With President Nelson now officially at the helm and President Oaks as his first counselor and successor, it will be interesting to see what course the Church charts on LGBT issues. This question has weighed heavily on the minds of our LGBT members the last few weeks. It also happened to be the very first question out of the gate at President Nelson’s inaugural press conference. In struggling to formulate an answer to that question, President Nelson fortunately started off on a positive note, acknowledging challenges with the commandments but also speaking of God’s love for all his children, stating: “there is a place for everyone who wishes, regardless of their challenges, to be with us in the Church.” [1]
This message of having a place in the Church was also shared by Elder Ballard in his recent BYU devotional talk (currently popping up in paid YouTube ads) and, as I pointed out in my last post, raises some critical follow-up questions, namely:
- Do all LGB members really have a place in the Church, even if they have a same-sex partner (as Tom Christofferson did when he first returned)?
- Do all trans members have a place in the Church, even if they transition? What about in priesthood and R.S. meetings?
- Or will same-sex-partnered and surgically-transitioned members be treated as apostates, sought out for Church discipline and excommunicated per official Church policy?
The answers to these questions over the last few years have played out very inconsistently at the local level, with local leaders being left to make these decisions mostly on their own, and the outcomes varying based on the leader’s depth of understanding and personal beliefs on these issues. With the two leaders most vehemently opposed to same-sex marriage now officially in charge, we will see if they really mean all LGBT members have a place in the Church or only those who are willing to make the sacrifice these leaders firmly believe God requires of them (i.e., lifelong celibacy for LGB members and remaining in a state of gender dysphoria for trans members).
What is so tragic about the Church’s official position is that it puts our LGBT members in a “double bind” – a no-win situation. No matter what life choice they make – have a place in the Church but give up a core part of your humanity, or claim your humanity but give up your place in the Church – they lose. To resolve the cruel double bind, the real question that needs to be addressed is: does claiming one’s humanity and giving up one’s place in the Church equate to giving up one’s place in heaven? Or stated another way, is being in a lawful, monogamous same-sex marriage, or surgically/medically transitioning one’s gender, truly a sin against God that will keep otherwise faithful, moral and upright LGBT people out of heaven?
There really should be no question or controversy over an LGBT person – no matter their circumstances – being welcomed into and accepted by their ward. Tom Christofferson’s local leaders and ward got that part right – that’s Christianity at its most basic level, not a very high bar (although the exclusion policy doesn’t pass that test). The higher bar, and admittedly a more difficult question for the Church, is whether such members have a place in Heaven, even the Celestial Kingdom – because this would likely require a major change in doctrine and policy. But it’s a question that can’t be ignored any longer. The stakes are just too high, the double bind is inhumane. I can’t say it any better than Josh Weed, a gay man who has lived it, as he shared in his brutally-honest but faith-affirming story yesterday:
“This is what the church’s current stance does to LGBTQIA people. It actually kills them. It fills them with self-loathing and internalized homophobia, and then provides little to no help when the psychosomatic symptoms set in… And the LGBTQIA person is left even further alone, now having been shamed by having it implied that their unhappiness and lack of health is their own fault because they aren’t being righteous enough. And so, they try harder. And they get sicker. And the cycle continues. It is a sick, pathological spiral. The church also deprives them – us – of attachment, and a natural, verified, studied reaction to attachment blockade is suicidality. I know this is true on a personal level.”
So how do we take the personal testimonies of faithful gay Mormons like Josh Weed against those of Presidents Nelson and Oaks, who affirm that being gay is not an identify but just a small and temporary aspect of mortal life, which if “acted on” will bring about misery and despair? Would these leaders who have invested so much personal capital for such a long time in defending the Church’s position ever be able to seriously question their firmly-held convictions? Will stories like those of Josh Weed and many, many others reach their ears, and more importantly, their hearts? Will they believe our fellow LGBT members like Josh Weed who testify that, for most LGBT people, following the Church’s position is what leads to despair, hopelessness, loss of faith in God, bitterness and even suicide? Are those the fruits we would expect from a path ordained by God?
Like Presidents Nelson and Oaks, President Kimball was doctrinally conservative, could maybe even be considered a hardliner based on his views in The Miracle of Forgiveness. How is it that a man like that was able to overcome his own internal biases and presumptions, along with the teachings and declarations of generations of his predecessors and fellow authorities, and dare to question whether the temple/priesthood ban was God’s will? Was it because he came from humble circumstances and was able to be modest in his self-appraisal? Was it the great compassion that seemed to awaken in him when he took on the mantle of president of the church?
I personally believe Presidents Nelson and Oaks are men who have compassionate hearts, but whose compassion is tempered by what they believe to be the law of the Lord (the “love of the Lord/law of the Lord” balance they spoke of in the press conference). As to the question of whether our LGBT members have a place in Heaven even if they choose a path that violates the Church’s position, this is such a challenging question for the Church that I wonder if perhaps it can’t just be decided by dictate from Salt Lake City. Maybe the answer will have to come in the form of inspiration, revelation and a change of heart felt among the entire body of the membership, which will have the effect of moving Church doctrine and policy. [2] If so, what kind of responsibility does that put on the membership? What can we do as a church body to understand God’s will and to understand and have greater compassion for our LGBT members who are suffering as a result of the Church’s position, as so poignantly described by Josh Weed and others?
