In the last few months, the Church [1] has taken some significant steps in demonstrating love and acceptance of our LGBTQ brothers and sisters.
- In March, it posted a video front and center on LDS.org of the Mackintosh family telling their story of coming to accept their gay son and even inviting him and his boyfriend to church with them.
- In August, the Church took an unprecedented step in endorsing the LoveLoud festival, whose purpose was to build bridges between Mormons and the LGBTQ community and help protect our LGBTQ youth.
- And in the last few weeks, Deseret Book, Deseret News and LDS Living have been promoting Tom Christofferson’s new book, which shows how a faithful LDS family doesn’t have to choose between remaining faithful in the Church and loving and accepting their gay son – and his partner.
Of course, for every step forward, it seems there is an inevitable step back.
- Just a few days after the Mackintosh video came out, the Ensign published Elder Lawrence’s “The War Goes On,” in which he labels same-sex marriage one of Satan’s counterfeits, “a twisted version of something good” used to deceive unsuspecting people.
- Within a few days of the Church endorsement of LoveLoud, and three days before the actual festival, Elder Russell M. Nelson made a post on his Facebook page about “true partners” to reiterate his position that marriage can only be a union of a man and a woman regardless of what human judges, legislators, popular opinion or bloggers say.
- And finally, in the midst of promoting Tom Christofferson’s story about an LDS family accepting their gay son and his partner, the Church filed an amicus brief in the cake-baker case, basically arguing that religious people who own businesses should not have to accept gay people as customers in certain circumstances.
Despite the “steps back,” I am still grateful for any and all positive steps the Church takes on LGBTQ issues. These positive messages show church members that it’s okay to love and accept our LGBTQ members and, I believe, help reduce homophobia and its associated negative outcomes within the Church.
Now to the central point of this post: Are these messages of love and inclusiveness enough? Will more education and outreach ultimately solve all the negative outcomes (e.g., depression, suicide, loss of faith) our LGBTQ members experience being raised in the Church? While more love and less homophobia will help mitigate those negative outcomes, the elephant in the room we can’t ignore is this fundamental doctrine: “being gay (or trans) is not a sin but acting on it is.”
By my observation, no matter how much the Church tells gay people they are loved, as long as it teaches them that there is no sin in being gay, but their deep inner desire for love and companionship is considered a defect, like a susceptibility to alcoholism, this message will continue to result in intense inner conflict, hopelessness, depression, suicide and loss of faith. As so many faithful LDS parents of LGBTQ kids have come to learn, this message is toxic to the mental, emotional and spiritual health of their kids. As long as gay members are taught from the time they are children that their core natures are evil if expressed – even in a legal, committed marriage – and that they must bury this fundamental aspect of their humanity, the majority will leave the Church to preserve their mental and emotional health. Can we really expect otherwise? Would those of us who are cis-gender/heterosexual act any differently if we were required to make this sacrifice?
For discussion:
- Why do the majority of LGBTQ people leave the church? Is it because they are spiritually weaker than their heterosexual peers or because there might be something wrong with our doctrine on homosexuality/gender?
- Is a change in our current doctrine on homosexuality the only way to prevent the negative outcomes associated with that doctrine?
- What might a doctrinal change look like? Is it as simple as applying the Law of Chastity equally to all members whether gay or straight (i.e., no sexual relations outside of legal, monogamous marriage)?
- What about temple sealings?
________________________________
[1] I really dislike using the term “Church” as the monolithic entity responsible for the actions discussed herein when in reality the “Church” consists of many different voices and stakeholders, including Public Affairs, various wholly-owned subsidiaries of the church corporate entity, and the disparate voices of the highest leaders who have responsibility for approving content and statements made by these entities and who express their own opinions in talks, public statements and church policies. However, for the sake of brevity, and with this disclaimer in mind, I will refer to the “Church” as the entity taking the actions discussed above.
Great post! I’ve been thinking about writing on this for a while.
It seems to get at how we define “love” and “accept” or even “tolerate”. It seems to me that the church’s actions are really an exploration of the idea that it can “love” LGBT folks without condoning our relationships. That is to say, the church wants to argue that its position isn’t intrinsically homophobic, but that there are things it can change and eliminate while not compromising on its core value.
