By now most all of you will have read or heard about Dallin Oaks’ talk during the Saturday morning session of this past General Conference. I’m not going to link to the talk or quote it because it isn’t fit to be repeated here. It was hurtful, intolerant, and small-minded. However, I wish to provide some short commentary here because I think a response is in order, primarily to communicate to anyone harmed by his words that there are Christians who disagree with Elder Oaks while simultaneously taking seriously the theology of traditional Christianity.
As longtime readers of this blog are aware, I am a member of the Episcopal Church. I grew up LDS, with a long pioneer history going back to the beginning of Mormonism, but, following a long faith transition, during Holy Communion one morning in an Episcopal cathedral, was completely overwhelmed by the Holy Spirit. It was something for which I was quite unprepared and which set me on the course of baptism and confirmation within that tradition.
However, rather than bore you with the details of my faith transition, this post is about how the Episcopal Church has navigated issues regarding full inclusion of LGBT members. I’ll begin with a bit of history.
The Episcopal Church is the US church within the Anglican Communion, the third largest Christian communion, which numbers 85 million people all throughout the world, all of whom can trace their tradition back through the Church of England, which in turn is the English tradition of Christianity with ancient roots going back to the first couple of centuries of Christianity. The Episcopal Church is often derided by American Evangelicals as being some sort of liberal, pansy church, willing to bend theology to fit secularism. However, I think this is a mistaken view caused by the Anglican tradition’s willingness to hold the mystery of God as a mystery, being reluctant to define too precisely the divine. The Anglican via media, or “middle way” between Catholicism and Protestantism is a feature, not a bug. It allows varying interpretations to be held in tension, recognizing that there is tension and mystery, while holding to the basics found in the creeds. As a result, Anglicanism is a large tent, holding together fairly orthodox believers such as NT Wright, alongside less orthodox believers such as Marcus Borg. As a result, it is a tradition that has been willing to make space for varying levels of faith and belief, instead asking disciples to come together around the basics, letting liturgical prayer inform belief, and patiently letting the Spirit do its work.
Partly as a result of this open-minded approach to faith, the Episcopal Church is also fully affirming of LGBT people, who are fully welcomed, baptized (even their children), married, and ordained to all levels of clergy. LGBT people are not second class members in this church. Now, while this is true for the Episcopal Church as a whole, it is not the case in every Episcopal Church parish, for each diocese and parish can choose, ideally through a spiritual discernment process, whether to perform same-sex marriages or ordain gay clergy. While some parishes have chosen not to do so while remaining within the Episcopal Church, there have been some parishes which have chosen to leave the Episcopal Church altogether following the ordination of a non-celibate, gay bishop in 2003 (more on this later).
The Episcopal Church has also taken it on the chin a bit within the Anglican Communion due to moving forward with full inclusion of LGBT people on a quicker pace than many within the Anglican Communion are comfortable with. This is still a source of tension and debate within the Communion today.
I give this short introduction to mention that the process which started the Episcopal Church on this road 40 years ago was the slow realization, through lived experience informed of the Holy Spirit, that God was at work in the lives of our LGBT brothers and sisters. One cannot spend substantive time among our LGBT friends without seeing God working in their lives, or without experiencing the holiness within their lives and relationships. It is this lived experience – and the presence of the Holy Spirit in these experiences – which renders Elder Oaks’ proclamations unbelievable. One need not review the long line of claimed prophetic utterances of LDS Church leaders which were later relegated to the status of “speaking as man”, in order to question the credibility of Elder Oaks’ claims – one simply needs to spend time with the wonderful LGBT disciples of Jesus Christ to witness the working of the Holy Spirit in their lives. And if we take seriously the divinity of the Holy Spirit, we must take seriously the idea that God himself is at work in their lives [and this lays bare the heinous nature of the November 2015 policy, which seems calculated to ensure that such loving, spiritual examples will be absent from LDS congregations].