As a start, it certainly wouldn’t hurt to recall these words from Elder Uchtdorf:
“Brothers and sisters, as good as our previous experience may be, if we stop asking questions, stop thinking, stop pondering, we can thwart the revelations of the Spirit. Remember, it was the questions young Joseph asked that opened the door for the restoration of all things. We can block the growth and knowledge our Heavenly Father intends for us. How often has the Holy Spirit tried to tell us something we needed to know but couldn’t get past the massive iron gate of what we thought we already knew?” [3]
___________________________
[1] Although President Oaks was quick to jump in to emphasize the commandments as a balance to God’s love – “the love of the Lord and the law of the Lord.”
[2] This seems to be how the Church’s position on artificial birth control changed over time. It was considered a grave sin and soundly condemned by prophets from Joseph F. Smith to President Kimball, as well as opposed in an official statement of the First Presidency under David O. McKay. See: https://professor.byuh.edu/martinsm/Rel235/Manual-235/BirthControl-MarriageManual.pdf
[3] Dieter F. Uchtdorf, “Acting on the Truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ,” https://www.lds.org/broadcasts/article/worldwide-leadership-training/2012/01/acting-on-the-truths-of-the-gospel-of-jesus-christ?lang=eng
Wheat & Tares 
Bryce, as you pointed out faithful gay members are in a spiritual bind based on scripture.
However, when I look around and see the variety of challenges that people are confronted with my heart breaks for them ( including gays). I know some church memebrs who are dealing with circumstances they were born with that makes it extremely difficult to be a fully involved member of the church. Most of them will never marry in this life,
Members who are confined to wheel chairs or have diseases that limit their life expectancy. Do you think there is anything to be learned from them?
I grew up feeling that the church leaders were wrong about blacks and priesthood/temple blessings. And about the same time I figured out that a close friend was gay. He and I talked about how the church back then condemned the feelings whether acted on or not. Our highschool was essentially across the street from BYU, and we knew about the so called conversion therapy going on. We agreed the church leaders were wrong about gay issues too.. I knew my friend was a good person and I knew that God knew it too.
I took the knowledge that church leaders can be way wrong into adulthood. Now, I simply cannot see how they are so incapable of imagining that they could be wrong. They lived through the same change in the church’s stand on people of African descent that I did, so how can they miss the idea that church leaders can be wrong and that God lets them be wrong if that is their choice. They know that Brigham Young taught things that the church has had to come out and say, “that was wrong.” Or do they really believe that they are infallible? Do they believe that God told BY that blacks were “fence sitters” in the pre-existence and thus unworthy of the priesthood, and that in 1978, it was God who changed his mind?
But today, my daughter is married to a loving wife. My other children never much cared about religion growing up, but this daughter was my most spiritual and loving child. Like Josh, she tried straight marriage, and like so many others, that MOM failed. My daughter and her wife resigned from the church. They don’t want to be a part of a church that has no place for them.
Do I think there is a place for them in whatever form heaven takes? Yes, because I think God judges people according to what they experienced in life and what they did with those experiences. Not by some hard and fast set f rules that fails to take all of God’s children into account. Just because our church leaders do not understand how God could create gay, lesbian, transgender people, and judge them by His standards of love, does not mean that God is as small and petty as our prophet thinks God is.
Jared: Respectfully, it is not scripture that places LGBT members in a double bind, but rather interpretation of scripture that does so. I would argue we have misinterpreted our scripture in denying LGBT members their full place in our community.
Jared – how is being confined to a wheelchair or having a disease in any way comparable to being gay? While certain diseases and disabilities may preclude a person from marrying, it’s the person’s condition, not the church, that is the cause. By contrast, a gay person who is perfectly capable of entering into a committed loving marriage relationship with someone they are attracted to is forbidden by the church from doing so. So to answer your question, there isn’t really anything for us to learn or apply from disabled people to LGBT people.
Bryce: So even though I have never found anyone to marry, have no children, and live the law of chastity, which means celibate, for probably the rest of my life, my loneliness and pain are less significant that an LGBT person? B— S—.
Anon for This: Assuming you are straight, I would say that your loneliness and pain are similar. However, you have the comfort of knowing that your church and your God sanction your desire for marriage and children, that the way you love is valued and sacred. So while you and a gay person may both be lonely and in pain due to lack of marriage, you do not also carry the burden of your desire and love being condemned as broken (at the least) or disgustingly evil (at the worst).
Is the goal of this discussion to normalize homosexual activity, and to declare that purposeful homosexual activity is not sin?
Or is the goal to admit the sin, and yet try to be as accommodating as possible?
I have known many hetero single folks throughout life who have never married. Many suffer deep loneliness and have always yearned to find someone to marry. Every day they got up they hoped they’d meet that special someone soon.
Gay folks have the same loneliness and yearning. They, too, wish to find someone to love and marry, and raise a family with. Every day they get up they hope they will find that special someone soon. Wait…..many already have found that someone. I believe a committed, monogamous, faithful marriage is holy, whether the marriage is a straight or gay one.
I believe promiscuity, whether straight or gay is sin. I also believe it is sin to deny a moral and legal way to marry and have a family to those who are a small minority that wish to be in faithful, righteous marriages, and are perfectly capable of doing so. I don’t see how it can be immoral to be morally clean in any marriage. Study after study shows that those in marriages live longer, are healthier, happier, and are more stabilizing of society. Humans are pair-bonding mammals capable of great love, commitment, and faithfulness. It seems cruel to legally and morally deny 3-5% of us the rites and privileges of the blessings and joy of marrying, and serving together faithfully in our wards just like all the hetero couples do.