I know for liberal/progressive folks, rejection of LGB relationships or T gender identification is intrinsically homophobic, and nothing can change that.
But I think there’s something to be said that we could envision a culture where even if the LDS church did not allow for same-sex weddings to be recognized, it could:
1) Strongly emphasize that LGBT youth/teens are not to be kicked out of the home, and that doing such may be a cause for disciplinary action
2) Strongly emphasize that LGBT youth/teens/adults and their partners should not be shunned when they are in relationships (even if the church may personally find such relationships as constituting apostasy), and that shunning may be cause for disciplinary action.
That is, couldn’t we imagine a scenario where even if the church doesn’t budge on theology or policy, the culture radically shifts?
The problem is that we don’t have that kind of culture now. Because of beliefs on theology and policy, people apparently do think it’s OK to kick out LGBT youth, and they apparently don’t get disciplinary action over that. People do think it’s OK to tell their LGBT children in relationships not to associate with them or their family, or that it’s OK not to engage with partners, etc., And of course, there are ample speculations about LGBT people that are downright unkind (I mean, we haven’t as a community decided whether same-sex relationships are not allowed in doctrine because that’s just something Mormons don’t do…or if it’s because Mormons think those relationships are evil and disgusting. Needless to say, for people to express the latter is NEVER going to be taken well by LGBT people. You can’t put enough lipstick on that pig…)
Bryce, great post. I am a big fan of the paper you published last year on the history and doctrine of homosexuality in the LDS Church. I think if people sat down and read what you wrote that it might change some hearts and minds. I think there are a lot of reasons LGBTQ members leave, namely, they feel like their choice is either to stay in and remain celibate or leave. Also, sadly, with the November 2015 policy and other messages over the years, they have got the message, implicitly or explicitly that they are not welcome. In fact, the November 2015 policy tried to exclude them from the tribe as much as possible and seemed designed to prevent LGBTQ members from being a part of the Church or exposing the Church to LGBTQ members.
I would argue that our doctrine has changed and could accommodate a full acceptance of gay marriage and temple sealings. I do not think that is likely in the short term. I do think there is an easy temporary fix that would allow members to stay and accommodate our current doctrine. I think this is a simple fix and would heal a lot of the current hurt. Treat LGBTQ people the same as we would treat any member who does not hold a temple recommend (ideally we would treat these people like any of our other brothers and sisters, but this would be regarding how much they would be allowed to participate). They would be fully embraced by the ward, could hold some callings and be welcomed with open arms. Their children would be involved in primary and youth programs and go on missions. This love and acceptance would allow a lot of people to stay and may help some alienated LGBTQ members return to some Church engagement .
Wonderful post, Bryce.
Asking our LGBT brothers and sisters to remain celibate is a non-starter. It’s cruel and unworkable. I’d leave, too, if I were in their situation. As a very heterosexual guy, if the shoe was on the other foot and I faced that requirement, I’d be gone – no question. Why are we okay asking LGBT people to make such an awful sacrifice while simultaneously extolling the love and intimacy of marriage? The duplicity is awful.
In response to your question #1, there most certainly is a problem with our doctrine. For starters, as your question #3 alludes to, we have two different laws of chastity: one for heterosexual members, where they are to remain chaste before marriage and avoid adultery afterward; and another for our homosexual members, where they are also to remain chaste before marriage, but are prohibited from marriage – even prohibited from affection.
Dumping the awful November 2015 policy and equalizing the Law of Chastity are two key steps, but I’m also in agreement with Andrew: we need clear, concise language delivered in General Conference forbidding the mistreatment of LGBT people. Since all curriculum is going to be focused on GC talks, that would be the appropriate venue to get the message out there.
When I saw your question of, “Are these messages of love and inclusiveness enough? ” In my mind I had to ask if it is better for them to leave vs stay.
My answer to all your questions drive ME to withdraw from church participation. This so sad. So very very sad.
I am just listening to Gregory Prince with tears in my eyes.
No, there really isn’t a middle ground. Either LGBTQIA+ persons are people, or we are not. Mormon church leadership, and many, many individual Mormons, have come down on the side that we are not, and their right hand keeps doubling down on that even as the left makes ham-fisted, self-interested PR moves.