I mentioned earlier the ordination within the Episcopal Church of a non-celibate, gay man to bishop in 2003. That ordination caused a major upheaval within the Anglican Communion. In response, a commission was formed within the Anglican Communion to study the effects of the ordination upon the Communion. The report of this commission was called the Windsor Report. In 2005 the Episcopal Church issued a response to the Windsor Report, titled, “To Set Our Hope on Christ: A Response to the Invitation of Windsor Report Paragraph 135” (it’s a PDF). In the forward to the document, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church at the time said this:
The Episcopal Church in the United States welcomes the request made in paragraph 135 of the Windsor Report: “We particularly request a contribution from the Episcopal Church (USA) which explains, from within the sources of authority that we as Anglicans have received in scripture, the apostolic tradition and reasoned reflection, how a person living in a same gender union may be considered eligible to lead the flock of Christ.”
The Episcopal Church has been seeking to answer this question for nearly 40 years and at the same time has been addressing a more fundamental question, namely: how can the holiness and faithfulness to which God calls us all be made manifest in human intimacy?
Though we have not reached a common mind we have come to a place in our discussion such that the clergy and people of a diocese have been able, after prayer and much discernment, to call a man living in a same-sex relationship to be their bishop. As well, a majority of the representatives of the wider church—bishops, clergy and lay persons—have felt guided by the Holy Spirit, again in light of prayer and discernment, to consent to the election and consecration.
I have asked a group of theologians to reflect upon the question posed to the Episcopal Church in the Windsor Report.
…
The fruit of their efforts is set forth on these pages. As this paper is an explanation of how this action could have been taken by faithful people it makes the positive case. It does not attempt to give all sides of an argument or to model a debate. It is important to note that the paper does not attempt to replicate or summarize the conversations that have taken place in the church over nearly 40 years. The Appendix does describe these efforts.
I want to quote a bit from this document because it demonstrates a thoughtful response to how serious Christians can come to the conclusion that a church can be fully affirming to our LGBT brothers and sisters. I won’t quote too heavily from the document, which is thorough, but will quote here and there, as well as try to summarize some of the views within the document. Nevertheless, I cannot do the document justice. It is a humble and thoughtful attempt to explain the case for fully accepting and affirming LGBT members of Christ’s body. I find it compelling and persuasive, and urge you to read the document’s main body (of course, the history nerds can comb the Appendix, which outlines in more detail the history of the Episcopal Church’s wrestling with this issue).
Our response to this invitation can, of course, only be a small part in the larger process of listening throughout the Anglican Communion; and even what we can report in this essay barely begins to convey the conversation on same-sex relationships within the Episcopal Church over nearly forty years. We pray that, at the least, this explanation may foster a continuing desire for the whole people of God to walk together in the Anglican Communion, listening to all, especially to those who have often been unheard. Above all, we desire with you to place our whole trust in God the Holy Spirit to take what is truly of Christ and declare it to us (John 16:14).
…
Setting our hope on Christ and praying for his humility, we desire to converse with you about the difficult but wonderful blessing that the Lord has opened our eyes to see in our very midst: the gifts and fruit of the Spirit (Romans 12:6-6, 1 Corinthians 12:4-11, Galatians 5:22-23) in the lives and ministries of our members of same-sex affection. We know that what we say may seem surprising or unsettling to some of you who read this essay. Dear brothers and sisters in Christ throughout the Anglican Communion, we can scarcely begin to express our gratitude to God for permitting us to share fellowship with you over the many years of our life together, and we earnestly desire to walk in communion with you into God’s future. We would never willingly grieve or hurt you in any way. We wish only to describe something of what—through much perplexity and faithful struggle to serve the Good News of God in Christ—we have come to believe that God has been doing among us.
…
In the pages that follow, you will find a brief account of how, in good faith and in loving obedience to the saving Word of God, many Christians in the Episcopal Church have come to a new mind about same-sex affection, and of how this has led us to affirm the eligibility for ordination of those in covenanted same-sex unions.