Anon – I feel great sorrow for people in your situation, and I in no way am saying that your resulting pain is less than that of a gay person. I have no way to judge that. But a gay person is not precluded from marriage based on lack of opportunity, but based on the church’s forbidding it.
Ji – I would say one of the goals of this discussion is to consider whether gay people who marry someone they are biologically and naturally attracted to, and live honorable and Christlike lives in every other way, should have a place in the Celestial Kingdom. Another goal might be to consider whether our church’s current positions on homosexuality, which have evolved significantly from past positions, may still be in error. Many of the past positions were clearly in error and have changed. That is one of the hallmarks of a living church.
The Weed’s recent post is a vivid reminder that mixed orientation marriages aren’t just a challenge for the LGBT+ partner; they’re also incredibly painful for the straight partner. As a gay man in a straight marriage, I have been a witness to the hurt that my orientation has caused my wife. I can’t help feeling responsible. I am glad the Church’s stated position is to no longer encourage marriages like mine. Now we just need the culture to catch up to this current teaching.
I have always wondered about the mantra of embracing our humanity, being true to ourselves, etc. It seems to me the purpose of the gospel is to embrace a path to godliness. that makes the church a very different place than other social clubs or organizations.
Sd – One of the questions I’m asking here is: Can two married gay people embrace the path to godliness that you speak of? By my observation, I would give a resounding YES, they can. I know many gay couples who are living godly, Christlike lives – and they are finding joy, fulfillment and sustenance from being a couple instead of being alone, just like any happily married straight couple I know.
Bryce,
I commend you for your writing skills — you are eloquent and persuasive. But one has to give some weight to church scripture, teaching, and long tradition, all of which suggest purposeful homosexual activity is sin — and recent church teachings declare homosexual marriage to be apostasy. Those matters are important in one’s decision-making processes, probably more for some and less for others.
So while I think I understand where you’re coming from, I’m unable to join you. I cannot so easily discard church scripture, teaching, and tradition. I cannot proclaim homosexual marriage to be a path to godliness. I don’t authoritatively declare the path; rather, all I can do is bear testimony of my understanding of the path.
Bryce, not to belabor the point, but according to the doctrines of the church, living a homosexual lifestyle is not godlike our Christlike. The doctrine is very clear about the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman. Changing that doctrine would essentially rip the eternal purpose out of the doctrine. Such a change would destroy the church as it goes against those promises about family which make the gospel so attractive. I don’t really see a way to square that circle.
It’s a difficult question. When someone in a same-sex marriage explains how happy they are, how deeply connected they feel to deity, how God is guiding them on a path back to him, are they lying? Are they misinterpreting their own feelings? Or are they better able to define their situation than someone outside themselves?
I’ve followed this post and comments with interest, thinking about Bryce’s commitment to the the church vs. having been born gay. When I draw on my life’s experiences I wonder how I would view the world if I were Bryce. Based on my life’s experience I would do my best to keep God’s commandments. That wouldn’t be easy. God has given men a powerful sex drive. I’m in my 8th decade, in good health, and I’m surprised at how strong the drive remains.
I think being celibate would be terrible, at least for me. I would do all in my power to find a women to marry a gay man and raise a family putting my faith in Heavenly Father. I wouldn’t focus on trying to change the doctrines of the church, I would use very means available to change myself. If I were successful that would be wonderful, If I failed, I could at least stand before Christ and tell Him I tried.
Every one needs to make their own choices. Of course, what I’ve written is my day dream of what I would do if gay.
I not going to judge others. God has given them agency and I would try to respect their choice.
Bryce, I wish you the best!
Ji – thanks for the continued dialog. Interestingly, there is no scripture that addresses same-sex marriage, and no latter-day scripture that even addresses homosexuality. There are of course the Leviticus and Romans passages, but lds church leaders rarely or never cite those scriptures in propounding the church’s position. The most recent resources on lds.org dealing with the topic do not cite these passages as a basis for the church’s position. I have written a detailed monograph on the history, development and basis of the church’s doctrinal position on homosexuality that was published in Dialogue this summer. You can read it here.
https://mormonlgbtquestions.com
Sd- can you explain how 2-3% of gay Mormons being allowed to marry and have the law of chastity apply equally to them (i.e., no sex before marriage, complete fidelity within marriage) would destroy the church?
As for whether members in such marriages are living godly or Christlike lives, you should get to know some gay people and see for yourself. I used to think much the same way you did, until I got to know many gay people including happily married gay people who are or have been members of the church. I have seen with my own eyes that they can live godly and Christlike lives in their marriages and that they are just as blessed by God as any happily married straight couple.
In Bryce’s original post, he asked wether ALL LGBT people have a place in the church, or just the ones that conform to follow current church doctrine.
I find it worth mentioning that not ALL people are going to fit in the church. Before you downvote me, think about it. People fit into the church by striving to be like Christ, by serving others, and following God’s (not the prophet’s) commandments. If I had no intention of striving to do these things I wouldn’t fit in the church.
I am not saying I equate gay marriage as violating these goals, because I don’t. I do believe there is a place in the church for gay members. However, I do think we need to be careful when we decide that something isnt wrong at all, anything goes. People are great at rationalizing.
