Bryce Cook’s wonderful article the other day has been on my mind a great deal. In the article, Bryce asks whether our stated love for our LGBT brothers and sisters is enough for them to truly feel valued to us and to God. Do our confessions of love overcome the inadequacies of our church’s message to them?
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.
Bryce’s observation is a sobering one. Since I read his article I have wondered what more I can do to help. I have no leadership responsibility in our church. There are practical limits to what I can do that may affect meaningful change. It seems as though if I am too strident I lose credibility and possibly do more harm than good.
I also must consider the Christian obligation to seek unity within the community and respect the beliefs of those who have yet to be persuaded of the need for change on this matter. I don’t want to wound their soul and sow discord. I want them to feel loved within the community as well.
Paul, in Romans 8, uses the topic of whether it is right to eat food offered to idols as a segue to teach the importance of communal harmony:
Now concerning food sacrificed to idols: we know that “all of us possess knowledge.” Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up. Anyone who claims to know something does not yet have the necessary knowledge; but anyone who loves God is known by him.
Hence, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “no idol in the world really exists,” and that “there is no God but one.” Indeed, even though there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as in fact there are many gods and many lords— yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
It is not everyone, however, who has this knowledge. Since some have become so accustomed to idols until now, they still think of the food they eat as food offered to an idol; and their conscience, being weak, is defiled. “Food will not bring us close to God.” We are no worse off if we do not eat, and no better off if we do. But take care that this liberty of yours does not somehow become a stumbling block to the weak. For if others see you, who possess knowledge, eating in the temple of an idol, might they not, since their conscience is weak, be encouraged to the point of eating food sacrificed to idols? So by your knowledge those weak believers for whom Christ died are destroyed. But when you thus sin against members of your family, and wound their conscience when it is weak, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food is a cause of their falling, I will never eat meat, so that I may not cause one of them to fall.
Paul is advocating for the elevation of communal harmony – of not offending our brothers and sisters – over being “right”; over proving a point. He is saying that our responsibility to be mindful of the conscience of others overrides the importance of doctrinal precision. We shouldn’t run roughshod over our brothers and sisters, even if we are right (and I think Bryce is right on this topic). In pushing for an accelerated timetable for change, we run the risk of hurting others within the community.
On the flip-side, I have been unable to escape the urgency of the matter. The souls of our LGBT members have been and are being wounded. We cannot sit idly by while they are harmed.
I was reminded of a quote from Martin Luther King Jr.’s letter from the Birmingham jail in August of 1963. Dr. King was disappointed at the tepid aid received from those who he expected to be more forthcoming with their aid. Progress was too slow in coming and he was growing frustrated with the timetable of change.
I must make two honest confessions to you, my Christian and Jewish brothers. First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
It is easy for those with privilege to avoid radical change, preferring for things to take time so as not to upset the prevailing order. Such an approach would naturally be frustrating for those being harmed.
It seems there is tension between compelling those reluctant to change, thus possibly wounding them, and fighting with adequate urgency for those who are being harmed by the status quo. I believe we are facing this exact dilemma on the question of the place of LGBT people within our LDS community, and I’m not sure how best to balance the tension. Perhaps you can be of help to me.
- What is the role of advocacy within our community? How far can it go?
- How can you advocate your perspective without alienating others within the community?
- In a religious community, what are the options for dealing with this tension?
- If you feel injustice is being done, how hard do you push so as to avoid the “white moderate” problem Dr. King described?
Wheat & Tares 
No one need ever feel injustice in a religious community. Religious communities in our modern world are voluntary associations, and people can come and go at will. If a particular religious community doesn’t work for someone, he or she may find another community that fits better. One of the Articles of Faith speaks of this freedom and privilege, which we allow to all persons.
In a different way, churches are like families. There are very few perfect families, just as there are very few perfect wards. We endure and do our best to support others, and by and large everyone gets along. Sometimes, though, a person will find it necessary to avoid certain other persons, for his or her own sanity or to keep the peace within a family or ward structure and dynamic. Sometimes, though, a person has to step away from the dynamic to find peace, either temporarily or permanently.
