Two years ago, Kyle M wrote a post at By Common Consent predicting (if not prophesying) that if Mormonism cemented anti-gay views as doctrine, it would eventually be labeled as a hate group and its brand forever tarnished to the rest of the world.
Just this past week, this post has resurfaced on both the mormon and exmormon subreddits, still relevant as ever. In addition is a new post at By Common Consent where blogger Ronan provided four vignettes of LGBT people in his life who have influenced his decision to move away from the LDS church to Anglicanism.
And — you couldn’t have missed this one, as it’s been picked up on increasingly bigger and more national news sources: a video of a 12-year-old girl named Savannah bearing testimony of her future as an out lesbian in the church whose microphone was cut off.
Below is the link to the video hosted via MormonLeaks.
I’m not done yet. There’s also the two-part series from Jana Riess’s blog Flunking Sainthood Married, Mormon, and Gay, sharing Nick and Spencer’s story of conjoining their testimony of Mormonism with their relationship for one another.
What do these stories have in common? The one thing I see in all these stories is a failure to accept where Mormonism currently is in respect to homosexuality and its sexual ethics. Hearing one sad story after another worries me not simply because it keeps happening, but because there was no reason to believe things would be any different.
I’ll start with Nick and Spencer’s journey in the Flunking Sainthood series. This guest post is by Kristin Lowe, but Jana provides an intro for her thoughts. What caught my eye was a particular line Jana wrote:
I’m…grateful that [Nick and Spencer] are still hanging in there with the Mormon people, and haven’t given up. And I’m grateful that even though their future is uncertain as members of the Church, many Mormons have welcomed them with open arms, both in their Hawaii ward and their new ward in Washington DC.
I infer that one of the reasons Jana chooses to offer her space to amplify Nick and Spencer’s story is from the continued hope that they will “hang in there” with the Mormon people, and perhaps in hope that Mormons will continue to welcome them, despite what the institution does.
But what does it mean for an out gay Mormons in relationship to be welcome in a community? What is the best gay Mormons can look forward to in the cruel game of priesthood roulette?
At best, in Nick and Spencer’s accepting Hawaii ward, this is what they had:
When they got married in Hawaii, they lost the privileges of full membership in the church, and they were forced to accept painful restrictions—no partaking of the sacrament on Sundays, no callings in their ward, no temple attendance, and no wearing of sacred garments.
The series does not remark upon their ultimate status in the church, leaving the disciplinary court upon their arrival to Washington D.C. — with potential excommunication for apostasy — implied but not confirmed.
But what strikes me is that none of this is new. None of this is unexpected. The church’s November 2015 policy enshrining same-sex relationships as apostasy is just the codification of trends that the church has embraced for a long time. And even in an accepting ward, that means no callings, no temple attendance, no wearing of sacred garments. Why the surprise?
The 12-year-old girl Savannah bore her testimony that her sexuality is not a mistake and that she knows God wants her to have all the same things that straight Mormons enshrine theologically as highest values — marriage, family, children — with a woman. That her microphone was cut off and she was asked to sit down seems so shocking to so many but, yet again…what is unexpected about a church leader wanting to prevent false doctrine from being taught in a fast and testimony meeting?
Ronan’s post at BCC offers a bit more insight into why people seem so resistant to recognize what is actually going on. As Ronan writes regarding his wife’s disclosure that her brother (now Ronan’s brother-in-law)…emphasis added:
I am no font of tolerance and charity . . . I just didn’t care. Plenty of other Mormons don’t either but she had this idea from somewhere, I suppose. Perhaps it was from some of the people in our branch whose virulent homophobia was on display in Sunday school? And where did that come from? At the time, I would have absolved the church. Bigots are everywhere, I thought. It’s not the church’s fault.
And that’s how the story goes, for person after person, until after four stories, Ronan realizes:
…And so anyway, here was my sad conclusion, made with absolutely no satisfaction at all: it was not random bigotry but a systemic moral failure all along.
It seems so easy from our liberal progressive viewpoint to say that love is love and love looks a certain way and anything else is hatred and bigotry. And as a liberal progressive guy, I am not going to absolve the LDS church (and many other conservative churches) of the impacts of what it preaches and does.
But I want to provide a note of caution to liberal progressive folks in conservative religions everywhere: not only is the thing you call homophobia systemic, but many of your co-religionists do not and will not see it as a moral failure.
I’ll take the first post I mentioned in this blog, and then contrast it with the stories of my conservative religious friends — stories that you too may have heard but not particularly appreciated.
Kyle M wrote two years ago that if Mormonism did not change its anti-gay views, the church would be labeled as a hate group, and
…[a]s that happens, our members will not be able to run major corporations. They will not be welcome in artistic circles. They will not be able to win political office. They will not be able to play in popular rock bands. Think anyone will play BYU in sports? Football contracts get broken all the time, and every school that backs out of playing BYU will win PR points for doing so.
I see Kyle’s post as being the photonegative of Jana’s post. Jana’s post writes in hope of a positive future — if only we could keep doing good things well! But Kyle’s post writes in fear of a negative future — we must change our current path, or else.
But the thing I don’t see acknowledged is that this same narrative gets told a very different way from “the other side”.
Martyrs in an intolerant society
My conservative religious friends (and yours too, probably) see some of the same things — they see themselves vilified for their religious beliefs. They see it becoming more and more popular to use one’s position on homosexuality or, heck, even one’s position on the exclusivity of Christianity, as a litmus test for employment fitness.
…but these religious folks do not see that as justification to compromise on religious values. To the contrary, they see it as evidence of liberal progressive intolerance and hypocrisy, and seek payback — and this payback has come in the form of support of political figures like Donald Trump who, even if they lack theological bona fides at least aren’t further marginalizing traditional Christian theology.
That is the message I keep hearing and reading — for as bad as we liberal progressives think folks like Trump are, the conservative Christian friends see anti-discrimination statutes and lawsuits and campaigns and callouts and shaming as being just as bad, and they have voted to roll it back.
This is not to say that things cannot change. This is not to say that the LDS theology cannot change. That Mormonism cannot have a revelation. But when we dismiss conservative sexual ethics as mere individual homophobia, we miss that these theologies and ethics have a scaffolding in centuries and millennia of Christian tradition and theology — the Christian tradition’s grand definitions for marriage, telos for human sexuality, and so on. In other words, conservative religious traditions have reasons for opposing homosexuality, even if those reasons no longer appeal or never appealed to you.
To the extent that these doctrines can and do change, we should at least ponder — as our conservative friends fear — that these changes are a compromise or departure from steady theological foundations, rather than a reinforcement of the most integral parts of those foundations.
For Mormonism in particular, we should reflect on whether the religion’s embodied divinity with literal divine sexual dimorphism will help or hinder efforts to develop Mormon sexual ethics that are LGBT-friendly.
Wheat & Tares 
Gay sex is deaxly to tbe body and soul. When Christ was in the spirit world, he was unable to minister personally to those wbo had defiled themselves in the flesh. Church members who encourage otbers to go down this road risk their own exaltation.
Well, that happened.
“we should reflect on whether the religion’s embodied divinity with literal divine sexual dimorphism will help or hinder efforts to develop Mormon sexual ethics that are LGBT-friendly.” This has been a concern we’ve discussed with the recent infusion of Heavenly Mother back into the discourse (essay, curriculum materials). It feels a bit like the only reason this belief is getting any airtime is the brethren are dusting it off as a weapon against gay marriage.
Very thought provoking post, Andrew. Thanks for sharing it.
As distasteful as Ronkonkoma’s comments usually are, this is, in a nutshell, what members have to deal with. Theologically, that is fundamentally what Mormonism is working with. I guess I’m more surprised that, even though there are these comments and commenters on all the blogs, people never really fully appreciate that the Ronkonkoma’s are not just on the fringes of Mormonism — they are more closer to the center than a lot of the stuff that gets discussed.