In the document, Part One is the introduction, part of which I have quoted above; Part Two describes the process of how many members within the Episcopal Church came to discern holiness within the lives of gay and lesbian members, as well as how they have read the scriptures, particularly those scriptures that seem to challenge such a view; Part Three describes the process by which the Episcopal Church attempted to discern God’s will on the matter; and Part Four makes the case for the ordination of married, same-sex clergy.
Here are some interesting quotes from Part Two:
For almost forty years, members of the Episcopal Church have discerned holiness in same-sex relationships and, have come to support the blessing of such unions and the ordination or consecration of persons in those unions. Christian congregations have sought to celebrate and bless same-sex unions because these exclusive, life-long, unions of fidelity and care for each other have been experienced as holy. These unions have evidenced the fruit of the Holy Spirit: “joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control” (Galatians 5:22-23). More specifically, members of our congregations have seen the fruit of such unions as sanctifying human lives by deepening mutual love and by drawing persons together in fidelity and in service to the world.
Some of our members have come to recognize such holiness in the lives of Christians of same-sex affection, and in their covenanted unions. Their holiness stands in stark contrast with many sinful patterns of sexuality in the world. As a report to the Lambeth Conference of 1998 stated very well: Clearly some expressions of sexuality are inherently contrary to the Christian way and are sinful. Such unacceptable expressions of sexuality include promiscuity, prostitution, incest, pornography, pedophilia, predatory sexual behavior, and sadomasochism (all of which may be heterosexual or homosexual), adultery, violence against women and in families, rape and female circumcision. From a Christian perspective these forms of sexual expression remain sinful in any context (Called to Full Humanity, Section 1 Report, p. 16).
Christians of same-sex affection in the Episcopal Church have shown themselves entirely at one with their fellow Christians in rejecting such sinful expressions of sexuality and in seeking to live, in common with all Christians, lives blessed by the transforming power of Christ. Some members of our Church have, over many years, experienced these manifest gifts of holiness and authentic desire to live the Gospel life among our fellow members of same-sex affection. We believe that God has been opening our eyes to acts of God that we had not known how to see before.
The authors of the document then go on to compare the church’s situation to that of Peter and his companions in Acts 10, who were surprised that the Gentiles in Cornelius’ family had already been welcomed by God and manifested the fruits of the Holy Spirit, which they had already received. Through this process, the eyes of Peter and his companions were opened to the truly universal grace of God’s work among all people.
The authors then move to a discussion of the early church’s difficulty in discerning how Gentiles would be included within the church, which had up until that time been primarily Jewish in nature (even viewed by the Romans as a sect within Judaism).
There are many accounts of the inclusion of the Gentiles in the New Testament, but it seems useful here to focus on one account (Acts 10-15) that has been important to Christians in the Episcopal Church and elsewhere who have sought guidance
from the Holy Spirit about God’s will for us in these matters relating to same-sex affection.Together with the disciplines of prayer and the sacramental life, we have sought the voice of the living God by paying attention to God’s Word to us in the Scriptures. We have been led to notice possible analogies between the experience of the early Church and our own situation. We have assumed that God’s word is living and active (Hebrews 4:10-12); that it is effective and prospers in that for which God sent it (Isaiah 55:10-12); and that it is like fire and like the hammer that breaks the rock in pieces (Jeremiah 23:29). We asked God to show us whether we were to welcome Christians of same-sex affection into our midst and to invite them to share leadership of the Church with us or not. We asked God’s help in discerning through the power of the Holy Spirit whether we ought to understand our situation in analogy with the experience of the early Church regarding the inclusion of the Gentiles. We began to study Acts 10-15 with great care.
