of God (because God is *everywhere* and no one can avoid his presence), but rather, that Hell is being in the presence of God but utterly unable to enjoy that presence. How utterly terrifying would it be if all of us were in prescribed gender roles (including heteronormative marriage, standard role differentiation for men and women, perhaps even polygamy) in the afterlife regardless of what our desires and wishes were???
I can agree with Elder Bednar if his statement that there are no lgbtq in the Church were interpreted in the same way as this passage from the New Testament: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” That is, I could agree with him if he means that regardless of sexual orientation (or whether we have feelings of “same sex attraction” or “opposite sex attraction” or something else), we are all one in Christ Jesus, and that is our primary identity. That all other attributes are or should be secondary to that of being Jesus’ disciples.
” believe that 1950s American culture is the same thing as the gospel”
And it’s not the fifties as they actually were, but as they should of been, a mythic fifties.
The phrase,”not here or in eternity” interests me. “Not here”, the myth must be promoted by expelling happy apostates and making their children anathema.
After all, the phrase is not “same sex attracted”, but “struggle with same sex attraction”.
And keeping “rebels without a cause” filling up the treatment centers of Utah.
If this is the case, then it depressingly seems to me, the Church NEEDS suicides.
DavidH, that’s not exactly what he’s saying, though. He’s saying we are either “male disciples of Christ” or “female disciples of Christ.” The gender portion of that identity is critical to our roles on this earth and how we act as disciples of Christ.
re 5,
Mary Ann,
This is absolutely what they are saying. However, when it comes to making statements in the press or to a secular audience, they understand that they have to at least appear attuned to research and data, so they will find some way to find research that supports their position. (I believe I have written in the past that a lot of the gay conversion therapy folks often lift a lot of concepts from queer theory to support their points. They want to “problematize” non-heterosexualities, without conceding that the same theory also problematizes heterosexuality, traditional gender roles, and the gender binary itself.)
re 6
Kristine,
I think the tragic issue is that here, the sides are going to continue to see past each other. For example, let’s take part of your comment:
To Bednar, he is loving the person entirely, 100% who they are. He just believes fully that the *person* is a son or daughter of God, and everything else is not core to the individual.
I agree that his comparison was both probably intended to move away from the “defect” association, but that it was just baffling. Like…really?
It seems to me that the church still believes that it can uphold its basic position and just try to express it in increasingly “nicer” terms. It is not willing to admit that its basic position is damaging, no matter the framing.
re 7
Brother Sky,
I do think that a lot of this has been set up by the equation of the 1950s American family life (which was really quite anomalous, not only when compared to later decades, but also when compared with previous decades) as divinely inspired.
I think, ultimately, however, since the church is committed to childbearing, it can’t really get around the fact that children biologically happen as a result of heterosexual sex. It sees any expression of sexuality as contrary to the divine order. So, regardless of what homosexuality is, the church doesn’t feel that it can compromise.
re 8
Joel,
While I think that for the most part, your last paragraph is spot on…I have to say, I do know a lot of conservative Mormons who would identify as “struggling with SSA” vs identifying as gay.
I think the church recognizes that when someone identifies as gay, then that marks a shift beyond which the church cannot continue to impose its narrative unchallenged…that’s why the church has to keep arguing against that identification. But I agree that to the extent that Mormons are not isolated from society, kids are going to grow up hearing the terms and worldviews of other folks, and the church can’t really stop its members from seeing sexual orientation as a core aspect of identity.
re 10,
DavidH,
I must agree with Mary Ann’s comment 12…Bednar repeatedly states (and even emphasizes later on in his answer) that who we are as men and women is a part of core identity. He essentializes gender (so you are a son of God or a daughter of God, not just a gender-neutral “child of God”), and your status as a son or daughter implies different roles, responsibilities, etc.,
And I wouldn’t have AS MUCH of a problem with this (don’t get me wrong though, I still think there are problems), if the church really took things to a different conclusion. For example, *if* women truly do offer a different perspective that cannot be provided by men, then we would expect that we would need women at all levels of leadership — we would need parallels authority structures all the way up to prophet. We would expect that a Bishop or Stake President cannot provide insight for both sexes. We would have to truly investigate what it means to be equal (but not the same) partners in the home, in the church, and so on.
SNielsen – the church would prefer the individual choose to combat the temptation the rest of their lives over suicide. It’s a serious question in my mind, though, if the church would rather have the kid commit suicide than participate in homosexual behavior. According to recent statements, suicide doesn’t seem to thwart God’s plan as much as homosexual behavior apparently does. Which is the worst sin? Is it possible some still hold to the pine box statement? My guess is that the option for repentance still puts suicide as a less ideal option. (And it’s quite disturbing, as someone who has a mental illness, to wonder if mentally healthy people might view suicide a legitimate option.)
It seems to me that the church would never support suicide, if only because it represents the individual refusing to take his or her agency seriously. Here, I’m thinking of Camus’s thought that suicide is the rejection of freedom. (But of course, Camus wouldn’t advocate religion.)
If this becomes a pattern – January Elder Nelson talk, February Elder Bednar talk, March… – I really don’t know what will be left of my attachment to my leaders by Christmas.