There is sadness when this occurs. But hasn’t this always been the pattern of life? It usually doesn’t work well for an individual to explain how wrong all of his or her family are, and to try to change them to the individual’s viewpoint — the other family members are probably doing the best they can, and may tire of the individual’s criticisms. They may have a differing viewpoint. There might be some validity in that differing viewpoint.
Cody this is a great post and I feel the same as you do. ji, I think you are missing something very big. The church is not just a “voluntary association”. It is the cultural environment that thousands of LGBTQ people are immersed in from birth and that literally leads to mental anguish for them 100% of the time. I don’t know of any at all who have escaped the inner conflict, hopelessness, and depression described above. It is also the only true and living church on the face of the earth. For LGBT people and their families who have a testimony of that there are truly agonizing choices to be made.
Cody, we’ll said.
I have no answers, other than to point out that ji is minimizing the experience to ‘sadness’ which seems insulting to those who have often battled for years to reconcile one inner piece of themselves (belief system/ shape of their relationship with God) with a second inner piece of themselves (orientation/love of someone non-hetro).
I’ll also add that the conflict of community becomes especially difficult when the individual is fighting for their own child or against their own spouse. (Or worse yet, both)
the tragedy of it all is the miss spelling of a four letter word ,love becoming lust.
While Paul advocated abstaining from Idol offered meat in order to protect the delicate convictions of the weak, Christ with his disciples openly plucked and ate corn and healed on the sabbath, ignored the ceremonial washing of hands before eating and regularly associated with those defined by the law as unclean. Perhaps Paul’s zealotry and Pharisaic tenancies are shining through.
Is the admonition to follow Paul or Jesus?
That is a very moving quote from MLK.
For decades I have wondered what I would do if I were born a decade or two earlier and would have been in the middle of the civil rights movement in the U.S.
As I have done some soul searching I do feel there is part of me that has always been empathetic, but if I honestly look deep at myself I do fear it is possible I could have dug my heals in and fought against it. I tend to doubt I would actively hurt others, but could I be a bit more of a silent “white moderate” that MLK complains about. It has bothered me over the years and made me push harder to do things now to make sure I am not still carrying forward racism in minor ways. But even doing that I still really wonder what I would have done in the 50’s and 60’s.
Just a few years go as I started digging into my prejudices dealing with homosexuality. After a bit of study I came to the conclusion that being gay was biological and not a choice. Almost as soon as I came to that conclusion I instantly had the though that this was quite the same as the civil rights a generation before.
I don’t have a shining record as a huge vocal voice in this area, but I certainly have spoken up many times and reached out to individuals that I suspected were gay and made sure they new that I thought they were great just the way they are. I wear my rainbow tie tack to church as a conversation starter.
I have struggled mainly with the questions you bring up. I want to be an advocate, but I see within the church if someone pushes too far from carrying the party line then they are “othered” and by and large anything they say is ignored or at least suspect. The question I have is if it is better for me to be nudging from the inside or being vocal and clear on my position and feelings to a point where I am out the outside. I have tried the nudging for a few years and it seems to me it isn’t all that effective. I do feel like I am headed towards the latter situation (Thanks Elder Oaks!) before long. Not as a calculated strategy, but more from frustration and being upset by the pain. The main thing holding me back is knowing how me being more vocal will put a strain on my marriage.
I enjoyed your post Cody. By the way, regarding one of your earlier posts on the historicity of the BOM, while I listened to conference I threw in qualifiers in my mind every time one of the speakers quoted the BOM. ” If we look at the fictional people of Alma who lived in a made up place called Zarahemla…”. It actually was quite fun and made me laugh every the BOM was quoted.