…
In summary, these reflections on the Scriptural witness to early Christian life highlight two crucial features of our tradition. First, we have always believed that God opens hearts and minds to discover yet deeper dimensions of Christ’s saving power at work, far beyond our limited power to conceive it. Second, tradition tells us that by God’s grace we ought not to let discouragement at disagreements jeopardize our common work for God’s mission in the world. If God the Holy Spirit can hold the early followers of Jesus Christ together, even when they disagreed over so central a question as who might come within the reach of the Savior’s embrace, then surely we must not let Satan turn our differences into divisions. May we hold them all the more humbly before Christ, that he may bless our proclamation of the Gospel in all the many and differing places and conditions of the whole human family.
The authors then move on and address specific scriptures that seem to oppose their position.
In addition to giving a constructive account of the hope that is within us (1 Peter 3:15), built on biblical foundations, we know that honoring the biblical text, and honoring all our brothers and sisters in Christ who read Holy Scripture with us, requires us to honor all of the biblical texts. We take seriously the biblical passages that seem to oppose our position.
I won’t dive into a discussion of the authors’ arguments around the biblical texts which seem to prohibit homosexual relations, not only in the interest of brevity for a blog post (I urge you to please read the document – again, it is here – it’s a PDF and the scripture arguments begin on page 20 of the document), but largely because to do so would distract from my primary argument, which is that our lived experience and recognition of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the lives of LGBT people discredits the arguments of Elder Oaks. LGBT members are every bit as capable of leading lives of holiness, graced with the presence of the Holy Spirit, as can you or I. And if we take seriously the divinity of the Holy Spirit, then we have to conclude that God is directly at work in their lives. To deny that work is to deny lived experience and the direct work of God.
In short, when our LGBT brothers and sisters are given the opportunity to fully participate within a religious community, the Holy Spirit testifies to the love and grace our Father has for them exactly as they are. And, as the scribe in Mark 12 says, to love God completely and love one’s neighbor as oneself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices.
Update – Oct. 11, 2018
I’ve closed comments for now. Lynnette’s comment (at the end of the comment thread) was perfect and I feel like it was a great exclamation point on the post. Her comment demonstrates that the Holy Spirit is at work among LGBT disciples and the communities supporting them. It is incumbent upon other communities to recognize that and accept the work God is doing among us.
Wheat & Tares 
Cody…this whole post was amazing. The last line ..”to love God completely and love ones neighbor as oneself is more important than all burnt offerings and sacrifices “says it all. I don’t need to beat anyone over the head ( metaphorically) with my Bible and throw scripture or doctrine around . I just need to offer love and compassion and understanding. I pray that I can be this person every day .
Hi Alice S! Another alice here.
Thank you for this post, Cody, and for putting it just that way.
I’ve had wonderful gay friends in my life. People with hearts as big as the Western skies despite the stresses and dangers of being gay back in the 7os and 80s. Men and women — many of them teachers — that I felt as lucky to have in my kids’ lives as in my own.
One very dear friend hung himself on a college semester break when he told his father who scorned and rejected him. That was about 50 years ago and my life is still diminished without him.
Why Oaks can’t let a little love in his heart I can not understand. But I feel fortunate for the lived experience that allows me to see beyond his hateful teaching. It’s been my mission for these years to do a little something to lessen the chance of someone else coming upon the lifeless body of someone they love. My friend was discovered by his twin brother (who is also gay but who saved his own life by leaving his family).
By chance, my husband and I are beginning to wonder if our 8yo grandson may, in time, find out that he’s wired gay as well. Statistically, it had to happen one day, one generation in our large family. Words can’t express how relieved and grateful I am that my kids have never had that prejudice. I can’t bare to think that one day my grandson may encounter it. But, when that ugly time comes, he will be filled with the love and acceptance that I hope will cushion the blows and enable him to recognize that small hearts wound themselves far more than they do their intended targets.
If only Heavenly Father could make that as clear to the Brethren as he has to the growing number of his Saints.
Two comments:
Let the church say amen!
Thanks be to God.