But many people still hold that suicide *is* a use of agency. Bednar stressed an appropriate use of agency: “We are agents. Blessed with agency because of the atonement of Christ, and with that agency we are to act and not be acted upon. That agency gives us the capacity to determine how we will respond to the variety of challenges we will experience in the flesh. So, you choose, you act in accordance with the teachings of Christ.”
The agency determines how we will respond to the challenges in this life. The ideal is to obey all the commandments, but what if an individual believes the only way to avoid continually breaking the commandments is to use their agency to eliminate the temptation permanently? Like the Garden of Eden scenario – break one commandment in order to keep the other commandments? If a kid keeps hearing that gay marriage and LGBT behavior is the biggest threat to the plan of salvation, what’s that kid going to think about their options and what would be the most Christlike behavior?
I don’t think the Church or it’s culture, for the most part, want suicide even if it is the less sin, but that they need it.
The choice is righteous member and happiness, or misery and death.
They have to point to “struggling” to sell their “happiness.”
So people may perceive the legitimate choices as between spiritual lobotomy or death, but hopefully instead, they can see non-church definitions of happiness that can work for them.
Yes that would be frightening. It also raises questions about personality and the uniqueness of souls. If all males have one set of traits, functions, responsibilities, etc. and all females have another, what does it mean to be me, I guess? Where do my desires, talents, etc. come from, and shouldn’t I be able to use them to bless others in the next life and not be restricted based on gender? There’s so much we don’t know, but it can hardly be a comforting answer to many in the LGBT community that they will be completely changed or continue a similar struggle in the next life. I hope the church tries to seek more revelation on this issue. It is so painful to not know the value of one’s identity in the eternities.
Mary Ann,
This reminds me of a conversation I had with a Catholic about the Catholic opposition to contraception. Obviously, this analogy is small potatoes compared to suicide, and the analogy that the Catholic used is smaller potatoes still, but maybe it can illustrate where I think at least some religious perspective come from. Anyway, this Catholic person used as an analogy the difference between dieting, exercising, etc., and getting something like gastric bypass surgery or taking weight loss pills. For Catholics, spiritual fitness is in part about developing a sense of *discipline* to form *habits* (in the same way that physical fitness is also about a discipline to form habtis…but with particular uses of muslces). So, developing the discipline to do things like dieting, exercising, etc., even if was hard, even if one frequently slipped up, even if it was not the most effective or efficient path (or even if science suggested it was unlikely to work in the long run for many people at all!) was seen more spiritually disciplined than choosing other options that are quicker.
I think that the LDS church would take a similar stance. Even if taking one’s life is a use of agency, it would never be seen as the most disciplined use thereof.
Continually breaking commandments is a feature, not a bug. At best, the church can stress that EVERYONE will continually break commandments. (I think this is one place where non-LDS Christians would say that Mormonism is heretical. In Mormonism, we so de-emphasize grace. We think that salvation and exaltation are things we can work our way toward…we just need Jesus to help when we slip up. But non-LDS Christians would say that we mess up continually. We cannot even begin to earn salvation. We depend utterly on Christ.)
The difference here seems to be that most people do not internalize the commandments they break as being all that big of a deal (at least, in my experience, I rarely see straight people talking about their sins in anywhere near the dire terms that would be implied), whereas as a culture and as a religion, we really talk up homosexuality as this huge deal, and so young LGBT people internalize that in a way that young straight people often do not.
For me personally, part of my process was realizing that ultimately, I have to live with myself, so I prioritize myself before what anyone else says or think about me. I live my life with priority to myself. But I don’t think that everyone who grows up as an LGBT Mormon internalizes that message — they come to prioritize what other people say about their lives, or how a human should live, and when they see that no matter what they do, they do not fit in, they give up on themselves. It’s tragic; there’s no doubt about that. I don’t really know a way to resolve it. It’s easy to say, “Well, people should just disregard the church whenever the church doesn’t fit with their lived experience.” But religion is a lot more powerful to a lot of people than to be so easily dismissed.
Yes this. You can’t have it both ways. We can’t claim the genders are just so distinct and special that one can’t replace the other and then only have knowledge of God the Father as the role model for men and women. When people say in church, we can all become like God, they are almost always talking about Heavenly Father. And as a woman, I’m always left wondering, can I become like Him? Will I one day do the same things He does? If so, then what is the point in having such rigid gender roles? The same goes with church structure like you said.
Thanks for this analysis Andrew.
DavidH, if only, if only that were the case.
Mary Ann, quoting Bednar (I’m assuming): “So, you choose, you act in accordance with the teachings of Christ.”
I’m wondering what were those teachings, I don’t think it’s mentioned during His ministry described in in the NT, or visit to the Nephites.
I’m feeling much like Anon (#17). I mentioned to my siblings back when The Policy came out last year that I haven’t been able to believe a word they (church leaders) say about gender for more than 20 years. But lately it’s all getting seriously surreal.
Part of what makes Elder Bednar’s response troubling to me is that while the question is asking for help for homosexual Mormons who are struggling with reconciling their sexual orientation and their faith, his answer seems geared more towards helping straight Mormons feel better about the Church’s doctrines and teachings about homosexuality. He knows that a lot of members, including a lot of youth, struggle with the Church’s position on this and worry that it is bigoted or discriminatory. So his re-framing of the question is a way of saying, this isn’t about discriminating against people, this is about extending Christ-like love to sons and daughters of God, helping them achieve exaltation.