Mormon culture is rotten and sick to its core, and Mormon leaders abuse their power so often that you have all memorized defences against anyone who leaves because they were mistreated. There’s no room for a middle way, because as soon as ANYONE speaks up against their own abuse they are kicked out, if they haven’t already internalized what happened to them as their fault.
If you want Mormons with power to stop abusing other people, you need to start by taking away their power. Period. Explaining things does not help. Appealing to principles will not help. The people that it would have helped have either already left, or weren’t really a part of the problem to begin with.
As a sitting bishop I felt to recommend in several instances that a gay person go to a different church, “because you will not be nurtured as you deserve in this church in this generation.” I also felt constrained by calling and assignment not to say it out loud. For which I feel guilty to this days, almost a generation later. Guilty for not speaking my truth as I saw it.
Today I am more likely to speak my mind but much less likely to tell anybody else what to do. I’ve learned how very many different individual paths there are. For all that, I don’t think the net result of the last 20+ years is positive, for LQGTQIA+ persons in the LDS Church.
I’d like to suggest that framing the discussion in terms of “love” is too little, and in terms of temple sealings is too much.
>”Love” is not enough. So long as “hate the sin, love the sinner” persists, the “hate” part–that treats a deep inner desire for love and companionship as a defect–makes a lie of the “love” part.
>Temple sealings is quite obviously (to me) where the Church needs to go, but challenges so much and will take so long that it is irrelevant to anybody living today.
Instead, to have even a rational possibility that staying (in any community) makes sense, I would ask for _respect_. Respect means just like you are is how God (or genes and random chance, if you prefer) made you. Every individual mixed and complicated. Every individual with joys and sorrows, strengths and struggles, but fundamentally good, not fundamentally broken. (Mormons with a relatively deep rejection of original sin ought to be better at this than we are.)
Respect also means that a mutually affirming freely chosen marriage is the real thing, respected and honored as marriage, regardless where it is solemnized. Not to make a fine point of it, treating the very status of marriage as an occasion of apostasy is not respect. Nor love.
Where did the edit button go? LGBTQIA+ (obviously, although one might argue that the + does the job).
In Australia we are having a” voluntary postal survey” on gay marriage. It has been caused by a consevative group in the ruling party. I wonder if there might be such a conservative group in the 15.
It is interesting that no church leaders, or spokes people have said anything, but some members have been public in the opposition. The conservatives in the church (which are the most vocal) have made it clear what is expected of good members of the church.
I believe it is only a question of time until “all are alike unto the church” as they are “all are alike unto God, black and white, bond and free, male and female, gay and straight”.
There has been a lot of division in society, as there has been in the church, though of course the obedient/conservative members see only obedience, or lack of it, with no valid reason to support marriage equality.
Any gay members of the church in Australia will have any doubts about how other members feel about them.
for goodness sake read the scriptures and abide by them,lust is not to be confused with love and that is what it is all about.the two words are both four letters but are both complete opposites to each other.
“Would those of us who are cis-gender/heterosexual act any differently if we were required to make this sacrifice?”
There are plenty of us doing it. Don’t give me the “its different crap.” The single women in the Church outnumber the single men 150/100. Many of us are expected to live alone in this life with no chance of marriage. Oh, and before you pull out the “but in the next life” crap – polygamy hangs over everything we say about post-life marriages. But we are just a bunch of single, heterosexual women, so we don’t count.
Ron Haymes, I’m curious just who you think is lusting and who you think is and is not capable of genuine love. I won’t prejudge you answer but it’s curious why you chose to insert that comment into the discussion.
Thank you for starting to include gender identity and transgender issues in your writings. It is appreciated. It matters a lot.
Kimberly Anderson
Cody Hatch: ” I’d leave, too, if I were in their situation. As a very heterosexual guy, if the shoe was on the other foot and I faced that requirement, I’d be gone – no question.”
This statement hit me. After years in a sexless marriage, I kind of feel like I am facing that choice of lifelong celibacy (This guy expresses my experience fairly well: https://www.strengtheningmarriage.com/involuntary-celibacy/ ). I have chosen to stay married in spite of that. I guess, like anon for this, it is more than just homosexuals who are asked by the Church to remain celibate.