Bryce, I need to come down for a bike ride with you to discuss this more fully, Only problem would be you would ride so fast, I wouldn’t be able to speak b/c I’d be gasping for air. LOL!!! I’ll just give my various thoughts on parts of your article. These are just my thoughts, not trying to be argumentative or condescending in any way, shape, or form.
1. Same sex couples could and should be active in church. They would just not be able to officiate, take the sacrament, give prayers, etc. Similar to a disfellowshipped or excommunicated member. This might be difficult for them b/c they may feel like they are being judged by the members of the ward. I would and hope most members would treat them the same as anyone else even though they couldn’t officiate. It depends on how loving and accepting the ward was.
2. Trans is difficult. Trying to change your God given gender on earth does not change it in heaven. If you were born a man, then you should go to priesthood and vice versa. Now, if this really made the person uncomfortable and the members of the R.S. or priesthood didn’t mind, then have the member attend the meeting where they feel comfortable. The born as woman trans man of course couldn’t be ordained. I wouldn’t have any problem with a trans man in priesthood with me. I would do all I could to help him feel part of the quorum.
3. Even though same sex marriage is the law of the land, it doesn’t make it moral in the eyes of God. I believe the scriptural references and modern day revelation declare homosexual intimate relationships a violation of the law of chastity. Modern day judges can’t nullify God’s law. Many things in the world are legal, but against God’s laws. Not trying to be condescending here.
4. Maybe having same sex attraction is a temporary part of this mortal life? We don’t know anymore that it isn’t than it is. I understand gay people’s feelings on this. But the reality is we just don’t know.
5. My last point. If being gay and in a homosexual relationship is so fulfilling, uplifting, decreases rate of suicide, etc, then why did Tom Christofferson leave his partner and return to full faith and fellowship in the church? Admittedly, I haven’t read his book but I’m going to order it tomorrow as I really have been wanting to read it.
In summary, I don’t have any answers to these issues. My understanding is very limited as a straight man. I have had several gay friends, non-LDS, that I really, really enjoy being with. One especially was like a kindred spirit and I just think the world of him. He felt like a brother.
So what I do know is that God told us to love everyone so I will continue to try and do my best, which often times isn’t very good.
Bryce, The simple answer is, No, I can’t explain why Father in his wisdom gave those commandments to his church. Since nobody can prove anything about religion (either way) we align ourselves with a belief system based on faith.
That said, let’s play “logical extreme”. Take the supposition that we are all granted an indulence. That’s what we’re talking about here, right? The ability to try to be christlike, except that we get to choose one thing where we don’t have to be?
I (and 2%-3% of the active ward members)choose necrocannibalism. Another 2%-3% choose ephebophilia. Another 2%-3% choose human hematophagy. Is anyone comfortable sitting in this comgregation? None of these are “harmful” to others, the other participants are willing or dead ;). Somehow this goes against the whole notion of becoming perfect, even as our Father-In-Heaven, wouldn’t you agree? What would be the result of exalting those beings that can’t supress thier basest urges? One wonders. That is Father’s purpose, to find and train those who can be exalted; who can be trusted to inherit his great powers.
So back to the question: if we allowed such indulgences, what sets us apart from any other club or organization that has man-made rules? The answer is we become nothing special, we destroy the very thing that sets us apart.
The supposition that I don’t know any gay people is sort of funny.
Anyway, Kirby had an interesting article today that goes right to what we’re talking about.
https://www.sltrib.com/opinion/kirby/2018/01/27/kirby-i-dont-feel-oppressed-in-the-mormon-church-hell-its-my-choice-to-attend-or-not/
Robert Evans, you said, “My last point. If being gay and in a homosexual relationship is so fulfilling, uplifting, decreases rate of suicide, etc, then why did Tom Christofferson leave his partner and return to full faith and fellowship in the church?“ I would caution against using on specific instance to draw any general conclusions about how fulfilling or uplifting homosexual relationships are or are not. That would be like me saying, “If heterosexual relationships are so fulfilling, uplifting, decreases rate of suicide, etc, then why did my friend Bob leave his wife and move to Utah?”
Rob – We need to have a bike ride! And I’m not that fast anymore, so we could have a good discussion. I really appreciate your desire to understand and ask questions. I’ll briefly address your points:
1) As I point out in this and in the last article, I don’t think most gay people are as concerned about being able to be a member in full fellowship as simply being able to come and feel welcomed without being looked down on, judged or gossiped about – and most importantly, without being labeled an apostate and sought out for a church court and excommunication when all they want is to go to church. That’s the big question given the existence of the exclusion policy on the books.
2) When you say a trans changing “their God-given gender,” you might be surprised about all the medical gender variations that exist in biology and in the chromosomes. As I have studied this, I have learned that for a minority of people, it’s not as clearcut as we like to think. So when you talk about gender, are you talking about biological sex? And would it be based on genitalia (what if there are two sets)? Chromosomes (what if someone is XXY, or they have XX but outward male genitals)? Brain/psychology – in other words, most people identify as a particular sex in their brain that matches their biological sex, but some people’s brains identify differently, which is known as gender dysphoria. I know a recently-transitioned trans woman who also recently served as a stake president and was the Church’s chief temple architect. Her story is very compelling that we just don’t know enough about this subject to make judgments without consulting medical experts and listening to trans peoples’ experiences.