When the changes to the Handbook were made public, the concern wasn’t focused on the impact that they would have on LGBT members, or what kind of message it sent to them. The concern was about the attitudes of the general members and the public, to reassure them that the policy change was done out of love for children to avoid family strife.
The Church membership is growing increasingly skeptical of the morality of the Church’s position on homosexuality. Members don’t like feeling like they have to choose between loving their child or loving their church. They don’t like being the source of someone’s pain. Church leadership is worried about losing the youth on this issue, as seen by Elder Nelson’s talk and now Elder Bednar’s talk. So they have to emphasize that this doctrine that seems to be hurting a group of people is actually the greatest manifestation of Christ-like love. It isn’t bigotry or discrimination at all. It is helping people realize their core identity as sons and daughters of God.
The Meldrum experiment is sometimes held up as an example of how susceptible humans are to just blindly following orders, even if it means causing an innocent party intense pain. But when you watch the interaction between the tester and the subject pushing the button, they are resistant to authority. They push back. What ultimately convinces them to keep pushing the button is belief in the science, that it is for a worthy cause. They value research and scientific advancement. They convince themselves that the pain they are inflicting is necessary to serve this higher cause.
Elder Bednar is trying to give the youth a higher cause so they will be willing to stay loyal to the Church, even if doing so appears to cause harm to others, even if it makes them uncomfortable and feel like they are being discriminatory.
“Now I want to speak very directly to you. The world teaches that we must be tolerant and accepting. There are some things we do not accept or tolerate. We love all people with whatever challenge any person faces. The purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and of the Savior’s church, is to assist people in receiving the strength to deal with the challenge. So we do not discriminate, and we are not bigots. We extend Christ-like love to all sons and daughters of God.
“But what is the purpose of the father’s plan? We come to the earth, we are blessed to receive a physical body. Marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God, and the family is central to the Father’s plan for the eternal destiny and happiness of his children. That plan is halted in anything but a marriage between a man and a woman. Now, Joseph Smith didn’t create the plan. Thomas Monson didn’t create the plan. God the eternal father created the plan. The savior through his atonement makes the plan operational, effective in our lives, and the father has not changed his mind about how the plan should operate. So please do not let the voices of the world confuse you or lead you in a different direction, as you come to better understand the fathers plan, then you will understand the purpose for marriage between a man and a woman. I hope that’s responsive to the question.”
Joel is absolutely correct that Elder Bednar’s response was geared towards strait members, not gay ones. Elder Bednar wasn’t interested in answering the question “how can we help homosexual members” at all. Instead, he wanted to demonstrate how that was a bad question. According to Elder Bednar, members shouldn’t see homosexuals as any different than strait members, or ask any questions specifically about them, because they are the same as us, their special category doesn’t even exist, except in unrighteous worldly minds. By saying “there are gay people” we give people an unholy option to think of themselves as “that way.” But if we refuse to acknowledge homosexuality, then maybe same-sex attracted members will have an easier time overcoming it.
This might be true in a vacuum. Years ago, when homosexuality was completely in the closet, the cultural shame of it ensured that it stayed repressed, and gays got on with their lives as best they could. Refusing to acknowledge homosexuality helped people stay repressed, which helped them stay in the church.
But modern society doesn’t believe in repression, and neither does the church. Repression is unrighteous dominion. We might still insist that homosexuality is wrong, but we don’t shame people into repression by denying their identity or the reality of their sufferings. We teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves. We acknowledge their pains. If they are drinking a bitter cup, and ask the cup to pass, we send angels to comfort them, not smug platitudes about how their cup is no different than anyone else’s.
Mary (#20) said:
“I hope the church tries to seek more revelation on this issue. It is so painful to not know the value of one’s identity in the eternities.”
Mary, I respectfully submit that by seeking to derive your eternal identity (and thus worth) through the medium of flawed men, you’ll be sorely disappointed.
Instead, please realize that God already demonstrated your eternal worth by suffering and willfully giving of his life for you.
“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” John 15:13
You, clearly, are his friend.
Well, this address exemplifies Elder Nelson’s January 2016 prophesy, ‘it will become less and less popular to be a Latter-day Saint’. They Boy Scouts of America stated their dilemma well when they identified their gay-restrictive stance as ‘unsustainable’. Elder Bednar’s approach given the law of the land and the cultural movement behind it is also unsustainable if the church intends to be integrated into US society rather than retrenched.
I was surprised when Elder Holland used the term ‘sexual orientation’ in the October 2015 general conference. It sort of flies in the face of Elder Bednar’s assertion. I can only wonder about the young missionary Elder Holland spoke about who returned home from his mission, waited for 5 years, then returned to serve his mission–only to find the gut punch of the raw policy change. Makes me wonder if he wishes he had his 5 years of his life back.
Hedgehog, while Jesus never addressed these types of gender arguments in ancient scripture, modern prophets definitely have. It’s the modern teachings of godhood being that combination of male and female (the idea of there being a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother), that drive gender essentialism. The Family Proc didn’t just appear out of thin air. As President Hinckley stated, it was “a declaration and reaffirmation of standards, doctrines, and practices relative to the family which the prophets, seers, and revelators of this church have repeatedly stated throughout its history.” (Some contend was simply for the sake of legal arguments, but whatever.)