The main problem for me, as it applies to the discussion here, is trying to understand how these different sexual orientations and sexual life-stories inform my understanding of the law of chastity and human sexuality. In response to the Obergefell decision, the Church published a statement (https://www.lds.org/church/news/church-leaders-counsel-members-after-supreme-court-same-sex-marriage-decision?lang=eng ) that says, “Homosexual behavior…is contrary to the purposes of human sexuality.” I have often reflected on this, because I continue to fail to understand what we believe about those purposes — and how the experiences of those outside of “satisfying married relationships” inform our understanding of those purposes. For me, the main doctrinal change would be to clearly explain the doctrine (which seems unlikely in a Church that has difficulty even talking about sex directly, preferring code words like “virtue” and “intimacy”).
Part of that response should probably include a deeper understanding of Ron’s comment. Yes, there is a stark difference between love and lust, but where does sexual desire fit into that dichotomy? Based on my old “good-boy syndrome” reading of Ron’s comment, true love is an asexual (or perhaps more accurately demisexual) construct, and all sexual desires are lustful. I don’t claim to understand it, but it seems to me that part of this “grand unified theology of sexuality” would include some discussion of what lust is, what love is, and how sexuality and sexual desire fits into that dichotomy.
Anon, your point regarding single women is a valid one. The Church really has no satisfactory answer for that situation either; however, a key difference between singles and homosexual members is that singles have the option of intimacy and marriage – homosexuals do not. In fact, they really can’t even date or exhibit the type of intimacy that could lead to marriage. Singles can.
Great post. Several things need to happen, I think, but they likely won’t.
1. Change the doctrinal emphasis on marriage being between one man and one woman, especially in light of the fact that we’re sort of lying when we say that because we still technically believe in polygamy in the afterlife. In fact, get rid of the emphasis on marriage entirely and instead focus on cultivating Christ-like attributes.
2. Stop shaming the general church population about sex/desire/their bodies. In fact, ease up on the law of chastity/modesty rhetoric. It’s most often used not as a way to teach about healthy intimacy but rather as a club to beat people with who make the mistake of not being ashamed of their quite natural desires.
3. Stop othering homosexuals. Ron Haymes’ comment reflects the majority of church members’ views. If he, our leadership, and other members can’t accept that gay people love and want relationships in the same way that straight people do, we’ll never really be a welcoming place.
4. Stop letting fear govern our decision making. Fear doesn’t come from God, it comes from human beings. So much of the rhetoric both inside and outside the church that I hear directed against homosexuality still sees LGBT+ people as threatening and to-be-feared others. I seem to recall it was either John the Apostle or Paul McCartney who said: Perfect love casteth out fear. Oh, wait. It was both. In all seriousness, we’ve got to remember that the invitation to invite strangers into the fold and the bold proclamation on all of our buildings that visitors are welcome are not just some catchy slogans. They are mandates from the Lord and they’re supposed to remind us that we’re called to see to everyone’s needs, not just the needs of people who are just like us.
MrShorty:
I am sorry to hear this, and you’re right about inadequate doctrinal light on this topic. I wouldn’t hold out for any sort of clarification from Church leaders, though, and even if they did take it up, you might not like what you hear.
Cody Hatch: “if they did take it up, you might not like what you hear.”
Perhaps not. It is interesting to me how this journey has caused me to read through the Church’s (and past leader’s teachings) with a more “critical” (I prefer “discerning”) eye. Picking and choosing (“cafeteria Mormonism”, anyone?) the truths about sexuality I agree with. It is very interesting how this intersects with the concept of “prophetic fallibility”, too.
Interestingly, I am optimistic that, if they chose to tackle sexuality in a more thorough and holistic way, they could do okay. I have reason to believe that the brethren are somewhat enamored with Laura Brotherson’s works, which I thought were pretty good — definitely “sex-positive”. I would like to think that the Church could learn, like Sister Brotherson and Sister Finlaysen-Fife and others to approach sex in a way that would be helpful to me.
However, as it pertains to this discussion, one of my interesting reactions to Brotherson’s “Knowing Her Intimately” was — why would these 12 T’s not apply to committed homosexual relationships? If you wanted to limit it to one, how does that first T “Transform” apply to homosexuality? I have noticed that most of the “well-adjusted” LGBT members/friends of the church (including those like Tom Christofferson who have embraced celibacy) have accepted their sexual orientation as “good” and/or some variation of “from God”.