When the Nashville statement came out, I found myself looking a little into responses, which lead me to read that statement on human sexuality by the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA). I hope I am not misrepresenting anything, but one of the main conclusions I saw in their statement was, “Although at this time this church lacks consensus on this matter, it encourages all people to live out their faith in the local and global community of the baptized with profound respect for the conscience-bound belief of the neighbor. This church calls for mutual respect in relationships and for guidance that seeks the good of each individual and of the community. Regarding our life together as we live with disagreement, the people in this church will continue to accompany one another in study, prayer, discernment, pastoral care, and mutual respect.” (http://download.elca.org/ELCA%20Resource%20Repository/SexualitySS.pdf ). In short — acknowledge that there are good Christians on all sides of this issue, and that it is more important to worship and serve together than to draw bright lines around good and bad. I wish we did better at acknowledging the disagreements within our own faith community on this issue, and did more to encourage all to worship with us without drawing such bright lines around these hotly contested issues.
I struggle with understanding what Pres Oaks is attempting to accomplish, when he repeatedly throws flaming swords of death at gay and single people. I simply don’t get it. Is he attempting to discourage any of us from becoming gay? I think nature has a way of doing that to some of us. The rest are who they are – his inflammatory rhetoric isn’t going to change their minds. Is he simply calling out what he views as a specific sin, over and over again? I think we all get it by now, Pres Oaks. We absolutely know how you feel. We knew before conference too. That type of constant barrage of judgement and hate do more to please Satan than any misuse of the church name does. IMHO
For those interested in how theologians deal with gay scriptures, see my post from 2012: https://mormonheretic.org/2012/12/26/re-evaluating-gay-scriptures/
Most scriptures are taken out of context that justify calling gay sex an abomination, and this impressive list of theologians make the case quite compellingly, IMO.
Here’s some food for thought. There’s two places of prohibition of being gay in the scriptures.
One in Leviticus which is from the P source which in my opinion was written in the time of Jeremiah since he alludes to it in a few places. And when Jeremiah is alluding to it, it’s not in a good way. “The lying pen of the scribe”
(Richard Friedman talks about it in greater detail).
The second is in the writings of Paul who at the same time is telling people to be celibate and not marry if possible, which is contradictory to Section 49:15 and Jewish Tradition. Not to mention the fact that when he is talking about, he’s referencing the prohibitions written in Leviticus.
Interesting sketch of how another church goes about reconsidering its tradition and doctrinal position, Cody. Within the LDS Church, this sort of back-and-forth discussion only happens within senior leadership circles, behind closed doors. Public discussion is not desired or welcome. Rather than making the obvious suggestion that maybe LDS leaders ought to read and muse over the Windsor report (maybe they have, but I doubt it), maybe what we could learn is how to have a more open and more public dialogue about various issues. Maybe if we call public dialogue “counseling together” it will be less threatening to an LDS audience.
I would imagine the Brethren consult before they write their GC addresses. When they did they must have anticipated that the reaction was going to be sobered if not outright offended.
Could this be why Nelson called for the social media ban? After all, it was in the Women’s Session that they unloaded their ugliest addresses. Perhaps they thought if women weren’t sharing their reactions more women would feel isolated in their anguish.
I love these headlines: “Oaks’ Fight Against Lived Experience”
Really, it makes no sense. My lived experience includes hiking in Iceland. I had no idea anyone was going to fight against my lived experience. How does one fight against a lived experience? It is TOO LATE if it is already lived. Perhaps now would be a good time for my social media fast; maybe a couple of hours.
alice, this is what the darkest parts of me are afraid of.
well, media fast lasted about two minutes.
“that there are Christians who disagree with Elder Oaks while simultaneously taking seriously the theology of traditional Christianity.”
Mormonism is not traditional Christianity. I sense a desire by some to make it more similar, hence “ministering”, but that similarity is rather thin.