Mary, I think if we were to get revelation on Heavenly Mother at this time, it’d probably conform to the existing stereotypes being promoted. I’m okay waiting awhile.
This may be a small point but when church leaders talk about gender or you see the word in the proclamation on the family it’s referring to sexual attraction. The reality is that gay men don’t want to be female and lesbians don’t want to be male. They’re happy with their gender. Where the gender issue falls down is in the case of intersex as has been mentioned and there’s no reason to see that condition as eternal.
re 24 and 25,
I actually think that Bednar’s response was also geared toward gay members. How can homosexual members remain steadfast in the Gospel? First, by not identifying as homosexual, and by not letting one’s orientation distract or detract them from following the Law of Chastity.
I totally agree that the church membership (especially to LGBT members) is becoming increasingly skeptical of this — and yet, there are some people who still try to conform their lives to this.
Especially because Mormons do NOT isolate themselves from the rest of the world, it’s increasingly difficult to inculcate LDS values only when on every other day of the week, Mormons work, play, and go to school with people who definitely do not live according to LDS values, but who seem to be happy and fulfilled even though they are not.
This leads me to suspect again that the church really believes *agency* and *action* are far more important than anything else, including genetic predisposition, neurology, personality, and so on.
Agency and action are far more important than genetic predisposition, neurology, personality, and so on — we have to play the game as best we can with the cards we are dealt — we cannot control what cards we are dealt, but we can decide how we will play our hand. And God knows that, and will account for that. So yes, agency and action are more important than uncontrollables. We are here to act, not merely to be acted upon.
ji,
That’s definitely a good summary of the position.
I personally think that neurology, personality, genetic predisposition and so on should inform how we should play our hand, but it definitely seems that the church disagrees on these aspects.
more important — not solely important…
Well, important enough to the church that whether one is attracted to people of the opposite sex (or not) apparently shouldn’t be taken into consideration when determining whether marriage to someone of the opposite sex is the ultimate eternal goal for that person.
I just think you have to ignore an awful lot of lived experience, that a lot of people have, for this to make any sense or to even want it to make sense.
If you weren’t taught while you were growing up, the way I was, that gay people are scary and like scary stuff — if your exposure to them is finding out your best friend is gay, or that you really like comics of girls kissing each other — then why the need for any of this at all? It’s like if they suddenly said from the pulpit, and in a First Presidency proclamation, that black people can’t be sealed or go to the Celestial Kingdom except as servants to white people.
Oh, wait.
Jewelfox,
To a certain extent, I agree with you. But from another extent, I think that what drives ongoing heteronormativity in a lot of these conservative religions is the biological reality (at least, still in 2016) that childbearing requires a man and a woman. I think church leaders recognize that Mormonism mostly doesn’t work if someone doesn’t follow the plan of getting married and having kids and getting those kids baptized, etc., etc., So they have to do whatever they can to push this as a life plan.
“Church leadership is worried about losing the youth on this issue, as seen by Elder Nelson’s talk and now Elder Bednar’s talk.” They clearly care less about losing the youth than they do about other things.
I think Andrew S is an articulate, kind, and thoughtful individual. I enjoy his post.
His perspective is that of an atheist. He has said he is an atheist, I’m not saying that out of the blue. He doesn’t believe in God, the atonement, prophets, and etc.
I respect his point of view even though I hold a completely different outlook.
hawkgrrrl-
The church isn’t going to sing a different tune regarding commandments and doctrine because it isn’t popular in our day.
Would you respect them if they did?
Sure church leaders are concerned about the youth. They should be.
What do you suggest they do?
re 37,
Hawkgrrrl,
there are certain courses of action that the church leaders cannot take, even if it might lead to more youth staying. The church cannot compromise or loosen its standards on sexuality, for example.
re 38,
Jared,
I don’t dispute what you’re saying, but I would think that even as an atheist, I should be able to summarize what LDS church leaders are saying, what their mentality is, what the implications of those statements and mentality are, etc., Certainly, I expect that believers will disagree on the conclusions regarding those statements, but if you think there is anything wrong about my basic summary of the comments (or the reasoning thereof), then please let me know.
Andrew S
I agree you should be able to summarize and express your opinions thoughts and ideas about any subject you desire.
Disagreement isn’t the problem. Being disagreeable is a problem and I don’t ever recall you being disagreeable. Like I said before, I enjoy your post and comments.
I don’t think there are any atheist in heaven. Once they get to a degree of glory they will have long since changed their mind.
Here is an example of what I mean. There are quite a few like this on YouTube. I don’t know much about Ian McComack, but those who experience one appear to be changed. Ian was an atheist until he had NDE.
The video quality isn’t very good, but the story is powerful.
“What do you suggest they do?” When it comes to gay marriage legislation and gay rights, they should live and let live. They should reevaluate the so-called doctrine of the family. It’s a relatively recent invention, certainly elements of it are. They should seriously rethink the idea that gay people would be better off dead because that is what they keep saying when they say gay people won’t be gay in the hereafter and that being gay is reprehensible. They should teach correct principles and let people govern themselves. They should realize that gay children are born into Mormon families, and that’s not a temporary “struggle.” Some people are gay. If we can’t wrestle with these questions in a serious manner, then we should quit engaging in these topics. Maybe we have to go to a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach when it comes to gay couples until we can get a real answer that isn’t contradicted by science and lived experience.