Hmmm… I agree that in theory single women have the option for intimacy and marriage but in reality, marrying a nonmember is so highly discouraged, socially and doctrinally, that a life of celibacy does, in fact, often become the only viable option for a single Mormon woman past a certain age. And it is devastating, frankly, to be expected to deny that fundamental need for emotional and physical intimacy.
Not that I am trying to turn this into a discussion of who has it worse– I just think the harsh realities for Mormon single women are often overlooked. The fact is, gay or straight, I don’t think anyone should have to choose between their faith and their sexuality. It’s an unreasonable and psychologically damaging demand.
Cody your comment that we have the option is incorrect. There are many of us you have not had the option nor ever will in this life. There simply aren’t enough men to go around.
“For all that, I don’t think the net result of the last 20+ years is positive, for LQGTQIA+ persons in the LDS Church.” I have to agree with this. I’ve been looking back in my mission journals. I served in 89-90 when the AIDS epidemic was just beginning. We didn’t have a set understanding of gay people in society much less in the church. People my age mostly didn’t see being gay as a choice, but we also didn’t really understand a gay person’s experience in the ways we have been able to since it became more acceptable to be openly gay. Society has gained empathy at the same time the church has lost empathy.
I agree with these suggestions:
“1) Strongly emphasize that LGBT youth/teens are not to be kicked out of the home, and that doing such may be a cause for disciplinary action
2) Strongly emphasize that LGBT youth/teens/adults and their partners should not be shunned when they are in relationships (even if the church may personally find such relationships as constituting apostasy), and that shunning may be cause for disciplinary action.”
The church seems to care too much about keeping the privileged people comfortable (cis-hetero white folks) rather than finding the pure in heart. As a missionary, I found that many gay people were more open to spiritual experiences and cared more about others because of being ostracized and humbled by society.
Many good points raised here – and good discussion.
Andrew, Felix and Jewel – I think the church is on its way to a middle ground or “temporary fix” where LGBTQ people will feel welcome with their spouses and partners – both in their families’ homes and at church. I had hoped it would come sooner, but the policy sort of set the clock back. However, it is still only a temporary fix, and as I point out in the post, as long as LGBTQ members are seen as inferior/unequal to cis-het members, they will not stay in the church. Ultimately, and fundamentally, this is a doctrinal issue that must be addressed if we are to truly save our LGBTQ members.
Cody and Happyhubby – it’s so true that when we put ourselves in their shoes, the celibacy position is untenable. How can we seriously expect that? If our doctrine has changed to where we acknowledge that homosexuality is biological and not a choice, then requiring celibacy is cruel and inhumane.
Christian – I agree that temple sealings are a long way off, but it’s never to early to start having the conversations as Taylor Petrey is doing in his work. It seems likely that the doctrinal change will be incremental. My feeling is that the brethren will not make any big moves until the majority of the church membership is ready. Or in the inverse, as the church membership evolves on this subject, the leadership will have to follow. If my belief is correct, that puts the burden on progressive members to continue to righteously agitate for change.
I think the other problem with the church’s stance on LGBTQ+ is that they believed that their policies would *only* or even *mostly* affect homosexuals, people they have had the luxury of viewing as broken heterosexuals, but it has been and is driving out large faithful TBM families who have an LGBTQ+ child. Entire families are leaving over this who would never have otherwise entertained the idea of leaving.
Anon – my heart breaks for you and all the single women in the church who face this problem due to demographics. If one of my daughters faced this situation I would be fine with them dating and marrying outside the church – but I realize not everyone feels that way. The critical difference between single sisters and gay members is that the church requires lifelong celibacy for gay members but not for single sisters. One is a matter of unfortunate circumstance (unfair demographics) while the other is church commandment.
MrShorty – living in a sexless marriage is truly a sad experience and seems somewhat similar to what a mixed-orientation marriage (one partner gay, the other straight) could be like. However, isn’t it true that if your situation is bad enough, you could divorce and find new partners that better fulfilled your marriage expectations while still remaining in good standing with the church? That option is unavailable to gay people.