Andy writes “The second is in the writings of Paul who at the same time is telling people to be celibate and not marry if possible”
Please remember that Paul wrote this in answer to a question that was put to him. As we do not have that question, the answer is like playing “Jeopardy” where you have the answer but not the question! Modern revelation says the question pertained to missionaries; it is better for missionaries to be celibate, but missions are not supposed to be life-long, except for apostles, and they should be married as otherwise to be tempted (as we see with Catholics whose priests are supposed to be lifetime celibate but that’s really hard).
1 Corinithians 7: 1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Under what circumstances is it good for a man to not touch a woman?
5 Defraud ye not [withhold affection] one the other, except it be with consent for a time [such as Fast Sunday], that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again [much libido!], that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency [celibacy].
Thank you, everyone, for the comments so far.
@mormonheretic: Thanks for sharing your link. Indeed, the very few scriptures which seem to prohibit homosexual relations are flimsy evidence, if one reviews the scholarly commentary on them. The authors of the document I linked to do a wonderful job of discussing each of those scriptures.
This is a very good point: “The authors of the document then go on to compare the church’s situation to that of Peter and his companions in Acts 10, who were surprised that the Gentiles in Cornelius’ family had already been welcomed by God and manifested the fruits of the Holy Spirit, which they had already received. Through this process, the eyes of Peter and his companions were opened to the truly universal grace of God’s work among all people.”
God casts his spirit far and wide, upon the sinners and upon the perfect. Those who believe in a priesthood of all believers are also not authoritarian by nature; your authority is neither more nor less than mine, and thus any church so built must be by consensus, and that consensus will ebb and flow like the tide.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is authoritarian, it is not a priesthood of all believers, and while there still seems to be a bit of ebb and flow, rather less as compared to other Christian churches. Thus it is structurally impossible for COJCLDS to ever resemble Anglican or Episcopalian. It attracts a different kind of believer and repels others.
I readily admit that a great many churches are, on average, friendlier than Mormon congregations depending on where you are. The socially dominant religion in any area tends to have the same problems as Utah Mormons. Catholics in Baltimore, for instance; or Lutherans in Minneapolis; where children are born and raised into it and have not chosen but for social reasons remain in a church they don’t embrace.
The Amish, if I remember right, does not require or allow membership until the age of 26, thus able to make this choice with adequate knowledge of the sacrifices and blessings that come with that choice. I baptized my children at 8, obtained visions for each during their confirmation blessings, and foresaw that each would not remain active in my church; but had other purposes in life. These visions give me assurance that it is “not my fault” that they choose other paths; it was foreseen that they would choose other paths.
Straight is the way and narrow the gate that leads to one thing and wiggly the way and wide the gate that leads to other things. God wants to save everyone; but from what fate and to what purpose is likely to be highly variable.
He’s not really trying to accomplish anything, Camsten. He’s just a bad person.
Michael 2, that is your rebuttal? Quibbling with the title of the post.? If you don’t yet recognize how some people seem to always to seek to belittle, demean, or otherwise invalidate the experiences that another individual has, then I suggest you spend a good long time slowly reading and rereading both Oaks’s message and what Cody has written here.
If you are not LDS anymore, why do you care what Oaks says?
President Oaks said in his Conference talk:
“God’s love is so great that … He has provided a destiny of glory for all of His children… The purpose of the Church of Jesus Christ is to qualify His children for the highest degree of glory, which is exaltation or eternal life. For those who do not desire or qualify for that, God has provided other, though lesser, kingdoms of glory.
“Anyone who understands these eternal truths can understand why we members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints think as we do and do as we do.
“…we esteem all mortals as children of God—our brothers and sisters—and we want to share our spiritual and temporal abundance with everyone
…”Our positions on these fundamentals frequently provoke opposition to the Church. We consider that inevitable.”
These words do not seem “hurtful, intolerant, and small-minded” to me. No matter what choices anyone makes in this life, they are assured salvation within the degree of glory that they are most comfortable with.