But since none of that’s going to happen, gay people and those who love them will feel the church has been high-jacked by destined-to-fail culture wars.
I hear people say they’re straight or heterosexual, not I have opposite-gender attraction. It’s a really strange way to put it. I mean, that’s how we talk about diseases–I have cancer, or I struggle with depression. I think sexual attraction is much more than that, a part of your core, not something that happens to you.
hawkgrrrl-
I can understand your perspective to a certain extent. I hope you will try and understand the apostles and prophets perspective as best you can.
You and I don’t have available all the information they do, so it is difficult to see things as they do.
I believe they do the best they can to deal with the difficulties they are confronted with. They are torn between two imperatives. On one hand, they teach what constitutes sin, and on the other hand they embrace the sinner and try to help them. It is impossible to avoid inflicting pain.
I believe there is merit to the idea that SSA is a birth defect. Researchers are studying this premise.
History is replete with examples of situations when religions have “gone after” a particular group of “sinners etc” and it has not ended well. Witches, astronomers, black people, abortion supporters, divorcees…
I have no reason to think that this extremely active, vocal and blunt rhetoric will end any different to those situations above.
Jared: I appreciate your answer and find you a respectful person to engage with. “You and I don’t have available all the information they do, so it is difficult to see things as they do.” I’m starting to disbelieve this. There’s a strong unwillingness to see things that seems manifest. My whole life I’ve believed ‘with age, wisdom,’ but the older I get, the more I see it isn’t so.
Birth defect, Really.
It’s a natural variation. We are social beings who cooperate.
Got two words for you–Inclusive fitness.
You want your group to do well, then you need to build community where the coming generation thrives.
Now we go up to three words–Love one another.
Just another thought that came to mind…
Working in law enforcement, I see a certain side of the community. Issues of domestic violence – in all its forms, drug use – both illicit and prescription, mental illness and suicide, interpersonal violence, sexual assault etc.
These are real issues affecting real families – including members of the church. Whilst issues of sexuality are also issues that affect families, the seemingly disproportionate and unnecessary weighting of our discourse on the issue of homosexuality seems (as others have said) to belie the overall message of the gospel.
Ultimately the church is entitled to present its stand on what it considers important issues. However, I would postulate that many of the issues I mentioned above are far more damaging, more divisive and more of a threat to the traditional family than homosexual people ever will be.
re 41,
Jared,
I don’t really begrudge anyone their personal experiences, but I will just note that I have seen conversion stories on both sides…people for whom coming close to death gave them a spiritual experience, and people for whom coming close to death made them realize their mortality even more, and made them come to think that this life is the only life they have.
So it seems to me that people’s mileages may vary. Anyway, I would hope that we can keep this discussion somewhat topical, maybe?
re 42,
hawkgrrrl,
Do you believe it is even theoretically possible for a religious group to establish sexual ethics opposing same-sex relationships in a non-bigoted, non-prejudiced way? Or is opposition in and of itself beyond the pale?
For whatever it’s worth, even though I recognize the immense harm on a practical level that seems to be associated with it, and even though I think that the LDS church probably is not robust enough at philosophy and theology to have done all the research on this, I actually do think that religions can legitimately and sincerely have theologies that exclude any same-sex relationships. Again, I am not saying I agree or accept those theologies, and I don’t think even they have figured out how to express those theologies without causing immense distress or poor treatment from others, but it seems in these sorts of discussions that a lot of people don’t think it is possible to have a “good” theology that excludes any same-sex relationship.
re 43,
David D,
I agree with you. I think that Bednar’s answer basically comes down to that: he would like people to frame homosexuality more like they would frame diseases (I have SSA….not I am gay), because he sees it as undesirable like a disease.
Or, as Jared says in 44, it’s a birth defect.
This is ultimately why “born this way” argumentation could never be the end-all be-all. Because even when religious folks concede that homosexuality is not a chosen orientation, they can still argue that even if it is inborn, it’s something negative…a disease, or an affliction, or a birth defect.
Jared,
“You and I don’t have available all the information they do, so it is difficult to see things as they do.” <– Like I said in my last comment, and like Hawkgrrl also said, it's really hard (if not impossible) for me to see things that way.
I feel that if they really knew what was going on in people's lives, and really had a better understanding, it would show in their words and actions. The proclamation on the family would address intersex, transgender, and nonbinary persons, for starters. Their doctrine would be inclusive of asexual people. And they'd know better than to assign childrearing tasks based on what gender a person's assigned.
I realize this is all "the world thinks that they know better," and stuff. But you need to understand, this isn't a case of having two conflicting voices with no way for sure to know which is right. This is, in my case, a matter of meeting these people and having these experiences first-hand. Of knowing verifiable facts and having evidence that your prophets don't seem to be aware of, and if they are they aren't showing it.
How far am I, whether a mormon or not, supposed to trust them? To the point of literal child sacrifice, like in the "Abrahamic tests" they keep mentioning? Because that is literally what is happening right now, with the (again, verifiable) LGBTQ suicide and homelessness epidemic in Utah. It’s what almost happened to me.