Angela and Andrew – those suggestions are critical and need to happen, even if the final doctrinal solution lags behind. I believe Tom Christofferson’s book will be a major influencer in that direction. The promotional stories in the Deseret News and LDS Living about Tom’s experience were the most honest and humanizing portrayal of a gay Mormon – including the relationship he had with his partner – that the church has ever publicized.
@Bryce Cook
First off, your first question leaves only the option of the church being the villain here. It’s a question that leaves the option for homosexual members as being broken, or the church being broken. What if neither the doctrine nor the gay members are broken? The way you word the question totally shuts down that dialogue.
Secondly, when you state “If our doctrine has changed to where we acknowledge that homosexuality is biological and not a choice, then requiring celibacy is cruel and inhumane” you are ignoring the fact that we are repeatedly taught the importance of denying the natural man. As a natural man, I constantly repress and restrain desires that are not compatible with the gospel. Why should gay members of the church be allowed or encouraged to submit to the natural man, rather than having the natural man submit to them?
In the words of Elder Bednar: “The basic purpose of all we teach and all that we do in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to make available the Priesthood authority and gospel ordinances and covenants that enable a man and a woman and their children to be sealed together and be happy at home. Period, exclamation point, end of sentence, that’s it,”
I see this as a misguided statement. The purpose of all that we do in the church ought to be to bring individuals to Christ, right?? Regardless, Bednar’s statement shines a light on the lens through which issues surrounding family/sexuality are viewed by church leadership and it sums up quite well the current LDS obsession with the family that has trickled down from Salt Lake City. Specifically, the church’s obsession with the traditional, heterosexual, nuclear family. Until the church stops worshiping the traditional family, as if it is an end in itself, conflating the traditional family with the gospel of Jesus Christ, and making the nuclear family central to the operations of the institutional church there will be no significant progress made in retaining homosexual individuals in the church. The same is true for single adults.
To justify upholding the Nov 5 policy, I think our prophets need to doctrinally explain:
1) Why God gave us such strong sexual desires
2) Why God created such a large percentage of His children w/o the ability to ever legitimately satisfy their innate sexual desires
I won’t understand the fairness of this earthly test until this doctrine is somehow clarified with something besides “we don’t know” – or LGBT people are allowed full access to blessings of the Gospel.
So… the answer is “no, love is not enough.” We have to do more than show love, LGBT have to *feel* love.
Taking Ron’s point to its logical conclusion, if lust is the problem and love is the answer, then all of us straight folk need to find some gay romance and get gay married so that we don’t risk lusting after opposite sex partners. The lesbian couples can have all the babies with modern day technology, so no worries about reproduction.
Thank you for your post and for the work you do in service to our LGBTQIA brothers and sisters. As a parent of one of these the realization that she may not be able to stay in the church has been heartbreaking but also a huge opportunity for personal growth. I believe God is working through many right now to bring about miracles. We need to maintain that faith, and all of us lift where we stand.
I wish church members would recognize that same-sex marriage is a huge step forward in strengthening society. It promotes stable relationships over hook-ups and encourages our LGBT+ friends to find partners they can love and cherish and for whom they can sacrifice self as Christ would were he here among us.
@Bryce Cook: Yes, there is a chance that I could break up my family and pursue another woman, and wear the scarlet D, which is losing some of its luster in the Church. I don’t know if my chances of “success”, were I to choose this path, are better than anon’s and other singles in the Church, but certainly I have that hope. I also have the hope that, if I am patient and try to be a good husband and stay committed to my current marriage, that my current sexless marriage could turn around. I think what struck me about Cody’s statement was, facing something like the choice he describes (choose between potentially lifelong celibacy or something else he would choose something else), I have chosen to accept lifelong celibacy.
There is no question that, if I try to be up-beat about it, I have hopes that an LGBT Mormon does not have. It isn’t a perfect corollary, but my experience is the closest thing I personally have to understanding and empathizing with them, and I think it has given me some idea of what it is like to be faced with that choice.
Slim – Regarding the first question as to why the majority of LGBT members leave the church, I have given that much thought over the years and can only come up with the either/or answer. Can you suggest any other possible explanations?
Why do you believe “ignoring the natural man” applies to gay people who have the same basic desire that all humans have whether gay or straight – to fall in love and find companionship with someone they are attracted to romantically, emotionally and spiritually? You are applying a different natural-man standard to gay people, which requirement in my opinion is inhumane.