I also fear what Mary Ann fears. Growing discourse of Heavenly Mother (and let’s be frank; She is still not very prominent) seems to serve more to reinforce the LDS status quo about sexuality and gender rather to offer hope for change or progress.
Phobia means “fear”, and the majority of conservatives do not fear homosexuals but disagree with the behavioral lifestyle they have chosen.
So the LDS Church is threatened with being labeled a hate group. This is how Liberalism has progressed. Conservatives and their views were pitied, then mocked, then loathed, and now hated.
Conservative members should fear now, of being assaulted.
This was intelligently thoughtful without more.
Nicely done.
I can only hope we get even more thoughtful comments (and see some already).
Markag,
This is definitely something that also comes up a lot in the discussions — there is definitely a disconnect between how different sides use the term, and I don’t think either group really recognizes that their own use of the term is a non-starter to the other.
Like, as you note, many conservatives will go down to the dictionary definition of “phobia” as fear, and then just note that they aren’t afraid.
But for liberal/progressives, obviously, most aren’t suggesting that conservatives are afraid (although I was talking to one person who said that all of the conservative fears about what would happen if gay marriage were legalized would count as fears from a “phobia” perspective). When you ask for more detail, phobia is expanded more to any sort of animus or animosity.
But what I really suspect (which I think is unhelpful) is that some liberal/progressive folks would say that any non-affirming position is homophobic. That doesn’t leave a lot of room for discussion.
Wonderful essay, Andrew. I think you are spot-on with your assessment. **If** the LDS Church ever changes on this front, it will entail significant theological changes – changes to dogmas that have been reinforced since early with the introduction of polygamy. There is no escaping the implications of this. Eternal gender doesn’t make any sense to me, but it is tightly integrated with LDS theology. Such theological changes are not trivial and are not even close to what was needed for the 1978 proclamation.
Eternal marriage between a man and a woman is absolutely essential to current LDS theology and won’t get easily swept away. I can only conclude that the theology is built upon viviparous spiritual birth in the next life (no other reason makes any sense to me for the dogmatic adherence to the idea of eternal gender or even sexual attraction), so polygamy could be accommodated. Homosexuality cannot be accommodated under those circumstances, so significant theological changes would be required to allow it – theological changes that go against centuries of belief and for which there would need to be adequate resolve to change. I don’t see such resolve in the near or distant future, so don’t understand why liberals stick around and make such a fuss. Such efforts seem, to me, to entrench conservatives and create greater polarization. I’m not sure that is the correct approach, though I readily admit I don’t have any answers.
I will say, and I’ll probably get backlash for such a view, I wonder how much of liberal gnashing against this is a result of being unwilling to accept the consequences of following the current system of feedback within the Church: stop sustaining the leaders. That mechanism is there, though I admit that the leaders have set it up so there are serious repercussions for doing so (social shunning, loss of a temple recommend – and thus, ostensibly, loss of eternal life). One would have to be willing to “take it on the chin”, so to speak, but liberals have to admit to the fact that they are effectively trying to subvert the theology, and those to whom the current theology are important are likely to only dig in their heels to such subversive tactics. Liberals should just accept that it isn’t at all likely to change, quit being enablers of the system, and vote not to sustain the leaders. [I should add, this is what I have done and I was softly pushed out.]
Mary Ann, I suspect you are also spot-on with your comment.
>But what I really suspect (which I think is unhelpful) is that some liberal/progressive folks would say that any non-affirming position is homophobic. That doesn’t leave a lot of room for discussion.
The way the word is used in the LGBT community is that homophobia to us is as racism is to ethnic minorities. Non-affirming positions on blacks is considered racism, so yes, non-affirming positions on LGBT issues are homophobic.
Saying that we should compromise and accept unequal treatment is like saying that blacks should compromise and accept segregated services. After all, they get the same treatment this way, right? Well, not only are rights and services ultimately unequal under this system, but studies have shown that it is psychologically damaging, that even young children catch on to the idea that they are inferior. So yes, non-affirming positions are homophobic. They cause the same kind of harm, sans bodily damage, as more extreme forms of homophobia. Even if the harm is less extreme, it still has significant long term effects.
Great post. The one thing I always feel compelled to point out is that loss of privilege or dominance =/= oppression or an attack on religious freedom. In the marketplace of ideas, sometimes your anti-progressive ideas are going to lose. To me, the recent retrenchment (and electing of that piece of human garbage) is because those whose views are losing favor, who previously could say and do whatever they wanted, don’t like the idea that they are labelled bigots or considered unChristian. I know they are framing it as “standing in their values,” and that they are the majority, but that’s still due to a lack of empathy and imagination. Ultimately, change is going to come because God keeps sending homosexuals to the earth to be born, and they are being born to all types of families. Fine, progressives like me who are just allies can be called “snowflakes” and derided for being “faithless” because we disagree with the church’s policy. Fine. But vilifying strong, orthodox, formerly conservative parents of gay teens coming to terms with their sexual orientation? That’s not going to fly long term. Even if conservatives chase every progressive and every liberal out of the congregations (and believe me, many of them will settle for nothing less), God still keeps sending those gay children to be born in those LDS families. That’s why change is inevitable. That’s why this retrenchment, like most retrenchments, will fail and is a signal of the death throes of the status quo.
Another interesting post on BCC that, although it’s about white nationalism rather than homosexuality, makes some salient points about why these types of changes are slow going (or even non-starters): https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/06/21/sbc-and-lds-vs-the-alt-right/
Honestly, I think progressive members today have only a few options:
1) ignore all the unpleasantness (like Jana) and simply live the gospel, waiting and hoping for a better day. (Despite his doomsaying, I would also put Kyle in this category).
2) vote with their tithing dollars and feet (like orangganjil and RJH on BCC)
The problem is that the alt-right is unchecked and uncheckable in our church. Pres. Uchtdorf often feels like the Dutch boy in the Dike to me, the one guy holding back the sea wall. God bless him.
I don’t see any relief here. The church teaches that acting on homosexual desire is wrong, and the liberals say there’s no way for gay people to be happy without so doing, so the two are ultimately irreconcilable. The liberals hate the conservatives for rejecting/marginalizing a group of people who are just trying to be happy, and the conservatives, who see themselves as striving to stand up for what’s right, are sick of being told they’re hateful because they don’t accept a lifestyle the liberals consider essential to happiness. The liberals abhor the shame the church heaps upon gay relationships, and the conservatives abhor how the liberals are constantly shaming them with their publicity stunts.
I don’t see how the two groups can be reconciled. The best that can be hoped for is mutual tolerance in independent spheres. But, I think both sides pretty much think the only solution is to win society to completely shaming the other into oblivion. Church leadership isn’t going to allow the normalization of gay relationships within the church and will project their influence outside it, and liberals will attempt to infiltrate the church and should that fail, to destroy it.
Same-sex sex is either always wrong or not-always wrong. And from the conservative viewpoint, notwithstanding whatever arguments are made, it’s up to God to decide and His decision comes through scripture and prophets. From the liberal perspective, whatever is good comes from God and it’s not good to arbitrarily deny people their happiness (which gays can’t have without same-sex relationships), so that can’t be from God. For either group, I think it’s pretty dangerous to decide the other guy is hateful.
ydeve,
I actually would use the comparison on racial issues as a great example to illustrate.
I totally agree with you that:
But what I would say is that often, from a liberal/progressive perspective, any policy that doesn’t agree with liberal/progressive policies is seen as being non-affirming by default.
Like, suppose that someone believes that affirmative action is inappropriate and is “reverse racist,” but believes that if policies are color blind, then everyone should be on an even playing field based on their merit or achievement. I think I and many other liberal/progressives could find issue with that, but reducing the entire argument to racism doesn’t move the conversation forward.