3) I’m not making any kind of argument based on what the law says. I’m going much deeper than that. I want people to see with their own eyes, feel with their heart, and seek inspiration from God on these issues.
4) I agree that we don’t know if SSA is a temporary mortal thing. In the same way, I would argue that we don’t know if sexual relations, and gender, are eternal and will continue to exist in the next life in the same primitive way we experience them here in mortality. When we know so very little about what the next life will be like, is it really fair to deprive gay people of that which we in the heterosexual majority consider one of the most important parts of our earthly existence?
5) You will enjoy Tom C’s book. As you will read, he did not leave his partner, his partner chose to leave the relationship. Tom had naively hoped that they could still stay together in a physically chaste but emotionally loving relationship. In the end his partner said it wasn’t going to work.
Sd – the bizarre “indulgences” you mention are not ennobling, edifying, or godlike. And I don’t see how you can compare them to a mutually loving, respectful, edifying gay relationship. Explain to me why you believe a gay relationship is inherently less moral than or inferior to a straight relationship. You might enjoy reading Tom C.’s book or listening to his Mormon Stories podcast. He explains from his own experience that his relationship, and that of other gay people, was loving, edifying and worthy of respect.
Bryce, if we are creating indulgences, for any reason, who are we to say if it’s not enobling, edifying or in any other way deeply soul satisfying? Each person has different flaws and different desires. That’s the point isn’t it? That we don’t choose, God has chosen, and he said to forsake them all and be Perfect.
To the question of respect, different groups of people respect different things. Should we play logical extreme again? We believe the gospel is not a construct of man, so it respects a different set of values. If one believes that the gospel is just an earthly construct, who’s value can be changed on a whim by applying social pressure, then a) it’s not worth the trouble because the eternal rewards aren’t there, and b) why not find our form a club that suits one better? That’s what I don’t understand.
Sd – we don’t seem to be getting anywhere, but here’s my last stab at it. You seem to affirm that same-sex marriage is sinful because God said so. My position is that whenever we try to say “because God said so,” we have often gotten it completely wrong. If you look at history, many laws, doctrines and moral standards that were believed to be of God in a given time and place (e.g., slavery, status of women [as property of their husbands/fathers], suicide as equivalent to murder, blacks are spiritually inferior, etc.) have changed over time. In the famous words of Bruce McConkie: “Forget everything that I have said, or what President Brigham Young or President George Q. Cannon or whomsoever has said in days past that is contrary to the present revelation. We spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world.”
Maybe, just maybe, the church’s position on homosexuality – which is based on inherited cultural tradition and beliefs – is wrong. Certainly, actual observation of the fruits of the church’s position in the lives of gay people would seem to attest to that: despair, depression, suicide, loss of faith. Contrast that with the fruits of living in a loving committed same-sex relationship: love, joy, respect, mutual edification, self-sacrifice, etc. At the very least, these observations should cause us to be more humble about how we think God wants gay people to live.
Thanks for your thoughts Bryce, you give me hope that someday the LDS church may become a place to which I can return. I resigned my membership and had my name removed from the records because of the way LGBTQ people are mistreated. Bless you for your efforts and compassion.
Sometimes I agree with that other JR. Thanks, Bryce.
Bryce, I agree about not getting anywhere. You may be right, though it doesn’t make much sense to start living based on a hoped-for future prophecy. I suppose if the prophet came out and said that there’s gay marriage in the celestial kingdom, then the entire church would fall in line. As a rational person, I would then have to question the celestial kingdom, and all the other concepts of family the church taught, which would likely lead to my leaving. “Gay” doesn’t even cut it from a mortal scientific sense; it’s a self-limiting behavior. I don’t see how it makes any sense whatsoever in an eternal sense, at least as we understand it in the church. Such a prophecy would also require a major realignment of massive parts of the gospel doctrine, which would not be an easy task. I suspect that would be the demise of the church, as the vast majority of active members would leave, because there has never been any whiff that living a gay lifestyle is acceptable, or would ever be acceptable(quite the opposite). That is a distinct difference between Gay & the black question (we all knew it would happen one day, it was in the prophecies), or the polygamy question (acceptable when commanded by the Lord, suspended for now). So I guess that’s where we leave it. I still don’t understand why it’s the church that needs to change, rather than those that want to live an active gay lifestyle finding something more suited to them. Seems cock-eyed to me, sort of a self-inflicted misery.
“I still don’t understand why it’s the church that needs to change.”
A purely practical answer to this is that it is going to be increasingly difficult to find educated, western individuals willing to join / stay active in the church without some path towards God for LGBTQ members in relationships. Think of it this way… How many of us would currently be active if the priesthood ban was still in place or the brethren were still preaching against inter-racial marriage? Who would actually want to be a member of the Westboro Baptist church? (I live in a place where we’ve already got that reputation going.)
ReTx, just because some people are too enlightened to join or stay doesn’t mean the church will change. Assuming it believes it’s own doctrine, it would rather fade than capitulate. Historically that has been true. The end times prophecies foretell a massive apostasy as people become more concerned with their image than with the truth. These same prophecies also indicate that this time, the church will not be defeated, though many will be led astray. Seems strange to side with worldly mores in this battle, if one truly believes. But whatever.
Well that’s the thing. It’s not about being enlightened or worrying about one’s image or siding with worldly mores. It’s about care and compassion for one’s neighbor. It’s about finding greater truths in care and compassion than in doctrine.