Lily, there are many non or ex-LDS people who have a vested interest in the opinions of mormon church leaders. Most people who are leaving or have left the LDS church have friends, family members, and loved ones who remain in the church, and who are directly affected by the church’s doctrines and policies. It’s the most natural thing in the world for those people to be concerned about the people they care about who are still in the church. Anyone who lives in the State of Utah not only has friends and loved ones in the church, but lives in a community whose social and political attitudes are at the very least heavily affected, and in many instances directly dictated by the mormon church. Those people have every reason to care about the positions taken and perpetuated by church leaders. Additionally, anyone who has to live on the earth, where we’re trying our best to have a community where everyone can live in peace and harmony according to his or her own conscience, has an interest in a person at the head of a group with 16 million members, spreading hate and bigotry at every opportunity.
Lily, every ex-Mormon has a complicated and often painful relationship with the church. “Why do you care?” always has a good answer. I don’t know what Cody’s answer is, but he has one.
For my part, I have a lesbian daughter who still believes, who is still being bullied by the church.
I know what you’re trying to do: invalidate Cody’s points by casting him as an outsider. That’s not smart. Outsiders see things about us that we’re blind to. Sometimes those things are uncomfortable, but really good to know.
Well said, brjones, but it’s bigger than that. The church has demonstrated itself to be aggressively pursuing a political agenda to marginalize gay Americans. They’ve done it in several states and I’m sure they are lobbying nationally. They are causing suicides in UT and the mountain states and more than likely in other states with smaller concentrations of Mormons as well. If left unchecked they will extend their harm as far as they’re able.
It’s important to highlight the homophobia and neutralize it. Lives are very much at stake. And that should matter to everyone — practicing Mormon, former Mormon and non-Mormon.
It was an honest question and not intended to be malicious. I couldn’t care less what the Pope says and I know of many religious that openly preach that Mormons are going to Hell. I don’t care. I really don’t understand why people worry so much about what Mormons believe. If I ever decided the LDS Church was not the place for me I would leave and never look back.
As for preaching ideas you don’t like – get used to it. Its the world you live in. People are allowed to believe things you don’t like.
Why the rancor, Lily?
You asked a question. You got answers. Isn’t that the way it’s supposed to work?
And I guess you could say that just as “people are allowed to believe things you don’t like, ” people are allowed to attend to and comment on things in ways that you may not approve of, no?
Lily, paying attention to the Pope is a wise move. It’s part of being an informed citizen of the world. Also, I would humbly suggest that you have no idea what you would do if you leave. Your strong stance against it suggests that you haven’t really thought it through–as well, it reveals that you most likely haven’t had many conversations with people who struggle. Finally, it might be obvious why such people would not feel safe struggling in your presence. A loss for everyone that it might be so.
alice, to be fair, I did ascribe motives. It wasn’t just Q&A at that point.
But I haven’t ever heard or read “If you’ve left why do you care?” without the intent behind it being “Leave us alone” or “I don’t have to listen to you,” so I think I’m on fairly solid ground.
Lily, if a person “could care less” about the the previous popes’ knowing indifference to the rampant child rape being perpetrated by priests in the church they led, I think that says something about that person.
And if your point was that people who don’t like what Oaks says should just get used to it, then you should have just said that, as opposed to asking what is revealed to be a loaded and, frankly, dishonest question.
Cody, thanks for this break down of Anglicanism’s evolving view on homosexuality. It’s really instructive.
Excellent post—I appreciated it very much. I worry about the damage that this talk and others like it will do, but I also have hope for change in the future. Society is changing and eventually the LDS church will have to change with it or lose many more members. I hope my generation will be part of the change, but if not, my children’s certainly will be. Kids are being raised differently and they will not tolerate this stance when they become the leaders. That gives me hope for the future.
It’s interesting to me that Pres. Oaks’ own grandson is gay. I went to high school with him and he is an extremely talented and good person. It’s surprising that Pres. Oaks’ own “lived experience” hasn’t softened him. It’s sad, really, because he is missing out on the true Christian experience, in my opinion, and probably alienating his own family.