But obviously, conservatives wouldn’t see it like this. They would see that providing everyone the same treatment would be encouraging heterosexuality for everyone. (Or, to compare to the racial examples you might here today that minorities should just learn proper English, avoid having children out of wedlock, and avoid even the appearance of breaking the law in front of police officers). We protest that that is unfair because not everyone is the same, and that we want an acceptance of differences, but the conservative argument is that these differences matter — that you simply can’t have a “marriage” between two men or two women without changing what marriage *is*.
I don’t expect liberal progressive folks to change their minds on this any time soon, but there can at least be a recognition that the conservative position is often different than just “We don’t like you and want you to suffer” — even if that may be the result.
“Pres. Uchtdorf often feels like the Dutch boy in the Dike to me, the one guy holding back the sea wall.”
Do people believe that some of the 1st Pres or Q12 support homosexual sex/relationships?
I suppose word experts can explain the meaning of spinster and bachelor. A word I favor is heterosexism.
Mormonism, it seems to me, has deified “Father Knows Best”. I’d much rather it be “Star Trek”, but that show came too late for the geriatric leadership.
But perhaps their great grand kids are watching “Star Wars Rebels” on Disney. So quoting Kanan Jarrus, “But know: this family, will stand by you no matter what you choose”
Angela,
Although I would agree with you that loss of privilege does not equal oppression, the reality is that this is how so many people perceive it and are moving forward politically (and the alt-right has even coopted that sort of language to try to justify their project. E.g., safe space for whites, etc.,)
But I would still say — and perhaps this was understated in the original post — I still think that there is something to be said that a lot the things we now call privilege are built into theology. In other words, straight people are privileged in Mormonism not just because of unchecked bigotry, but because heteronormativity is baked in theologically.
If you look at Catholic sexual ethics, it’s so clear — and they are much more consistent theologically (if not practically, since everyone kinda does whatever they want) on this point — sex is about openness to life, so anything that violates that is not OK. I think the one thing that can be said for Mormonism and Protestantism is that we have diverged from the consistency of the Catholic perspective in such a way that there are openings for acceptance on LGBT issues. For example, even if Mormonism enshrines heterosexuality into divinity in a way that traditional Christianity cannot…well, Mormonism accepts that not all sex needs to be open to life (so decisions about using contraception, etc., are up to the couple.) But if this is so, then that weakens the theological case against same sex relationships slightly. But in traditional Christian sexual ethics, the opposition to same sex relationships is really integral to the gospel, not some ragtag tag-along.
Martin: “Do people believe that some of the 1st Pres or Q12 support homosexual sex/relationships?” No, I referred to the fact that so many seem to be pleased to kick all progressives and liberals out of the church, and Pres. Uchtdorf is the one consistent exception to this.
Andrew: “a lot the things we now call privilege are built into theology. In other words, straight people are privileged in Mormonism not just because of unchecked bigotry, but because heteronormativity is baked in theologically.” Yes, I agree. My point is that God didn’t bake it into the world. Gay people keep being born, and even into Mormon families. So there’s a disconnect between our theology and reality. Many members, like RJH, can ignore that disconnect if it doesn’t affect us (we aren’t gay, our kids aren’t gay, and the people we know who are gay are sufficiently distant for us to imagine they could be heterosexual if they wanted).
As to your nod to Catholicism’s consistency: “sex is about openness to life, so anything that violates that is not OK” I have two thoughts. 1) Homosexuality and celibacy don’t result in abortions, and 2) Catholic teachings don’t always make it to the end of the row. Most Catholics routinely ignore what doesn’t work for them, which is perhaps a healthy practice we need to adopt.
orangganjil (and any others),
Your mentioning of polygamy reminds me of something that occurred on the parallel discussion of this article in the Mormon Hub group on Facebook –quite simply, that there’s reason to believe such a large theological change can happen because it did happen with polygamy.
My response there was that I didn’t see the two as being of the same magnitude, but I was gentle called out to read more on polygamy , so I have homework. 😉
I guess I’m wondering what others think on this: does the fact that the church changed on polygamy offer hope that there can be changes here as well?
With respect to sustaining the leaders or not, I will say that the one thing that gives me pause is this: the worst thing the church can really do to someone is excommunicate them, right? But I know out, proud, married, excommunicated gay folks who nevertheless still attending regularly because they have a testimony and powerful spiritual experiences. I don’t think they would see their attendance as being a political action, but in some ways, their continued attendance gives them a sort of “sweat equity” in this entire discussion.
>I don’t expect liberal progressive folks to change their minds on this any time soon, but there can at least be a recognition that the conservative position is often different than just “We don’t like you and want you to suffer” — even if that may be the result.
An abuser doesn’t abuse their victim because they hate them and want them to suffer. They genuinely think they are doing the right thing, and even deny that the resulting harm happens. Just because motives aren’t bad doesn’t make the resulting action not evil. In conversing with people, it is important to understand their point of view, yes. But that doesn’t make their harmful actions or opinions any less despicable. And it does not make room for compromise *where compromise is unacceptable*.
Thank you for a thoughtful essay Andrew S. I am surprised that the points in Bryce Cook’s fine essay have not been more widely discussed https://bycommonconsent.com/2017/03/19/lgbt-questions-an-essay/#more-92545 (Angela C breaks it down). I think he does a good job showing that many of our current doctrine around homosexuality is cultural and flexible. Also, we have a lot of room to accept gay members and find space for them in our congregations. He presents some good options.
Andrew,
I think you are correct on the polygamy subject. Indeed, the move away from polygamy was a pretty large change, but it wasn’t **that** large when you consider that the underlying view of eternity still remained intact. Heterosexual unions were still the norm, but rather than have many women married to one man here, we’d only allow one, though – wink, wink – we still think polygamy will be practiced in eternity. Not much really changed. With homosexual unions, a lot changes.
Some time ago I did a long slog of study on polygamy, with a reading list consisting of the usual suspects. However, what helped me see things best was to dive into the source material that Brian Hales has very kindly provided at http://mormonpolygamydocuments.org/ Now, I disagree with many of Brian Hales’ conclusions, but he, Laura, and Don Bradley did a lot of great work digging up a ton of fantastic documents – and those documents are available on that site for free.
What I concluded, after all of that study, was that LDS theology on families, sealing power, etc. is very closely tied to polygamy and the Second Anointing. They are absolutely intertwined, and polygamy was tied to the idea of viviparous spirit birth. Joseph didn’t marry (or get sealed) to any men, and very early on the concept was clearly tied to the “continuation of the seeds”, which was clearly tied to the ability to have progeny in the hereafter. The Adam-God theory was also closely tied to these things and one could make a very good argument that Joseph was the one who began to broach the idea that later became Adam-God.
Anyway, that’s a long-winded way of saying that jettisoning polygamy (in this life only) was much easier than readjusting the very concepts upon which the deepest LDS theology is built. Homosexuality would requite such a readjustment. It certainly can be done, and I would argue should be, but it isn’t trivial. It would require a reworking of what it means to be sealed and what the eternities would be like.
Angela,
I’m in agreement with you when you state that gay children will continue to be born to parents, whether the Church likes it or not, and that may have an effect at some point. However, I’m skeptical that the rate of gay children will be enough to turn the tide. From my view, the Church seems willing to let the carnage continue in order to hold to what its leaders (and adherents) believe are eternal truths
I was so completely disheartened in the months following the November policy. I saw many good people double-down on their beliefs regarding LGBT people, and they were strengthened in that view by the declaration of, what they believe, are prophets. These are good, kind people who, I believe, would have eventually been more open to other arguments, however that line of thought became a lot more anathema to them following the November policy announcement.
Oh, how I wish I could have hung around and felt like I could be some sort of subversive agent for change. My experience at the local level demonstrated to me otherwise. Couple that with the fact that I don’t want my children involved in the Church’s culture wars, and my wife and I decided to step away. We still hold the door open and mingle with our ward friends, but they don’t want to change. They view subversive liberals as a threat to the kingdom and it doesn’t help them at all for me to push back. I decided that I don’t want to make enemies of them. I hope they and the leaders come around and will open their hearts to the possibility that they don’t have all of this figured out. From my vantage point, liberal subversiveness only hardened them against LGBT concerns. It created an environment that seemed to work against the principles of persuasion, long-suffering, meekness, etc. I still do service when opportunities arise, home teach, and attend activities. I hope that, by giving them space to change and showing my love for them, they will be less prone to harden their hearts against change. I just can’t support their theology by attending on Sunday.