That is what it really comes down to. There’s the wordly view of compassion (I want you to feel good), and father’s view of compassion as expressed through doctrine (I want you to share in the great experience I am having; Moses 1:39). The church aligns with doctrine. The world aligns aligns with self-gratification, validation and appeasement. They are in oppostion, and we each get to choose which direction we want to go. The whole two masters thing. If one seeks after the approval of the world, then one will hate the doctrine. Sorta what’s happening here, right?
So I’ll agree that the way you are characterizing your own view point is correct. The church aligns with doctrine and wants everyone to share in the great experience those in the doctrine are having. But you are mis-characterizing the other side. It’s not about self-gratification or appeasement (I’ll give you that validation is a gray area). That’s the way You may see it, but that’s not what is actually going on.
It’s about saying I support you in the great experience and path to God that God himself is leading you down, and I trust that He is leading you if you say so (because there is no way to judge if someone is lying or telling the truth about their own spiritual relationship to God). Or the flip side. It’s trusting that when someone says the following they are also right and honest and reflecting where God is leading them:
“I began to realize that there was actual science around this issue, and that that science actually made the statistical difference between gay people beginning to live a healthy life, and gay people exhibiting symptoms that, if not treated, would go from severe chronic depression/anxiety to psychosomatic illness to, eventually, death. For me, though, it all came down to the people I met with–the actual human beings who were coming to my office. They would come and sit down with me, and they would tell me their stories. These were good people, former pastors, youth leaders, relief society presidents, missionaries, bishops, Elder’s Quorum presidents, and they were . . . there’s no other way to say this. They were dying. They were dying before my eyes. And they would weep in desperation—after years, decades, of trying to do just as they had been instructed: be obedient, live in faith, have hope. They would weep with me, and ask where the Lord was. They would sob. They would wonder where joy was. As a practitioner, it became increasingly obvious: the way the church handled this issue was not just inconvenient. It didn’t make things hard for LGBTQIA people. It became more and more clear to me that it was actually hurting them. It was killing them.”
Compassion for me comes down to the two greatest commandments: Love God and Love Your Neighbor (as you would yourself like to be loved). Sometimes that equates to ‘I want you to fee good’ (or, I don’t want you to feel like your dying) as sometimes that is all we can offer. Sometimes it equates to ‘I want to help you down the path God is already guiding you on’ and ‘I want to hold your hand while you figure out where the path to God is found.’
A church that can’t be compassionate and responsive toward neighbors who are at the level of pain being expressed by members of our community like Josh Weed, is deeply unappealing.
I get the desire to be compassionate. I don’t understand how extending compassion and sympathy somehow becomes a demand for the gospel to conform to something it’s not. The gospel is about us changing to fit Heavenly Father’s will, not him accommodating our wishes. And that’s really the decision point; if we believe that Father knows what’s best for us and that the gospel as espoused by the LDS church reflects that, then we are free to join ourselves with that organization. If we believe that the LDS church doesn’t reflect that, then we are free to walk away, join another organization, or create our own where we feel more comfortable. Simple concept. No matter how many times I ask, I never get an answer from the “change the church” crowd as to why they don’t go build up something they are comfortable with, instead of tearing down the thing I believe in. Will you answer the question?
A lot of people did leave, including me. Glad I’m out when I posts like yoursis.
If that’s the case, why on earth do you waste your time dwelling on the past? Why not spend your time adding value to your new organization? Amazing.
It is pretty simple sd. You see the “gospel” as set in stone, God talking face to face with prophets on a weekly basis telling them exactly what to do and say, revealing his will to them in unmistakable terms, drawing the plan of salvation on a chalkboard in the temple for them, hand writing the temple ceremony for them with his own hand, giving them the conditions of exaltation and explaining what that exaltation means with all its powers, dominions, rights, privileges etc… You have good reason to believe that way, because that is the way we are taught that it happens.
Here in realville, the rest of us have come to the realization that maybe the communication lines between God and his prophets (past and present) are a little fuzzier than is claimed. Go read the King Follett discourse and see what Joseph had to say about the eternal nature and organization of spirits and compare that to what Brigham taught about the creation and even possible future destruction of spirits. They are two opposing viewpoints. Unfortunately Brigham had 33 years to push his doctrine on us and Joseph only had 2 years that he was openly teaching about men and women being exalted and sealed. If spirit children are begotten of evolved man-Gods and all their wives, how are animal spirits created? How are they organized? Do you really think a resurrected cow and a resurrected bull are up there having sex to create a spirit calf that can be born here? If God can organize these spirits, why can’t he organize human spirits in the same way? Are spirits co-eternal with God, or was Joseph Smith lying? If you take out the penis and the vagina, there really is no reason that gays can’t reach exaltation just like you. What is wrong with having this hope for them? How does it change your experience on earth and your relationship with your wife? Would heaven be worse if we got there and gay people who had developed Christ like attributes got the same reward as you and all your straightness? The idea of a nuclear family in heaven is silly anyway and should be depressing to any woman in the church. Go tell your wife that what she has to look forward to in heaven is popping out babies for eternity and see how she feels about it.
You find yourself in the majority right now and want everyone else who believes different to go find a different organization or start their own. If you find yourself in the minority in 20 years, are you willing to do the same? Are you going to leave your tribe, a church you have invested years, sweat, and money to help build up? Are you going to fight to have a voice?