Trusting them didn’t make things better, or make me feel better about myself, or give me hope for the future or personal revelation “too sacred to talk about” that made everything okay. It just made everything all confused, and muddled, and depressive. Until I finally realized why things were the way they were, and felt sick that I’d never been told, growing up.
It would have saved me and my family a lot of trouble, to have the additional “light and knowledge” that people like me exist.
Mary Ann “Hedgehog, while Jesus never addressed these types of gender arguments in ancient scripture, modern prophets definitely have. …”
Well sure, I realise that. I’m having trouble thinking this is anything more than mere speculation on their part though.
I’ve learned not to have a lot of back and forth on topics like this. I’m not interested in creating discord, my opinion as a TBM is in the minority at W&T, but at the same time it is important to add to the discussion.
Following is a link about research into the causes of SSA.
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/reasonmclucus/15835803/homosexuality-involves-a-treatable-birth-defect/
As for the apostles and prophets, I’m of the opinion they are evolving in their understanding of SSA. I confident they will get it right.
There are gay members of the church who are moving forward faithfully and are gay. One example:
http://gaymormonguy.blogspot.com/
I guess there are two problems with your telegraph link, Jared:
1) Believe it or not, but LGB people do not necessarily consider themselves to be transgender. So, cisgender LGB people do not experience discontent with their gender identity.
but then there’s
2) The LDS church does not support transition for transgender members. So even if you wanted to say that it was a “treatable birth defect”, the fact is that the LDS church does not support transition.
When you say that the church will evolve on this and that they will get it right, do you think that they will come to support transition for transgender people? Do you think they will start suggesting that those with SSA should transition as well (even if the LGB person does not identify as transgender?)? Just wondering your thoughts here.
I would say this though: per Bednar’s comments, it looks like someone like Gay Mormon Guy is violating Bednar’s advice…if he is serious about moving forward faithfully, he would stop identifying as gay immediately.
Andrew S-
I don’t spend much time looking into LGB and related subjects. Just enough to be aware. So please understand, my thoughts and ideas on LGB is limited.
I believe LDS church leaders are trying to find their way just as faithful LGB member are.
The book is still being written on all this. In reality it is a very small part of the focus of church leaders. However, LGB advocates keep the topic in the public eye as best they can.
In a few years, I suspect it will be replaced with other kinds of concerns, possibly financial and war concerns will consume public attention.
I have nothing to add, but I really appreciate your thoughtful analysis, Andrew, and y’all who have added so many well-thought-out comments. I’m the type to just get mad at stuff like this, and I appreciate it when people with cooler heads analyze it more carefully so I can get more perspectives.
Jared,
I can appreciate that for you and for many other people, these sorts of things may not be that important to you. But as Jewelfox and other commenters have pointed out, for people like us, this is lived experience. Decisions made by other people have an impact.
It would be OK for the church to not want to spend a whole lot of time on these sorts of issues if they admitted that they don’t necessarily see everything, they don’t necessarily know everything on the subject, and as a result, they didn’t claim to have the final answers. It would be great if they consulted with people who have lived experience. LGB advocates (and of course T, as well as other groups of gender and sexual minorities) keep the topic in the public eye because they have lived experience and want to make sure that any policies or decisions that are made consider that lived experience. Things would go so much more smoothly if that lived experience was taken into consideration rather than dismissed or rejected.
Bednar’s world:
Ward member conversing with gay ward member:
“Why is someone as fantastic as you not married? I have a niece I would love to line you up with!”
Hmm, well it is because I “have” homosexuality.
I just find it ironic that the Church has no problems labelling and defining people (apostates, gender roles etc) now saying gay people should not define themselves as gay. Perhaps we should be respectful and let people speak for themselves?
Jared
Really. Yes, I agree you don’t spend much time looking.
Here maybe two chapters in the book(and I’m not saying I agree with them)
“Fecundity of paternal and maternal non-parental female relatives of homosexual and heterosexual men.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23227237
“Born both ways: the alloparenting hypothesis for sexual fluidity in women.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23563096
Now I giving my own take. Human have an advanced culture compared to other animals. We have cave paintings and figurines, as well as musical instruments, that go back tens of thousands of years.
One thing that has advanced us as a species is our creativity.
Culture can stifle our creativity, or allow the mind and spirit to soar.
Now here’s where I engage in a bit of stereotyping, what would the world of art and letters look like, if no gay people participated in it?
Frankly, the same thing could be said about the Church.
Andrew S-
I appreciate and find interest in all that I’ve read on this post and in the comments. I think all of you are great individuals and I’m pleased and enlightened by my association with you.
I hope all LGB’s can find happiness. I further hope that all LGB’s who have a testimony can find a way to deal with all the challenges they encounter as they seek to follow Christ.
My course was set in 1966 when God answered my prayer in a way that left me with certainty of testimony about Mormonism.
Jared,
Thanks for continuing to comment. I also hope that all LGB (and T, and others) can find happiness. I think that this may look different for different people. I mean, I know some people for whom leaving the church was the only way they could be happy. Maybe that just seems impossible to you, but I’m hoping your idea of God is big enough to allow for that and to sort that all out.