Perhaps I’m wrong and they are right. It doesn’t feel so, but it could be possible. Perhaps my approach isn’t the correct one, but there didn’t seem to be any “right” way to do this. We all have to do our best with our limited understanding.
Martin,
I suspect that stark way of putting it (in your “I don’t see any relief” comment) is probably pretty accurate.
Angela,
Seeing things existing in the world unfortunately doesn’t tell everyone what is ideal or right. We could get some really really gross analogies here, but I bet everyone here has already heard them, so I won’t even throw them out. I’d just point out that any conservative could point to stuff that exists in the world and that keeps on coming into the world, but which they and we would probably agree are not desirable things or things we want to support.
As to your nod to Catholicism’s consistency: “sex is about openness to life, so anything that violates that is not OK” I have two thoughts. 1) Homosexuality and celibacy don’t result in abortions, and 2) Catholic teachings don’t always make it to the end of the row. Most Catholics routinely ignore what doesn’t work for them, which is perhaps a healthy practice we need to adopt.,
I think point 2 is a good point, but I wonder if that reflect Catholicism’s laxity in enforcing its own rules. In other words, Catholics feel more able to be heterodox without punishment, but would the LDS church ever get to that point.
As far as point 1, i think the finer point is that the telos is on sex. So, celibacy is A-OK because not having sex doesn’t break the telos for sex. (in other words, it’s not that human purpose is to have sex, of which celibacy would be a violation…it’s that, if humans are going to have sex [which is not strictly an end goal of being human], that sex should be open to life. Many will raise that infertile couples can still get married, but from the Catholic POV, infertilility is only accidental, whereas homosexual relationships, artificial contraception, non-procreative sex, and abortion are categorically closed to life. [and obviously, one can view those distinctions skeptically, as I would imagine most Mormons and protestants do.])
ydeve,
I agree with this.
However, to the extent that compromise is unacceptable on either side, then we should expect a protracted, painful back and forth of the sides lashing back at each other. Which I guess we are basically seeing.
felixfabulous,
I do recall seeing this article a while back. I think that this does capture the liberal/progressive thinking fairly well, but I think that there are some arguments that conservatives would not follow on.
I do think that most conservatives would still resist that idea as is assumed by the article that marriage is primarily about people “forming committed, love-based relationships with a person they are naturally attracted to”. However, I already acknowledged in another comment that I think the weakness for conservative protestants and Mormons is that they have already conceded that procreative potential isn’t a must for sexuality by accepting contraception, etc., so perhaps that will allow more people to change their thinking.
I agree that our church is destined to be labeled a ‘hate group’. I am surprised the accusation hasn’t already been raised more viciously. The instant dissemination of news stories without the media really took THIS story and did much damage without fact checking. Mic cut-off is not unprecedented in testimony meeting. The meetings are still under the jurisdiction of the presiding officer. The church is a private organization and speech control over-the-pulpit is clearly enforceable. I witnessed the mic being cut off when someone made a political rant. I think everyone in the congregation silently applauded when that happened. Someone else in my congregation recently used poor judgment to use their testimony to make a public restating of a church policy that they felt other members were not following. I would hope no one would encourage their children to make written speeches for the purpose of bearing witness of Jesus Christ. In typical fashion, Mormon Stories has already scooped up this controversy and dedicated a podcast to it. My home experience stands at odds. I don’t think my 10 year-old daughter knows what a lesbian is, so for another to not only identify as a lesbian and have such a well-versed perspective on the plight of lesbians in the church is a contrary experience. We dont’ talk about attractions to boys or girls in much detail, we talk about homework, hobbies, health, and faith. When I was a pre-school boy, I liked to wear my sisters dresses and play with their dolls. I’m VERY glad that my parents weren’t asking me if I wanted to go trans or I might not have a much appreciated body part today.
I think we will keep seeing the general approach taken by LDS leadership–show love and welcome to individuals, but privately evaluate and apply the long-held worthiness standards. And, the entire church can do better at both. I think we won’t see too many more high ranking official comments such as ‘we will rise in the resurrection with normal attractions’, or ‘we have no gay people in the LDS church’. We will continue to see low key endorsement of mixed orientation marriages like those shown in North Star. They won’t be outwardly encouraged, but those who have succeeded in making those marriages work (John Dehlin estimates 30%) will be encouraged to stay the course. Comments like Elder Nelson’s regarding the policy on children of same sex spouses being ‘revelation’ will be withheld.
Speaking of Mormon Stories, an interview with Bruce Bastian on that site once offered his opinion that if 50% of the Q12 died off, the consensus of opinions regarding homosexuality in the Q12 would change, an opinion he based on his personal interaction with various individuals. With the recent 3 vacancies being filled, I am not so sure of this shift in balance, but I do wonder if the lack of Q12 over-commenting right now could benefit some future shift if Bruce’s opinion is correct.
Here’s another contrary thought I have sometimes had since the Nov. 15 policy. What would have happened if instead of that policy, we would have heard from leaders that we welcomed gay married couples who live their marriage vows in perfect fidelity to their partner, and that we don’t understand all the eternal implications yet, we know that we want them to be in our congregations? I predict that the majority of the conservative church members would have rallied behind it and said it was always what we taught – to be inclusive, and god will work it all out in the end – and they could congratulate themselves on having such inspired leaders. Progressive members would have breathed a huge sigh of relief and been pleased. There would have still been open questions theologically, but time to sort things out.
Given how I think that thought experiment would go, what I see is that conservatives will follow orders from authority. Fealty to authority is one type of value, but for conservatives, it trumps others.
Maybe the church should have replaced LDS adoption with LDS surrogacy. Help those temple-worthy gay members procreate and raise their children in the church. As they have the blessings of rearing children, they will be busy going to their children’s parent-teacher conferences, soccer games, dance lessons, karate classes, cub scouts, achievement days, etc, etc, etc. That would be a marvelous way to serve, decrease feelings of loneliness, and increase the number of children of record too.
Angela, I wish I could upvote that more than once. Maybe I’ll have to fire up a bunch of machines in AWS so I can do that very thing. 🙂
Great essay and great points/questions, Andrew. I like Angela C’s thoughts on this and agree with her about the more conservative members “taking a stand for traditional values” and thinking they hold the moral high ground. The truth is, such thinking is so entrenched (and reinforced over and over and over again at church) that it’s perfectly understandable that these folks believe absolutely in the rightness of what they’re doing/thinking in regards to homosexuality in general and gay marriage in particular. And that, of course, is what creates such a divide between the conservative and progressive members. Each is convinced of the moral rightness of their respective views and their respective views literally diametrically oppose each other. Add to that the drumbeat of the church’s rhetoric concerning the growing wickedness of the world, and you’ve got a recipe for officially sanctioned bigotry that will be extremely difficult to overcome. Because of what I just mentioned, the truth is that loving and accepting other people for who they are is seen as some sort of “approval” of immoral activity/lines of thought and so what ought to be a fairly straightforward practice of compassion and love is instead seen as being drawn into “the world” and its false teachings. I am literally unable to see a way out of this.
And I don’t wish to thread jack here, but it seems to me that this incident also raises deep and troubling questions about just what a testimony meeting is for. If it’s to witness the truth, then Savannah’s mic simply should not have been shut off. I thought we were supposed to tell the truth, to witness to the congregation that’s listening what we believe about God, Christ, our relationship with them, etc. I get that we’re supposed to “edify” the listeners, but should we do that at the expense of truth? How can the folk doctrines and demonstrably false handcart narratives that people share in testimony meeting uplift and edify us when they’re not true? How can one person sharing with us their truth NOT uplift and edify us? I hope this incident starts a larger conversation not only about homosexuality but also about the true purpose of a testimony meeting.