Why single, heterosexual women stay in a church designed for straight married people is beyond me.
But I do see a difference between celibate heterosexuals and celibate gays. It seems to me that the church has deified heterosexuality. So for a straight person, the desire of the heart is righteous and can lead to exhalation. But if you’re gay, you’re a filthy pervert. And if you successfully wall yourself off from any sort of normal human intimacy, when you’re dead, you may be magically transformed into a beautiful heterosexual.
It seems Love, fidelity and commitment are valued if you are straight. If you are gay, those same values make you an apostate.
Bryce: I note your “it’s never to early to start having the conversations as Taylor Petrey is doing in his work. It seems likely that the doctrinal change will be incremental.” I would like you to be right.
However, as I have argued elsewhere, including (however slightly) with Taylor Petrey himself, I am finding it very difficult to map out an incremental path for doctrinal change. One complex reason is that Mormon doctrine has an abiding embodied-materialist-gender essentialist view. Climbing out of that position any which way seems to threaten women (at least feminist views), or threatens LGBTQIA+ concerns, or ends up in a not-recognizably-Mormon place. (Some of this tension is at least hinted at in comments here.)
My personal private theology “solves” the three-legged puzzle by sacrificing the recognizably Mormon leg,. But for public dialogue I think the Church will be unwilling (and should be unwilling), to give up any of three legs.
I’m going to take a different stance here. Gay sex is deadly to the body and the soul. Per LDS Doctrine when all is said and done the only ones who will be able to remain forever families are those faithful husbands and wives who honor their covenants. All others will live separate and single forever and ever and ever. Why would the church want to promote the homosexual agenda knowing where it all will ultimately lead?
^This is definitely a good encapsulation of Mormonism is where it is. Even if the leaders were considering revelation (and did not actually hold similar views), they’d have to deal with folks in the pews who believe things like that.
Maelstrom – I thought we could have an intelligent discussion without getting into the “sex is icky” debate. In my experience, I have found that those who see same-sex relationships as sinful and immoral are often only focused on the sexual aspect. They are generally unfamiliar with gay people and therefore can’t even conceive of a gay person being in a loving relationship similar to that of a loving heterosexual couple. To them, being gay is only about sex. The result is that they see gay people primarily as sex objects instead of whole human beings, and they see their relationships as based only on lust and unnatural sexual desire and not on love, kindness and mutual respect. This view is a twisted and unfair basis on which to make a moral judgment. And have you ever stopped to consider that gay people may feel the same discomfort and revulsion to heterosexual sex as you do to gay sex, and that maybe that feeling is a function of one’s own sexual orientation and not some universal moral principle?
And what do you mean by promoting the homosexual agenda “knowing where it all will ultimately lead”? Are you insinuating that respecting legal and loving same-sex marriages would cause straight people to turn gay? Does it have that effect on you? Personally, I am straight and happily married to my wife, and I have been surrounded by gay people, including many in same-sex relationships for years, and it has not changed my heterosexual nature one bit (although it’s pretty much eliminated all shreds of homophobia I once had). I don’t know of any other heterosexuals whose orientation has changed by associating with gay people and I believe those countries that have had legalized same-sex marriage for many years now have not seen their national birth rates plummet due to straight people becoming gay.
Bryce, Maelstrom can speak for him/herself, but I at least did not read that comment as having anything to do with the “sex is icky” debate or with an alleged “homosexual agenda” or somehow turning straight people gay, but rather with a common Mormon view of the hereafter which many think to be doctrinal — even in the sense of unchangeable. I wonder which of us missed Maelstrom’s intent.
JR,
I think the whole “sex is icky” thing happens because the first thing Maelstrom brings up is “Gay sex is deadly to the body and the soul.”
JR – From Maelstrom’s post:
“Gay sex is deadly to the body and the soul.”
“Why would the church want to promote the homosexual agenda knowing where it all will ultimately lead?”
Maelstrom, Maelstrom, Maelstrom
If I look at D&C 132, its wives and concubines cranking out male spirits that are forever families. Or are you talking about the 1950’s veneer.
Why would the church want to promote gay relationships? Simple from a church perspective. Because what we do in this life prepare us for the next. And having a healthy, loving, committed relationship brings one closer to the the ideal then a person deliberately isolating themselves.