I suppose how the group treats you depends largely on the group you are in. In my area of the vineyard you are pretty much expected to be conservative on every issue. All of the Stake leaders are that way and they pick bishops, high councilmen, speaking assignments, bishopric trainings, Stake auxiliary leaders, stake conference topics, priesthood leadership trainings, etc… that further their viewpoint. We had a sister get up in testimony meeting and say that we need to show more love and compassion towards those lustful gays and the Stake president jumped up right behind her warning about tolerance. I have heard of wards and stakes out there that are more progressive leaning and I would think that the group dynamics there would be a lot different.
I think if Elder Oaks would have been brave and thrown in divorced people with the gays and cohabitators as being sinful reprobates destroying families, then you might see a shift in the timetable. It is just a numbers game. As long as the majority feel comfortable they will not rock the boat too much if a few stragglers and weaklings get thrown overboard.
Forgive me, Cody, but this ongoing assumption that change is inevitable is starting to appear delusional and naive to me. I mean, change could happen, but why speak of it in such certain terms? Why not include some caveats allowing the possibility that every generation of Church leadership is going to have an Elder Oaks or a President Packer?
My husband and I are leaving the church over this. We tried to stay and make it work, but staying makes me feel complicit in the suicide of gay teens who want to please God but are told that their righteous desires for love and companionship are inherently sinful. I know that this kind of bigotry is abhorrent to God and, thankfully, I have seen enough of God’s workings among the people of nearly all religions and belief systems that I am not worried that we will be missing out on the ONE true church.
My hope is that as many of my gay and trans LDS brothers and sisters as are able, choose to break free from the Church, for their own spiritual and mental well-being. But having said that, and going through my own faith transition over the course of a decade, I know that such a decision is not always easy, or even possible.
Cody, you raise a key question that all advocates for change must face: How hard should we advocate? I think this can be a very personal question in which each individual, or group of individuals, may feel inspired or motivated to take a particular path. Some will be rebel rousers that stir up emotions and make people angry (e.g., taking a knee) – they will often be labeled as counterproductive, doing more damage than good. Some will work within the system in a “respectful” way, using their voice where they can to help change hearts and minds – they might be labeled as complicit, or enablers. I believe each method may have its place in bringing about change.
When it comes to change within the church – and if we believe it to be led by God – I think God uses individuals to bend the moral arc towards justice when the leaders are not moving in that direction. In my opinion, this is another way God reveals his word and moves the work along – through the common-variety membership of the church. And this is another reason why the prophet “can’t lead the church astray” – not because God won’t let the prophet speak in error, but because the majority of the church membership who have the Spirit will move in the right direction DESPITE any incorrect teaching a prophet or apostle might give. As history has shown on various other issues, as the membership goes, so goes the church. So I would say, seek for inspiration on how you can make a difference, and then ACT on it.
Interesting twist of the wording to, “the Lord will not let the church members to be lead astray.” Hmmm.
Rachael – Best of luck to you and your family finding peace and spiritual fulfillment.
Michael – you may have a point that there are many that talk about the church changing to be more gay friendly. For me it is (1) keeping a positive attitude, (2) in reviewing history with items such as polygamy and the priesthood and temple ban to me I see it as probable that once the government (and the majority of the citizens) lose patience with the church’s stance (3) if the church keeps holding it’s current ground it seems to me the church will (continue to) lose all but the most conservative/deferring to authority types thus leaving a staunchly conservative church.
Did I miss something or is the Triple Combo completely silent on this issue?
I find it interesting that 1Kings 14:24; 22:46 is translated in modern scriptures as Male Shrine (or cult) prostitutes. That’s quite different from just being gay.
We can implicitly take from this that there were gay Israelites that must have been tolerated, otherwise going to a Male Shrine Prostitute would be pretty awkward for any straight male (just based on how I’d react. You may react differently).
In the past I always thought of the the story of Sodom and Gomorrah in thinking about being gay. But re-reading and further thought presents an interesting story because rape is thrown into the middle of it. If you have a society that is ok with openly raping people, I can see how you’d be able to argue the fact that being gay may not have been the primary reason for destruction.
Cody, you’ve captured many of my earnest thoughts over the years. Thank you.
I feel the tensions of wanting to help without hurting, of not being passive when a small group in our midst greatly suffer, of not wanting to offend God by either action or inaction…speaking up or being silent.