Bryce has two gay kids and I admire that he is fighting for them. Those kids have to know they are loved. I am curious how you would treat your child/grandchild or react to your child/grandchild if they came out as gay?
“The gospel is about us changing to fit Heavenly Father’s will”
Absolutely. 100% yes! The gospel is about us changing. Here’s where you and I probably disagree though. In my life this is internal. It’s a day-by-day seeking of God and following that spirit of His that speaks to me. It’s putting my hand out into the darkness of uncertainty and trusting He will lead. In more LDS terms, it is trusting in personal revelation before trusting in anything else. I’m thinking you see ‘The gospel is about us changing” as more external (feel free to correct me) where it’s about conforming to the doctrine, policies, and behaviors as taught by the LDS church.
“If we believe that Father knows what’s best for us and that the gospel as espoused by the LDS church reflects that, then we are free to join ourselves with that organization. If we believe that the LDS church doesn’t reflect that, then we are free to walk away, join another organization, or create our own where we feel more comfortable. Simple concept.”
Well, that’s a very black and white dichotomy and I personally don’t live in or believe in such a black and white world. How about I believe God knows what is best for me personally and helps me to use the LDS church to find those things and uses other sources to help me find those things. The things in the LDS church that aren’t helpful on my path are sometimes teaching moments or moments for me to learn compassion on others’ viewpoints or personal foils or opportunities. Since I am a longtime stakeholder in the church, I would loose something by going elsewhere (and not the social bits as I’m as anti-social as possible). Mormonism is my spiritual language and home in many, many ways. Why would I leave that if aspects are still working? I don’t see why I can’t do Mormonism the way that fits my relationship with God. I don’t see why I have to do it the way that fits your relationship (or my neighbor’s or the prophet’s).
“why they don’t go build up something they are comfortable with, instead of tearing down the thing I believe in. Will you answer the question?”
I recognize that I am wasting my breath here and if you haven’t paid attention to any of the other people who have (endlessly) explained this, you are unlikely to hear me. But here it goes anyway… First, there are those who have been so hurt, damaged, angered by their experience in the church that they are absolutely trying to destroy it. I can’t speak for those people as to their reasons although being related to several, I can say that their need for revenge is somewhat understandable based on some of their experiences in the church. When the church (or its local/SLC leadership) punch someone in the face, that person tends to want to punch back.
As for my personal answer to the question. I see the question as framing things from your biases/opinions rather than those of the person who you are seeking to understand. You are saying people like me are trying to tear down the church. I see the restoration as being an ongoing evolution of thought and learning that is propelled forward by struggle. The human brain learns by experimenting. We try things. We get things correct. We screw up. We develop and evolve. Yes, I want change in the church. But not by destroying it. Rather I want it brought closer to God (a developmental journey that doens’t ever end. We aren’t ever ‘there;). I don’t know if you study LDS history much, but the one thing that becomes clear pretty quick is we’ve come a long, long way already and much of that has happened as we struggled, hit barriers, learned, and kept going. We can be better than we are. More compassionate. More open. More Christ-like.
So to summarize this (much longer than I intended) comment: I stay because I find God here. I seek change because we (including me, local leadership, church leadership, and everyone in between) are struggling humans, not Gods ourselves but are only on a journey in search of God. The church isn’t perfect. It has been changing for almost 200 years. The prophets are inspired, but far from infallible. We haven’t actually found God yet or perfected anything. If we had, we wouldn’t be here.
Sd, it’s hard for me to understand your question. Go start another church? You’re addressing people who have testimonies of the restoration. Who sustain prophets, seers, and revelators who hold the keys of a church led by Christ. I can only speak for myself but your question makes no sense because of that testimony.
Having said that, the Lords prophets can and do make mistakes. With regard to LGBTQIA issues, they have made serious, devastating mistakes that have literally destroyed lives. They are continually learning and have made steps to correct past teachings and are seeking more revelation on the subject. If they don’t even think they have all the answers currently, why should you?
Zach, ReTx, E,
I get it, I really do. People suffer and we want to help them. But Christ didn’t say that we change the doctrines of the church to relieve the suffering of those who stray. Strait is the gate and narrow is the way; go thy way and sin no more; etc… As far as the (yawn) accusation the I just don’t know gay people, am not in tune with their special struggle, haven’t read the one true book that will change my mind, haven’t had someone close decide to end it all, etc. ad nauseum, one wonders how that accusation can be bandied about when you don’t know me, my family or my circle of life.
So where does that leave us? One of the fundamental principles of the gospel is that we believe in revelation, from the Lord’s anointed servants. When it comes from them, then we believe and follow. That’s the theory at least (according to the Sunbeam teaching manual, my only source of information). Throughout the history of the church, when members decide to offer and follow their own modifications to doctrine, it never ends well. The scriptures might even offer examples of that (that’s the majority of what’s in them, according to the aforementioned manual).
Links to materials:
https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-1/lesson-28
https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-1/lesson-41
https://www.lds.org/manual/primary-1/lesson-43
Again, where does that leave us? It leaves me with following the Prophets, the only ones authorized to speak for the Lord. If the prophet leads us astray, that’s on him, not me, and I am confident that the Lord will account it that way. If you lead me astray, I am pretty confident the Lord won’t excuse me for following the whims of men, no matter how well-meaning. If the prophet starts making serious error, I am positive that the Lord will squash him like a bug. An ancillary point is that I can’t recall a single time when a social campaign changed a doctrine, though there are bucket-loads of examples of those campaigns leading people out of the church(as is happening now, on multiple subjects, all sides).