“I guess I’m wondering what others think on this: does the fact that the church changed on polygamy offer hope that there can be changes here as well?”
The church did not remove the doctrine of polygamy, just the mortal practice. Temple worship today still places everything in a God then man then woman hierarchy. Women still covenant to obey their husbands with no reciprocal promise. Sealing policy today still allows a living man to be sealed to multiple women (either by divorce or death) but denies a living woman the same option. D&C 132, polygamy verses inclusive, is still official LDS canonized scripture. Two current apostles are sealed to more than one wife.
Sadly, I think if our failure to excise the doctrine of polygamy tells us anything, it’s that this institution doesn’t know how to make the changes that would be needed to accept homosexual marriages as eternal families.
I ran across this very well done video of Elder Ronald Poelman’s (excellent) original October 1984 GC talk shown side-by-side with the censored, corrected and re-videoed talk that was later substituted without comment into the archive as if it were the actual talk he gave in GC!
I think the church imposed changes to content sheds light on the church’s attitude regarding tolerance for individuality and their openness to outside suggestions.
I’ve participated in the bloggernacle for 10 years next month. During this time, I haven’t hid my disappointed that many “active” church members who make up the ‘nacle are put off by scripture and quoting from the apostles and prophets. W&T for many years was some what of an exception, but it appears things may be changing.
It appears Angela C is behind my post going to moderation. To the best of my knowledge, she also deleted at least one of my comments recently in a post she wrote. If I am incorrect, I hope Angela will correct me. I can only guess, until an insider at W&T clearly states what is going on.
I think Andrew is one of the fairest and most considerate writers at W&T. He appears to see both sides of an issue as illustrated in this post. I don’t agree with him on many things, but his fairness and level headed thinking inspires me.
It may be that there is more to the 12 year old girl that means the eye. I don’t know, but Scott Gordon at Fairmormon claims it may have been a set up so that some dedicated anti-mormons could further their agenda. Gordon says the individual who filmed the 12 year old’s testimony has been attempting to spread it far and wide to damage the church. Gordon says this unnamed individual is the same who “sneaks into temples and records people”.
See the link below it worth the read.
https://www.fairmormon.org/blog/2017/06/18/testimonies-twelve-year-olds
Years ago a couple of anti-Mormon characters put together a video called “The Godmakers.” The video received wide distribution and among other things contained a cartoonish section where they described the Mormon afterlife as consisting of “endless eternal sex.” LDS members were offended to have been characterized in that way and, I suppose, thought of the mechanics of eternal progeny being a more “spiritual” affair.
But it is this inherent heterocentric worldview that leads to comments like those of orangganjil that speak of a transition away from polygammy as a minor thing, involving merely a difference in number, whereas incorporating homosexuality would be a HUGE change. It would involve “readjusting the very concepts upon which the deepest LDS theology is built.” I would argue that it only takes a change in perspective, a different point of view. The current worldview sees a family and progeny as requiring a father and a mother, a sperm and an egg. But as we look around there a families of all types; blended families, step families, children raised by single parents and grand parents, families with both 2 mothers and 2 fathers and families with gay parents.There are families created through both natural conception, assisted conception and adoption.
As long as Mormonism can only conceive of families as requiring a sperm and an egg, the logical result of that heterocentric worldview demands a characterization of the Mormon afterlife as consisting of “endless celestial sex.”
Steve Barton, I agree with you that it **shouldn’t** be a problem to make the needed change in perspective, however LDS theology has nearly two centuries of the concept of eternal marriage, between a man and a woman, as being the only method of exaltation. We have many speculations branching off of that – e.g., Heavenly Mother, viviparous birth of spirits, eternal gender, gayness is a malady with which one is afflicted in mortality, our temple covenants for women, etc.
If LDS theology does not demand a heterosexual union for eternity, then why the focus on eternal gender, 1950’s style families for eternity, etc.? If it does demand a heterosexual union for eternity, why? The only reason I can conceive is that LDS theology really does embrace the idea of viviparous spirit birth but doesn’t admit to it. Perhaps I lack imagination for conceiving another reason, but I can’t think of any other reason for **requiring** a husband and wife, man and woman, sealing for exaltation. Exalted women are eternally birthing spirits. Yay! Orson Hyde’s diagram of God’s kingdom illustrates this well, I think.
Please don’t misunderstand me and assume I am arguing for this perspective. I’m not. I’m only stating what I see as the reasoning for the theology.
Jared according to the Mormon Stories interview (about 31 mins in) it was recorded by a youth friend of Savannah’s.
Jared,
I appreciate your voice, though we often disagree on many issues. Our website has had an over-active spam filter for a few months. Not only have some of your comments gone to the spam queue, mine have too. (And I would argue I get more spam comments than anyone, but I also have the ability to fish them out.) I can’t speak for Angela, but I would be shocked if she deleted your comments. We didn’t even delete the first comment, despite that person’s constant offensiveness.
Two days ago I was embarrassed to discover 3 comments in the spam queue on the Brian Hales post, and one of them was Brian Hales, who had specifically been invited to comment here! None of the three comments were put there but anyone here, but rather an over-active spam filter. I fished them out immediately when I found them, and discovered 2 more (5 in total.) As I said before, even my comments have gone to the spam queue, and I know that more than one of yours has hit the spam filter that I have had to manually release. My comments have gone there multiple times, as have yours. Once again, I assure you that this is a software glitch, not the result of anything nefarious upon the admins. If we had a problem where we felt your comment had crossed lines of civility, we would notify you. We wouldn’t simply delete without warning. Of course those who put bogus email addresses can’t be contacted, so if a person can’t be contacted and has a history of inflammatory comments, those comments are deleted in rare cases. I assure you that while we may disagree with your point of view, we are not trying to censor you. We try hard not to be an echo chamber.
Once again, I invite you to submit a guest post as proof that we welcome your opinions here. I’ve asked you before and you’ve always declined, as I expect you will do again. (Come on Jared, prove me wrong!) I don’t know how to fix the software glitch. If you notice one of your comments isn’t released, please send me an email at mormon heretic at gmail dot com and I will fish it out sooner. We’re often not notified when a comment hits spam, and so if nobody checks, it can sit there for a few days sometimes. I try to check frequently, but I don’t check it everyday. I just checked it again. There were 6 spam messages, but they were spam. I didn’t see anything from you, so I’m not sure why your comment may have disappeared. My apologies that our spam filter makes false positives sometimes.
Jared: “It appears Angela C is behind my post going to moderation. To the best of my knowledge, she also deleted at least one of my comments recently in a post she wrote. If I am incorrect, I hope Angela will correct me. I can only guess, until an insider at W&T clearly states what is going on.” I wasn’t because you weren’t being moderated as far as I can see, but your comment is certainly tempting me to do it. Given your history of thread-jacking and turning your comments into self-centered off-topic lamentations about your hobby horse topics, I would expect you to tread more lightly. I have been patient and kind to you for years, even encouraging you to guest post. But I have noticed that you don’t afford others the same courtesies you demand.
Commenting on a site is a privilege we grant to you when you play nice with others, not a right you demand. When it’s your site, you can make the rules. I’ve never made a commitment not to moderate someone when they are rude or incapable of productive conversation.
Andrew, and everyone else, great conversation. There have been some really insightful things said that give me a lot to think about. Thanks. I want to emphasize something Andrew wrote at the end about martyrdom:
I recently went to Rome and we had a Catholic priest show us a round a bit. Rome is known as a golden empire among many in the West (I disagree) because of its astounding imperial success. Part of that success was the requirement that everyone just accept the Romans are in charge already and then we’ll treat you fine. The early Christians refused to accept that, and refused to admit that other gods than theirs had any legitimacy. Romans found that really, really bigoted and offensive, let alone antisocial and perhaps dangerously anarchist. So they killed Christians in their Roman way (for sport, to show power, with overwhelming force). The Christians counted their bloody persecution evidence of their righteousness. [1]
In other words, the Christians considered themselves righteous for adhering to their beliefs under enormous pressure. The Romans considered themselves righteous for trying to promote social unity and the greater good. Both views are essentially correct according to their internal logic.