For many, including myself, confrontation is difficult. I can confront all kinds of things within myself, but my experience has been that speaking up for the downtrodden usually causes tension, then contention. Contention drives away peace and the Spirit, so we avoid confrontation.
Further, change makes almost everyone uncomfortable, and by nature we humans don’t enjoy being uncomfortable. So we go along with the status quo which is more comfortable for most. By so doing we contribute nothing.
Yet I feel deep in my heart that it’s cruel to ask homosexuals to live life alone without a special someone to love and be loved by. My husband often points out that many single heterosexual members live such a life. However, these single members have the hope that maybe tomorrow or next month or year they will meet someone to marry. We’ve seen this happen to singles in every decade of life. For gay members there is no such hope. No hope for that soul-wrenching void to be filled. I ache for such despair.
I don’t know what to do other than love fully the friends and loved ones I know who are gay members, and in small groups I have expressed support for any gay couples who are not promiscuous and are married or wish to be married. I do not speak openly in church meetings because of the confrontation/contention issue. I remain a coward and go home hearing the Spirit whisper that I need to be off a good courage and share my decades-long study and sound reasoning in a peaceful way. I’ve seen others do so several times.
It never goes well.
Oh God, please help us. Amen.
Things were easier on this front when we could point to society at large and say “Well, the church culture is toxic for [minority group], but so is American or World culture at large.” This is becoming increasingly difficult.
I am personally torn between staying an doing what I can and leaving. The church is very effective at marginalizing those that don’t tow the conservative line. I held leadership callings in the ward and stake and my wife taught seminary. As I made my protestations of the Exclusion Policy more vocal, first I was released and then my wife was. (Seminary is a Stake calling and our Stake leadership is rather by the handbook.) The trouble is, now that we’re considered damaged goods, it is harder to advocate for change. I have quickly become the old, liberal crank of Elders Quorum. (And I pull my punches. Most members just don’t know what to do with uncorrelated viewpoints.)
I guess what I’m trying to say is, I don’t see how one or two members can light a fire until more members realize the church has left our homosexual brothers and sisters out in the cold.
Ron, you made a similar remark on another thread and failed to explain or defend it.
Are you so foolish to think that only certain people experience lust? Who would that be and why would that be? And how could y0u possibly know who has authentic and heart-felt love and commitment and who doesn’t?
If you aren’t willing to elucidate what you mean by these blank statements they really don’t do much to enlighten or affirm anything.
Hi Alice, to piggyback off your comment, I can tell you first hand that it isn’t lust. Having friends that are gay and in committed relationships, they care for each other and struggle together in the same manner as straight couples.
Seeing that forced me to shift my paradigm.
Just like straight people, there are gay people that are promiscuous but that doesn’t mean everyone is the same.
Ji my association with the LDS church isn’t voluntary. My spouse has told me if I leave there will be a divorce which may result in limited access to my chidren. Frankly I’m being held prisoner.
I think it’s important to point out that the LDS church does not even accept the existence of homosexuality. While at this point it seems to acknowledge that homosexual desires occur naturally, it essentially takes the position that everyone is heterosexual, but that some, for unknown reasons, experience same-sex attraction. This at the very least implies such attractions are not fundamental or permanent, and is gaslighting of the highest order. Imagine experiencing something that feels like a core part of who you are, only to be told by the putative authority of morality and reality in your universe that what you’re feeling is not actually a fundamental part of who you are, but is a bug, not a feature; something wrong and dangerous that you should aspire to rid yourself of at virtually any cost, to say nothing of what acting on such desires says about you. Yes, it’s wonderful that the church no longer considers it gay people’s fault that they feel “SSA,” but that is a far cry from acknowledging homosexuality as a normal, fundamental part of who these people are. All human beings deserve to be celebrated for the unique and diverse nature of who they are and what they have to contribute to the lives of those who come into contact with them, and their society at large. Anyone who thinks that is happening in the church with respect to gay people is out of touch with reality.