I know some LGBT folks who have a profound testimony both of the church and of the value of their relationships. Even though they are excommunicated, they attend every week because of this profound testimony, knowing that even if they are not in full fellowship, they are still spiritually renewed by their ongoing connection with God, who reveals to them that they should continue to strive with the Saints AND continue to maintain their relationships with their partners. I know some LGBT folks who have a testimony of celibacy. I know LGBT folks who have come to different conclusion to any of the ones I’ve already mentioned.
Andrew: “Do you believe it is even theoretically possible for a religious group to establish sexual ethics opposing same-sex relationships in a non-bigoted, non-prejudiced way? Or is opposition in and of itself beyond the pale?” I suppose there are a few possibilities:
– oppose all sexual relations outside of marriage. Oops. Busted.
– adopt a “do no harm” model in which consen.t is required, regardless of marital state, and no possibility of engendering offspring outside of marriage. Well, gay relationships actually have a leg up on that one.
– create a second-tier status for non-procreative marriages, allowing for them, but not solemnizing them in temples. Allow them to stand as legal marriages, but don’t encourage them. However, you have to allow an exception for those willing to adopt in which case, gay marriages are back in.
I agree it’s difficult. Yes, religions can do what they can figure out how to do and no more. I am frustrated that there are gay people with testimonies who have served faithful missions who would otherwise love to participate, but they have been tossed in the garbage for being in a committed relationship, along with their children. If they were married to straight people and simply engaging in promiscuous sex on the side, that would be business as usual and not worth new policy writing.
Elder Bedinar in his answer, says that agency is a result of the atonement. Wasn’t the war in heaven to preserve agency? Is agency a result of the atonement or is it an eternal principle?
I had expected that once gay marriage was legal in Utah, we would accept it, and apply the same definition of marriage, and chastity to everyone. The old version that says you can only have sex with the person to whom you are legally married.
I can’t see why we do not just include gay couples as we now do inter racial couples (who we at one stage also excluded, but now marry in the temple). Then his statement would have meaning. We would just have people, marriage, and families. We do not now have inter racial families, just families.
After praying about this. We were doing our scripture reading for SS when a series of things made themselves known to me. 2Nephi 2 ;25 says Adam fell that man might be; and men are that they might have Joy.
MEN,AND WOMEN ARE HERE ON EARTH TO HAVE JOY. THAT’S WHY WE ARE HERE,
There is another scripture where God is talking about why the world was created
Abraham 3 25 And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them; (there is not a full stop but the thought continues)
26 And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and ….they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.
What this says to me is that the testing is to see whether we will keep our second estate, which means partaking of the ordinances and living a Christ centered life, and having Joy. No other tests or trials from God.
PEOPLE ARE HERE ON EARTH TO HAVE JOY is perhaps the most powerful, life changing verse in the BOM. This explains our purpose here on earth. We are here to learn to have JOY. A few verses earlier we are told satan wants us to be miserable. The opposite of miserable is joy!
How do we have joy I asked, by loving our fellowman unconditionally. The Saviours teachings were all about loving God by loving our fellow men.
He also said, when talking about love, “be ye therefore perfect, even as your father in heaven is perfect”. My understanding of this is that we are here to learn to love perfectly (which is unconditionally) and by loving perfectly we can have a fullness of joy, and be perfect ourselves. We become perfect by loving unconditionally, not by living rules, or dealing with adversity.
Individually whenever we discriminate (which means deprive or hurt) anyone, we are refusing to love unconditionally, when we can love unconditionally we become Christ like.
If we could COLLECTIVELY love unconditionally we become Zion.
When we all love unconditionally, we will be celestial.
A LARGE COMPONENT OF JOY IS GRATITUDE, living in Australia (not sure about US) we are in one of the safest countries, crime is low, if we are sick we have medicare, if we loose our job we have jobsearch, if we are old we get a pension. If we get up in the morning and wonder what trials, and adversity we can expect in the wicked world today, we are denying the blessings we have. If we get up thinking how wonderful our life is, how loved we feel, and JOYFUL we are;;; we are likely to have a better day I would think.
Satan wants us miserable, God wants us JOYFUL we can choose. This is how I understand life after my revelation.
We are here on this earth to learn JOY, and the way we do that is by loving everyone unconditionally, and showing that love by our actions. And being grateful and actively seeking JOY!
Hawk, with this understanding, a person or church who discriminates against anyone, is refusing to love unconditionally (as Christ did), and is also a bigot.
I can only attribute the attitude of our leaders to homosexuality, as teaching their prejudices as if they are doctrine, which has happened regularly in the history of the church, but to see the present leaders still doing it does undermine ones trust in them.
Hey Jared, glad to see you and Andrew having a respectful dialogue. For the record, when LGBTQIA+ people get mad, it’s generally not because you say stuff like this:
“I hope all LGB’s can find happiness. I further hope that all LGB’s who have a testimony can find a way to deal with all the challenges they encounter as they seek to follow Christ.”
Because I mean, that’s okay. And it’s really about as much as you have any right to say, as someone who doesn’t have our lived experience. Just wishing us well, and hoping we’re able to reconcile our personal issues with our faith, if any.
(You may be surprised at how some people have reconciled, including with Mormon faith, and what kind of answers to prayer they’ve received. It might behoove you to spend some time listening, the way that you seem to be doing here. We don’t bite!)