When we talk about these issues, we would do well to realize that the other side (no matter which side you’re on) sees themselves as completely justified and engaged in a holy war. And they’re not really wrong, if you accept their value system. (Which I don’t, or I’d be them.)
This whole conflict will not end well. Every move against the conservative position is going to be viewed as vindication of that view by conservatives; every push against change is going to be seen as bigotry by progressives. That means this fight is not going to be resolved by consensus, most likely, because there is no overlap in understanding of what is going on and we can’t talk to each other anymore.
[1] Ironically, Christians eventually took over the empire, denying many of the reasons why they were unpopular in the first place, but the Constantinian apostasy is a discussion for another day.
Hawk did a post on personality types and how they understand the Gospel differently. She had about 45% being conservative. I think in countries that are less conservative the proportion of conservatives to progressives changes. In the church it may not change but those conservatives are more isolated and feel more under attack.
As a member of more than 60 years, I don’t understand where any of Ronkk statements come from. Is he claiming that is Gospel? I have not heard this from the church.
I also don’t understand the idea that because for example the proclamation says “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God” – it is clear that gay marriage is not. If 2+2 +4 then 3 + 1 can not =4 ?
In Australia we have some extreme conservatives in the ruling party who are preventing the legalising of Gay Marriage, but 75% plus of the population support it. We recently had a situation where Margaret Court, who was ladies World champion for a number of years in the 70, who is now a minister with her own church, but also has a tennis stadium named after her; She recently wrote an open letter to our nation Airline QANTAS, which is run by a gay man, saying she would be avoiding them because of their pro gay marriage stance. She has been roundly condemned, and there is talk of re naming the stadium.
A member of our bishopric, said during opening exercises of priesthood that he felt under attack, presumably because his ideas aligned with Margaret court. I think that it may be acceptable to discriminate against gays in America but in most of the first world it will be very damaging if the church continues much longer with this view.
I certainly don’t feel any hatred towards conservatives. I believe it would be possible to discuss this with them but I think I would loose my TR . The problem is not the progressives in the church but how the church is viewed. The KKK is not socially acceptable, anti gay people will similarly be seen as extreme and just unacceptable.
Following on from Angelas thought (which is what I expected when Gay marriage was made legal in Utah) What would happen now if the leadership said that now. Would conservatives accept it because it came from the Prophet? I can’t see how the church can continue for too long without changing this policy, and also equality for women.
Good analysis Andrew.
I increasingly feel as though I am speaking an entirely different language to some of my very conservative brothers.
I will say I found whole OSF coverage of the Savannah incident disturbing because of her age, and ability to give consent or otherwise understand the implications. Add in that my understanding is that teenage sexuality can be quite fluid though not for everyone, and whilst many of those on the other side of their teens can look back and say yes I experienced those attractions etc at an early age, that isn’t the same thing as projecting forwards and saying because I feel this now, I will feel this at 20 say. There’s a lot of development takes place between 12 and 20.
MH-I appreciate your explanation and response! It means a lot to me. I have always thought of you has being more of a TB-Mormon than a Mormon Heretic. I thank you for the invitation to write a guest post. My business and current church calling are keeping me very busy, but I plan on putting something together for you to consider posting this summer.
I wish Angela C the best.
Brother Sky,
I don’t think this is a threadjack, but I do think this gets at what I was trying to get at in the original post. The very definition of “truth” is what is at stake between the two sides. For the conservatives, Savannah’s statements of being in a happy family with another woman are untrue.
Elizabeth,
I think this is a really good point, and it has been brought up in similar ways on other venues — there’s disagreement over whether we really even changed polygamy that much, or just kinda set the framework down where it’s now collecting dust from being outside of regular use.
The pushback I’ve heard is the argument that contrary to that being a sign that the church didn’t really change the underlying theology, that rather that just represents how the church changes theology. As it was framed in a FB discussion:
Howard,
I don’t think the church’s (low) tolerance for individuality should be a surprise to anyone, though.
On cynical days, I wonder if a critical reason that the church won’t allow gay marriage to be accepted is because our current marital arrangement is lopsided, with women getting the cheap seats, by divine directive. In a marriage where 2 individuals of the same gender have no specific gender roles to fulfill, they would work out the details all on their very own (who takes out the trash, who walks the dog…) I think the church problem with gay marriage has much less to do with gay sex than it does a with a desire to maintain a power dynamic that favors men.
Jared
I just wanted to amplify and reiterate MH’s message that no one is consciously putting anyone in moderation, so pinning it on Angela C seems really quite bizarre, petty, and fairly sexist. I would LOVE to understand why this is happening, as I have for several months not been able to determine what the issue is, but I have to say it’s not cool to simply assume someone has a vendetta against you when we have actually pointed out before that it’s a system glitch that we don’t know how to identify or fix.
I will say with respect to the comments from FAIR, that it’s unfortunate how this testimony has been opportunistically associated with folks like NewNameNoah, etc., I mean, it makes sense that NNN would want to get on this, but it seems clear to me that he’s coming to this after the fact, rather than someone who planned this out beforehand.
I think what’s important to note, however, is that regardless of what one feels about whether this is legitimate or not, the fact is the church’s reaction was what it was, and the rest of society’s reaction is what it is. There could be hundreds of wards with Savannahs getting her mics shut off, but this was the one that was recorded. Even if one’s position is the straight and simple position that Scott Gordon describes: “Fast and testimony is not for advocacy, and Savannah’s testimony was really advocacy, so it was appropriate for her mic to be shut off”, the optics of that are predictably bad for anyone who’s not LDS.
When the policy came out I remember thinking, This is all going to depend on enforcement. Who is the church going to get to do that? How many bishops will search out and discipline offenders?
There were comments above about Catholic teachings not getting to the end of the rows. But with our lay clergy, if the business end of a teaching on homosexuality doesn’t get to the end of our rows, it’s because our local leaders made choices. That’s what makes the Samantha video so interesting- the wrestle (or at least he one I could imagine) the leaders had right there in the open.
Andrew,
I just listened to a conference talk by Elder Oaks. When I finished, I read your comment addressed to me. I suggest everyone take a few minutes to listen to Elder Oaks talk. The title is: Loving Others and Living with Differences. The link is below.
In your comment, you criticized me for calling out Angela C as being the individual behind my comments going to moderation, saying “pinning it on Angela C seems really quite bizarre, petty, and fairly sexist.”
I would like to state my reason for” pinning” it on Angela C. In recent months, every time I comment it goes to moderation, while others have not. I don’t visit W&T often because of my busy schedule. So I am not as aware of the issues surrounding comments going to moderation as other who visit consistently.
I initially thought that the powers at W&T had collectively decided to put my comments in moderation. I wasn’t sure, so I continued to visit but didn’t comment as often. Later, I decided to comment on something Angela C had posted. I forget if my comment went to moderation or not. But when I saw that my comment had been removed I felt Angela C was sending me a message. This is the reason ( I’ll use a different word than pinned) I suggested Angela C might be behind cutting me off from participating at W&T. If that was her intent I wanted to know, if not, I wanted to know that as well. As Angela C stated, blog administrators have the right to set policy. I agree with her. I just wanted to know what was going on and decided to ask, I might add, politely, if she was intent on cutting me off from commenting at W&T after deleting my comment on her post.
I hope this explanation will create a clearer perspective and moderate your criticism of my intent.
I am trying to live up to what Elder Oaks talks about in his conference address. It isn’t easy, but I am committed to trying.