At the end of the day, we’re all free to believe what we want. We can even sit in church and cluck, strut and bray about how uninformed, uncompassionate, luddite or “Molly” our fellow members are. We can howl about supposed “mistakes”. We can try to cast blame on church leaders for individuals choices and actions. Happens on all sides. Such accusations don’t really bother me. When someone in class (or in family) offers an alternate doctrine (again, either side), I will correct them. If they get angry; If they decide to let it fester and boil and consume their lives, if they decide to waste their lives trying to destroy me or the church, that’s their choice, it’s no skin off my nose. That’s where my question about leaving comes from. If this isn’t making you happy, then find what does.
Well okay. But I feel like in stating your belief you ignored my answer to your question and reiterated how you see what my answer should be.
Here’s where I think we see things differently. You stated:
“One of the fundamental principles of the gospel is that we believe in revelation, from the Lord’s anointed servants. When it comes from them, then we believe and follow. That’s the theory at least (according to the Sunbeam teaching manual, my only source of information). Throughout the history of the church, when members decide to offer and follow their own modifications to doctrine, it never ends well.”
Which I take to understand that when members follow their own personal revelation and it disagrees with the Brethern’s thoughts, it’s false revelation. The only true revelation is that which agrees with the leaders. Which then equates (for me) to the leaders being infallible.
I stated: “It’s about saying I support you in the great experience and path to God that God himself is leading you down, and I trust that He is leading you if you say so (because there is no way to judge if someone is lying or telling the truth about their own spiritual relationship to God).”
By which I mean that when members follow their own personal revelation no one but Jesus can entirely judge whether or not it is real or the product of bias. And this is universally true of the smallest primary child to the prophet. This individual relationship with Jesus is the goal. So we have to keep trying to build it, knowing we will sometimes get it wrong but trusting that we will get it right too. The goal is not to follow the prophet. It’s to be inspired by the prophet to follow Jesus (personal revelation).
You say when we follow personal revelation over leadership revelation that ‘it never ends well.’ I honestly don’t know that I agree with that. It’s true in stories whose moral teaching is ‘follow the appointed leader,’ but lived experience says otherwise. People can leave the church and live wonderful, happy, full-filling, deeply spiritual lives. People sometime leave the church because God calls them to do so. For them it ends very, very well. (I’m related to some of these as well.)
P.S. “one wonders how that accusation can be bandied about when you don’t know me, my family or my circle of life.” If I made you feel attacked on this matter, you have my apologies. I genuinely didn’t mean to.
Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
A commandment from God that many people obeyed. Righteous people burned other people alive. Righteous people claimed to love those they torched and proved it by compassionately purifying with the flames of love. One had to look at the eternal scope of things.
Once some faithful got it in their head that people labeled witches needed to die, or ideas that the Earth was round and orbited the sun were heretical, there was no dissuading.
The gospel does not change on a whim. It cannot conform to something it’s not. They will not allow the church to be destroyed by those with different ideas( than theirs) about what it means to be a follower of Christ and loving our neighbors.
You can’t argue. They are too busy throwing men, women and all those children into the bonfire. No skin off their loving nose. Because, look–witches.
When my grandmother joined the church she was deeply troubled by the priesthood and temple ban, but she was baptized nevertheless. She wrote to Church leaders nearly every week to tell them that the Spirit had testified to her that Joseph was a prophet, the Book of Mormon was the word of God but that the priesthood and temple ban was fundamentally wrong and would be lifted. She told them that she wouldn’t have been baptized if she hadn’t received that witness. She recorded pages in her journal about the witness she had received so that no one would think she was crazy for joining a racist church. She knew it was wrong and she felt the ban was based on bad interpretations of the scriptures by Brigham Young and others. Her governor was George Romney and she admired his civil rights beliefs and she wrote to him too. Once he wrote to her to say he had received the same witness she described.
I’m at a similar place. I too am a convert. If ten prophets wrongly perpetuated a doctrine that impacted exaltation for 1/3 of the world’s population, why can’t they be wrong about exaltation for our LGBT brothers and sisters? They said they were wrong about the ban. They have been constantly adjusting their teaching about homosexuality because so much has been wrong and destructive. My favorite primary counselor and one of the Church’s greatest primary teachers left the church because 60 years of no companionship or romantic love or validation was destroying her. When she saw apostles rushing to remarry after the deaths of spouses because they needed love and affection and an end to loneliness, she said “You know what? Me too.” She still has a testimony of much of the Gospel. We talk often. But now she has found love and she has someone to spend her golden years with tending gardens, walking on beaches, and snuggling with when she is cold at night. It is hard for me to believe that this saintly sister who tenderly loved and taught our primary children for nearly 35 years who is committed to her spouse with fidelity won’t have a place with God. She would still be in primary if the Church would let her serve, but now she is deemed an apostate. Ex-communication seems ridiculous to everyone who knows her story. When I was weeping at losing her, the Spirit told me that God was happy for her happiness and that there was a place for her with Him. I believe her when she says the Spirit testified to her likewise. Now we can’t write to our leaders like my grandmother did, but I hope they somehow hear these stories and seek a revelation the same way Spencer W. Kimball did. And then we get an answer and a description of the revelation. We believe many great and wonderful things will yet be revealed.