As far as the link that you posted, that’s one way to hypothetically reconcile the idea of LGB people with today’s Mormon teachings. It just doesn’t survive contact with those real people’s lived experiences. Because if you talk to actual T people about what is involved in transitioning genders, you find out that:
a) The social transition process is as important, if not more important, than getting hormones and surgery. It involves learning new body language and mannerisms, and changing the way that you talk. Which is especially a nightmare for trans women, because we have to learn to compress our larynx while talking, and this involves finding a muscle you never knew you had and then tensing it every time you want to communicate.
b) Transitioning genders is an extremely painful, imperfect, and difficult process, even under the best of circumstances. (Like in Canada, where people have a right to such life-saving medicine, and if you have a supportive family and laws to protect you from discrimination.) It’s not something you want to do unless the alternative is even worse, and it’s definitely not something you want to force on someone else, just so that you don’t feel uncomfortable seeing two guys holding hands.
c) Finally, the reason a lot of trans people transition to start with is because of dysphoria, which is a terrible sickening feeling that something is wrong with the body you have. Making someone transition genders when they don’t want to sounds like a good way to cause them life-threatening dysphoria, and create more suicidal trans people living miserable unfulfilled lives. Which is something I’m very familiar with.
If you want to know more about what I personally have gone through (in a G to PG-rated version), you can read this essay on my website.
Oh, one more thought that may be easier to grasp / more Mormon-y:
The Proclamation on the Family is actually in harmony with most trans people’s feelings (on gender identity). The idea that gender is eternal, and transcends mortal existence, is something a Mormon trans person could easily latch onto as a way to explain why their current body feels wrong.
This, not being LGB, easily accommodates a “birth defect” viewpoint, because that’s basically how I see the more masculine-coded parts of my appearance. 😛 As defects that require correction so that I can be my true (eternal, in Mormon terms) self. Not everyone sees things this starkly, but a lot of transgender people do.
Sorry, last paragraph should read homophobia, not homosexuality of leaders
While we’re correcting ourselves, I’d like to add a disclaimer that genderqueer / genderfluid people exist, as do gender-apathetic / agender people and neutrois.
I know you all upvoted that last comment because you love seeing Mormon-y stuff validated in the real world. But it’d be nice if some of the above people could get validation in your church’s teachings and practices, because they’re getting born into it all the time and it can be downright freaking oppressive.
Oh yeah, and my Mormon parents cut off contact with me right before Christmas when I came out as a trans girl. So like, yay for strengthening the family, and stuff.
No, I upvoted it cause I agreed with it. In the church, homosexuality and gender are separate issues, the latter getting very little mention cause they don’t know what to do with it yet. So long as it continues to fit the hetero-normative binary, at least.
I believe I’m sealed to my wife for eternity. Will we need a man to fill whatever gendered need there is to progress? No idea, but polygamy allows the possibility of not having to be separated from my wife.
From what I’ve seen, transgender has been increasing in acceptance in the Church, even though there remain many bad experiences and we are few and far between. It’s fitting that gender binary they are most concerned with, it seems.
I find it hard to believe that my attraction to women is also a birth defect, as I can’t imagine ever going that way even when I have the proper body, but years ago I couldn’t have imagined getting anything like the woman who married me.
I know God loves Their children, but I do not know the meaning of all things.
Jewelfox, that was well said.
Jewelfox, I upvoted it because I think that in this case the Proc is accidentally right, and you pointing it out is awesome.
I’m thinking “anon” (#69) might like their picture removing if at all possible…
True blue
I had expected that once gay marriage was legal in Utah, we would accept it, and apply the same definition of marriage, and chastity to everyone.
Why would you think this? Alcohol is legal but practicing alcoholics may not have full fellowship in the LDS Church
Same with this. A practicing homosexual may not have full fellowship in the LDS Church even though gay marriage is legal.
While I certainly didn’t think that the church would accept gay marriage even if it became legal, I can see how some people might think that would happen: the church emphasizes being legally and lawfully married, which would seem to tie it down to what is actually legally and lawfully the case.
This is not so anymore.
So many great comments here that are worth echoing. I have too many jumbled thoughts so I’ll keep it simple.
Any further light and knowledge that anyone has gained regarding LGBT questions has/is not coming from the church. Painted into a corner by tradition and citation of problematic scriptural justifications, along with all their authoritative declarations, church leadership seems doomed to repeat mistakes of the past (full membership for blacks).
My own personal thoughts and feelings are probably very close to yours…but still, I always ask people:
Do you think there is any valid theological reason for the church (or any church) to promote a sexual ethics that disallows any form of same sex sexuality? Or would any reason be homophobia, bigotry, etc.,?
Stepping back to look at the brand view, I can find no evidence that the Church has ever gotten ANYTHING right about how to approach homosexuality. It is the glaring elephant in the room. From prophetic pronouncements that homosexuality is a changeable condition caused by masturbation, selfishness or even just “talking about it”; to disastrous, failed programs like electroshock therapy, the Values Institute, and “gay purges” at Church schools; to political faux pas like Prop 8, botched Conference addresses, and most recently “The Policy”. It’s literally been a train wreck! And through it all they have never answered the sincere and simple question originally asked of Elder Bednar.
I personally don’t think the Brethren are capable of thinking about the subject with any kind of open mindedness; and if they can’t open their mind, there will never be any revelation to contradict their mid-twentieth century notions about it.
That should be “broad view”