Looking at this through the lens of heterosuperiority, gay couples with skim milk marriages are better then no marriages at all, because they are better prepared for the “real” marriage in the forever and ever and ever.
That being said, I think what Maelstrom probably meant by the “where it will all lead” is that following a “bad path” in this life leads to a less-than-celestial eternity. Per Maelstrom, having a “healthy, loving, committed” yet same-sex relationship means that you will be isolated in the next life. So, per Maelstrom, it’s best to be totally single and unprepared for the next life, because you’ll have all eternity to be made eternally heterosexual, regardless of whether you want that or not.
Where will it all lead? That’s why the heterosexual missionaries will visit the benighted gays in spirit prison. The gays who have already completed Relationships 101 are that much closer to being up to snuff. While those celibate folks with same sex afflictions will have to spend a great deal of eternity in remedial courses.
The Church would hold a weird place if it decides to accept Trans members but still be against gay marriage. As it is, Trans members get the doubly whammy of discipline if they transition and excommunication for them and their spouse is they remain married.
So, what is “the homosexual agenda”? I often hear this term, but little is explained about the “agenda”. The right to Marry? The right to hold a job? It reminds me of the claims used against Blacks in decades past, the they were Communists, that they were trying to ruin the White race, etc.
You don’t have to be a scientist to know that if you take a youngster of any mammalian species and separate it from it’s peers, not allowing it to form any lasting or close attachments, not permitting it to engage in any mating rituals, to find a mate, to breed, to have young, to raise it’s offspring, to create a family unit or live with a devoted companion but kept it on the other side of the fence merely watching all it’s peers live out their lives, you would soon witness a heartbreaking scene. That animal would go from being eager and excited, primed to live its life, to bewildered, then to withdrawn, progressing into depression and finally becoming inconsolably bereft. Indeed if you forced it to spend a long enough time this way, this isolation, this feeling of hopelessness would chemically change the animal. It would become a shell of what it once could have been and nothing would ever change it back. This is what the Mormon church has done to countless young gay people over the decades. They know the damaged their doctrine has caused. The broken families, the intractable depression and self-loathing, the drug addiction it has fostered and the thousands of suicides. Not to even mention the unnecessary agony it’s caused members who married someone of the opposit sex to overcome their urges, at the church’s counsel. With all the decades of research and statistics the church has compiled, attesting to just how destructive it is to tell a child their basic nature is warped and acting on that nature is a sin, and there is no cure for them and the only thing to do is to not participate in love, to reject their impulses and bury their longings—- why don’t they stop doing it? Why not do as Jesus advocated, love everyone and let God be the judge? Ok—Ready for the answer? Here it is: Because the mormon church is not motivated by love and it is not representing Jesus. The leaders of the mormon church are motivated by hatred for gays. When I was growing up, the church was much more honest about it’s position on homosexuality. It’s leaders openly professed that being a homosexual was evil, that god hated homos and they should kill themselves to avoid sinning. Then whennthe world changed—it changed it’s stance drastically and allowed that maybe they got it wrong: that god loved gays as people, but disapproved of the “gay lifestyle” and the church was only following the (now corrected) word of God. Then when gays managed to get gay marriage on the ballots, (in an apparent effort to reform from the gay lifestyle and adopt the purer, God-sanctioned straight life style) the church changed their stance once again to say that God, who condemned the gay life-style now condemned the straight life style for gays. Gays were not to get married. When that passed anyway, the heads of church quickly changed their stance again to say they/God, God/they disapproved of gays having families. It just goes on and on, human desire after human desire called a “sin” if gays express the same needs as straights have. It is cruel hypocracy. How on earth—can you say that you love someone but you don’t want them to have what you consider the most precious gifts in life? You take away love, attachment, intimacy, touch, spiritual partnership romance, love-making, family—take all that away, wipe it off this planet so there is no hope of that—would you want to live here for 85 years? No? Then how could you belong to an organization that actively did and does all it could to deprive that from other human beings? Some of those human beings, your own children. My parents managed yo do it and my mom is still a member even after she’s seen what being raised in ghe church did to my life. I don’t know how she can live with hersrld. Here is my question for you——how do you believe that is love? To me that is called “judgement”.