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/10/loving-others-and-living-with-differences?lang=eng
We have told you previously about this issue. Of all the blog administrators, we have duly noted you just happen to only accuse female bloggers (and never male bloggers).
Since you mentioned Spencer and I in your article…we haven’t been disciplined in our new ward in Washington DC in any way, shape, or form. We have met with the bishop several times to have discussions but that’s the extent of it. Speculation can lead down a misleading path.
Sharing my husband’s words here…
As one of the men the story is about let me clarify. I do not feel fragile enough to let every change, error, struggle, inconsistency, or falsehood in the church, be in LDS culture or general/local leadership, push me into an emotional or spiritual tailspin. Because I am lucid and active in my decisions regarding activity in the church I understand the potential negative and positive effects it could have on me. Additionally, in studying the church’s history, including the changing definition of what is and isn’t doctrine, I have found egregious errors, intentional cover ups, and altered historical accounts. While I find these things disturbing they do not negate the truths I have found in Mormonism. And I don’t speak of general truths but of specific doctrines that I have a firm belief of because I have seen the effect they have on my life. They have been the seeds of my relationship with God. I do not look at the positive without recognizing the negative. Nor do I emphasize the negative whilst diminishing the truths I’ve found. I do not believe the church is all good or all bad. It is a complex mixture of both, as are all organizations, as are all people. To look at life in ultimates or extremes is when we fall into naiveté and reactionism.
In case you’re still wondering why we are there each Sunday claiming our place in the church…
Andrew,
If you choose to characterize me as beginning ” petty, and fairly sexist” after my explanation, then so be it. I know who I am and that is what counts.
Jared, If you’re not visiting as often, fine, but please quit the threadjack that *“active” church members who make up the ‘nacle are put off by scripture and quoting from the apostles and prophets. W&T for many years was some what of an exception, but it appears things may be changing.* Just 2 days ago we missed your voice on D&C 132 and Genesis. The Brian Hales post was focused on D&C 132 and Genesis, and you were nowhere to be found . You’ve been invited to write a post quoting apostles and prophets if you still think W&T doesn’t have enough. This is a tired complaint and you’re not doing anything when we do talk about scriptures you’re strangely absent and not noticing when it is right there.
Nick,
Thanks so much for commenting! It’s always good to get first person commentary, especially to add new information to the story. Even without discipline, does your status remain as no sacrament, no callings, etc.,?
For whatever its worth, I can totally understand that if and when someone has a testimony based on profound experiences with the Gospel, then that can anchor them in church attendance despite whatever their position with the institution is. But it just seems to me that a lot of folks are going to take away that one of the truths of Mormonism is the truth of heteronormativity; after all, this is a truth claim that is consistently taken by institutional leaders. Without saying the church is all good or all bad, we can point out that on *this* particular issue, there is a profound disagreement over whether the leaders are accurate and responsive *for this particular issue*.
Jared: I think we have a different definition of “politely.” Coming to my site and lobbing public accusations at me is not polite. You have my email address. Instead, we’ve highjacked Andrew’s post and made this discussion all about you again.
I come home from church almost every single week needing to correct some false doctrine that was preached from the pulpit for my kids. EVERY WEEK. Never once in 6 years of hearing false doctrine preached in my salt lake county ward has the microphone been turned off or someone asked to sit or even a bishopric member stand to correct something. Now, granted, usually the false doctrine taught is regarding limits on deity or the atonement, things that simply don’t matter as much as a child’s sexual orientation.
52 comments and counting. One commentator suggests that the video may have been staged and no one had the courage to say “Gee, if true, that puts some doubt in the sincerity”. Here’s my take on it.
This was not a testimony. It was a speech. It took her less than 30 seconds to get on topic. I’ve heard lots of Sacrament talks that weren’t this well planned in advance.
“Hi, my name is Savannah”. If this is her home Ward, why is she introducing herself.?
And who was secretly (and unethically) recording during a Worship Service, and for what purpose? FHE?
Having spent whole years of my life on either side of this issue, I feel like sharing a Prop 8 anecdote:
I had already chosen to go inactive from Mormonism when the Prop 8 protests escalated outside the Los Angeles Temple. Watching the news coverage generated one of the most powerful internal conflicts I’ve ever experienced. Politically, my sympathies were with the protesters and gay marriage advocates in general. I felt the LDS Church was wrong, and that public demonstrations were merited. But…
When I saw footage of LDS men pulling down protest signs that had been crudely taped/tied to the temple ground’s fence, I felt a sudden, almost visceral, desire to go to the temple and put my body between the protesters and the gate. I was firmly inactive by this point. Still, just the lingering emotional attachment I felt as an RM sparked a sense of duty in me to physically guard the temple against vandalism (even from individuals within a group I wanted to see win in secular court). To this day, I keep that memory as a reminder of how deep the emotions and convictions run on both sides of this issue.
For me, it’s hard to imagine any sweeping change in the near-future that doesn’t involve splintering or even schism. However, the phrase, “something’s gotta give” comes to mind. Thank you for this candid and thoughtful post, Andrew.
Markag: The CNN article states that one of her friends filmed it because she was coming out. They didn’t expect it to be picked up and published. That took several weeks of grass roots interest. Anyway, her parents protectively cautioned her but she felt it was important so that others in the congregation would know it was ok to be gay.
I’m also not crazy about the video creating so much scrutiny of the SP counselor who shut her down. I’m sure he felt he was in a bind. He didn’t ask for this notoriety. I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. I feel bad for everyone involved.
As I read this post there is much that comes to mind, most especially in the content that cites my and my husbands experiences. The question is posed “Why expect anything different?” I can only speak from my own experience and because my life and decisions are being analyzed to some degree I will endeavor to clarify the motivation behind the integration of my testimony in much of the LDS doctrine and my truth as a gay man. I have expected “something different” because I have experienced “something different”. I have had bishops, LDS therapists, friends from my mission, and peers within the LDS community all embrace and support me and the LGBTQ community. I have seen this contingent within the LDS church growing, speaking out more, and becoming less content with where the church is at on this issue and several others. I have seen change for the better in the church with regards to the LGBTQ population. While the official doctrine remains unchanged, excommunication continues to be the standard for same sex couples, and the leadership speaks out of both sides of their mouths with regards to the LGBTQ, I have seen and continue to see this change. Is the church membership confined while embracing a strict adherence to heteronormativity? Yes it is. The same way the church membership has been confined in the past with all sorts of traditions, old beliefs, and practices wearing the title of doctrine but lacking the substance that truth bears to stand the test of time. Fact is the church is much more flawed than most want to admit. Where does this leave me personally? I personally have had experiences that have rooted my soul into this doctrine. I believe so strongly in personal revelation and in developing a personal relationship with Divinity that it has become the bedrock of my life. I want this church to get better. I want to continue to learn and grow. Growth and progress in all it’s forms requires discomfort, patience, and challenging the norm. This applies to activities as simple as exercise and as complex as learning to become like God. Regardless of the level of comfort I may or may not feel in church, regardless of the patience it will require, and regardless of how others may mock or condemn me, regardless of the imminent threat of excommunication, I will engage and promote change, love, and truth. This to me the very essence of the gospel of Christ.
The notion that Savannah did not ramble off topic enough to be sincere is one of the oddest arguments I’ve seen from FAIR, and that is really saying something.
Spencer as a parent of a “rainbow” child, thank you so much for your faithfulness. I believe and have experienced that God is working in the church with many people and in spite of the difficult policy circumstances we are in He is there and He has a plan.
Markag
I am not in Savannah’s ward (or stake as far as I know), but it is customary (leadership asks us to do so)in our ward to always state our names when sharing our testimonies for the benefit of visitors and new ward members.
I think Savannah should’ve been allowed to finish. She is twelve. Now if she were in my ward someone else would’ve probably gotten up and asserted the Proclamation of the Family.
“Open mic” Sunday can result in some interesting meetings. In one ward we attended years ago, a guy regularly got up to warn us of the “new world order.” One time he told us he was storing gas underground on his property.
My wife and I discussed the video/posting last. She asked “what is this 12-yr-old girl doing that is making her come to this decision; and what kind of counseling from whomever has she been receiving ?
We both agreed that if the girl had testified that she had struggles/issues and was asking for prayers/support, there probably would’ve been no contention. Everyone present could’ve received some benefit; which is what a we hope testimonies will do.
I have a good friend who along with his wife is a Unitarian Universalist. I am straight. But if I were gay, I would become a UU. I respect that gay Mormons want to remain in the LDS Church due to family heritage, friends, belief in Joseph Smith, Book of Mormon, etc. But it is tragic to see so many gays suffering so much , even to the point of suicide. In parallel, I hope and pray that LDS church members and leaders soften their hearts toward all those who are diverse. And there is much we can learn from our UU friends…
” They didn’t expect it to be picked up and published. ”
So the video just magically jumped from the phone to the internet? Was this the immaculate dissemination?
CNN wrote an article on this June 20, 2017. They interviewed her parents and got background. I would urge everybody here to read it. Savannah came out to her parents a year ago. Her mother, Heather reports she cut her affiliation (prior to Savannah’s “coming out”) with the church when the new church LGBT policy was revealed.
An excerpt from the article:
“Friends of her’s began quietly recording videos as a “keepsake,” which they later gave to the family. The family then provided that unedited, raw video to CNN.
Edited versions of the video have since been published on social media; Savannah first told her story on an LGBT Mormon podcast, “I Like to Look for Rainbows.”
To Savannah,
I too believe God loves you and I believe he wants you to know that. At the end of the day this is between you and God. I don’t believe any of us have a right to judge you. My hope is that one day our chapels will be full of wonderful people/families like you who are looking out for others and trying to expand our hearts and souls. May you find hope, peace, happiness and love on your journey through this life.
Excellent post, Andrew. I have nothing to add. I just want to express that I appreciate how carefully you’ve thought this through. I think you make a very good, if depressing, point.
“But when we dismiss conservative sexual ethics as mere individual homophobia, we miss that these theologies and ethics have a scaffolding in centuries and millennia of Christian tradition and theology — the Christian tradition’s grand definitions for marriage…”
Polygamy.
The church’s movement into practicing an illegal form of marriage, the years of hardcore defending polygamy, and then the grand accomplishment of scrubbing it so throughly from the culture that most members today find the practice revolting should tip anyone off that Mormons couldn’t care less about the centuries and millennia of Christian traditions about marriage.
This gives every LDS LGBT reasonable hope that change concerning marriage is not only possible, not only probable…but inevitable.
In all the discussions on this topic (here, on facebook, on reddit), there is a lot of controversy over whether polygamy represents a big theological change, or really just what happens when theology doesn’t change. (Underneath everything, the theology surrounding polygamy is still there w/ polygamy still coming through in modern cases [e.g., remarriage after spouse death].)
Polygamy was required for exaltation. A man needed multiple wives. Now he doesn’t. I consider changing rules for exaltation a big doctrinal shift.
Andrew, in re. last eve’s Twitter thread, stuff like this is why we still need you in the dialogue – a fact which, upon sober reflection, the gentleman who posted the original comment was big enough to re-think. Anyway . . .
I can see this issue being dealt with any number of ways. IMNSHO, the “Angela Solution” (see her comment above), which I’ve been touting for years now, would be the way to go. It’s been clear for a long time that the Church was going to lose the gay marriage issue; in fact, it was clear before the Church really realized there was an issue. It deals nicely, if temporarily, with the whole LDS marriage paradox – we can’t decide what marriage actually means. Is it “one man, one woman, legally and lawfully married”? Then what about eternal polygamy? Is “legally and lawfully” only relevant if the two people are not the same sex? What about people who are temple-sealed but no longer “legally and lawfully married”? Are they married? Is a sealing a marriage? If they’re two separate things, – well, it seems like we define marriage however we want to depending on what we want to accomplish. The Church uses marriage and sealing like the government uses tax policy; to create incentives to spur desired behavior.
Although I understand that the sealing of gay couples in the temple is probably the goal for many, the acceptance by the Church of legal marriages and faithful adherence thereto for membership would be a huge step. I can see that step being taken, and I think the priesthood decision of 1978 might be a more applicable analogy than the Manifesto.
Finally, Andrew comments, For whatever its worth, I can totally understand that if and when someone has a testimony based on profound experiences with the Gospel, then that can anchor them in church attendance despite whatever their position with the institution is.
This is what keeps me here. Bishop Edwin Woolley once had a vigorous shouting match with Brigham Young on a disagreement of policy, after which Brigham said, “I suppose you’ll just go and apostasize now.” Woolley supposedly replied, “If it were Brigham Young’s church, I would; but it is the Lord’s church, and neither Brigham nor any other man can drive me out of it.”
Everyone is entitled to their beliefs, but when Andrew states: “Two years ago, Kyle M wrote a post…predicting (if not prophesying) that if Mormonism cemented anti-gay views as doctrine, it would eventually be labeled as a hate group and its brand forever tarnished to the rest of the world.”
What are “anti-gay views”? Should we seal men to men and women to women in our temples? Or should we simply accept our gay brothers and sisters and leave it at that? How far should we go?
Believe it or not, the church is, according to its tenets, governed by God, who declared: “And verily I say unto you…all covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise…through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power…and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred…. Behold, mine house is a house of order, saith the Lord God, and not a house of confusion.” (D&C 132:7-8)
We reserve the rights given to us by the Constitution to live our religion as we choose. If people don’t like it, they’re free to leave. They have no right to label us as anything, given that our moral disposition has never changed. In an atheistic society, moral values change. They can degenerate to levels not had in civilized societies since the days of Noah. Our leaders also have prophesied over the years that the time would come that the church would again face persecution, and that even the very elect would be in danger of falling.
It thus would not surprise me if the church would again face the wrath of its enemies, and stand in danger of losing its resources and even facing violence. At that point we believe the Lord will become personally involved in the conflagration. Then he will sweep the wicked from this nation: “And I will show unto thee, O house of Israel, that the Gentiles shall not have power over you; but I will remember my covenant unto you, O house of Israel, and ye shall come unto the knowledge of the fulness of my gospel.” (3 Nephi 16)
But if they will not turn unto Lord, and if they hearken not unto his voice, he will suffer that his people that they shall “go through among them and shall tread them down, and they shall be as salt that hath lost its savor, which is thenceforth good for nothing but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of my people, O house of Israel.”
Again, the church reserves its rights under the Constitution to maintain its own sense of morality, and to oppose the LGBT efforts to undermine the morality of the church and this nation. And if the church is persecuted and the law is used against it because of its moral foundation, then we’ll see on which side the Lord is on.
John Roberts,
i have a question that’s kinda unrelated…when the priesthood exclusion was in place, do you think that that was a racist policy, or was it inspired/revealed/instituted by God for that time frame?
John Roberts: “our moral disposition has never changed”. What does this mean?
Part of the reason I chose the LDS faith (grew up in a mixed/no faith family), was because progress is a tenant of our religion, not a hindrance. The 9th article of faith says we believe God has yet to reveal many great and important things. I love it when people call me a “progressive” like it’s a bad thing. I always thank them profusely for the compliment, because that means I’m still learning and growing. That may also mean I’m making some monumental mistakes. But it means I’m moving and thinking and doing. Have any of us ever thought or said “Gosh, we shouldn’t have given the priesthood to black men, that was a bad call..” NO. Because now we understand it wasn’t God’s will to exclude anyone in the first place (well except for women but that’s an argument for another day). It wasn’t “God’s Plan,” it was because we were racists. Until we progressed and it changed. Now think about it with our current issues. Are we ever going to say “I’m so glad we still don’t allow gay people to be married in our temples.” First…why would we say that? Because we’re bigots. And our doctrine will be that way until we’re not.