Sorry, I’ve been on planes most of the day. I appreciate the comments and conversation.
@Lily: I am going to assume you asked your question in good faith. I think it is a pretty good question that could probably be phrased better, but I am interested in Oaks’ comments for several reasons.
1) I grew up LDS and live in Utah, so a lot of my life is affected by LDS culture and the actions of LDS Church leaders.
2) As a result of my LDS upbringing, I have many friends and much family in the LDS Church. I like to be apprised of what is happening in that world so I can converse with them about something that I know is deeply meaningful to them. I love them and want to remain involved in their lives, of which the LDS Church is a large part.
3) I still enjoy good talks and thoughtful material, regardless of the source. There is much good thought and many spiritual, thoughtful people in Mormonism. Why would I ignore them? Just as I read the Bhagavad Gita, I would still refer to the Book of Mormon or listen to a talk from Elder Uchtdorf, for example.
I hope that helps you see that it isn’t all an either-or proposition. It’s better to love and support others, and expose myself to good ideas, than it is to let anger or despair fester and win out.
Yet missing from Cody’s rant was what had happened to the Episcopal Church as they’ve liberalized.
They’ve shrank.
Become weaker.
Spiritually emaciated and so forth.
Kkkklin. If the LDS church were as open with finances and statistical reports as the Episcopal church is, I suspect we would learn that the LDS church is also suffering some from shifts in how people relate to religion. Without as much openness we are left to rely on the statistics and anecdotal evidence that are available. Those numbers point to a dramatically decreased retention rate over the last 30 years. As for my own experience, I have lived in 6 different wards during my life. Those wards have been spread out across the country, in every time zone within the lower 48. Within the last 5 years, all 6 of those wards have experienced a ward boundary change resulting in the merging of two wards. Unless my experience is extraordinary, that leads me to believe that Mormonism is contracting as well as other religions.
@Kkkklin: Your glee at the struggles of another church says a lot more about you than it does the Episcopal Church.
If you take a look at relevant studies (peer reviewed, statistically relevant, etc.), you’ll see that every denomination is experiencing decline. Some of the more fundamentalist type denominations have staved off some of the decline through high birth rates (they tend to focus on large families), maintaining a large missionary force, or creating a culture where it is socially very costly to leave. The LDS Church ticks all those boxes. However, they are experiencing significant declines now, too. In addition, as Troy Cline mentioned, the LDS Church plays fast and loose with membership numbers and is secretive with statistics, while other denominations are open with such things.
I’d also point out that the Episcopal Church’s membership decline has leveled off to a great degree. It is no more dramatic than other denominations. Stats from the late 1990’s and 2000’s show an exodus of some members who had felt they could no longer be in communion with the greater church as a result of consecrating gay clergy and sacralizing gay marriage. I mentioned in my post that there were parishes and dioceses that left altogether, forming the Anglican Church of North America (ACNA), which is not part of the Anglican Communion.
Finally, I disagree with you that the measure of spiritual health is directly correlated with membership numbers. I see a vital, healthy spiritual life in the parishes I have visited (and particularly the one I attend). Were membership numbers a measure of spiritual health, Mormonism would be in real trouble as it represents a fraction of a percent of the earth’s population, is getting its butt kicked by the Seventh Day Adventists (which was started later), and has pretty bad activity rates. Still, none of that is exciting or neat. There is reason for concern all around, partly because of attitudes like yours, which cause the church itself to become the largest stumbling block to faith.
@Angela: Hopefully other religious traditions can learn from both the successes and missteps of the Anglican Communion and Episcopal Church. Heaven knows mistakes have been made by people on all sides of the issue, and it would be great if other religious traditions don’t repeat them.
After thoroughly reading all of the new testament teachings of Jesus Christ and the example he set, I find it difficult to not love one another and to pick up a rock and stone anyone for any sin that they live their life being a sinner of. I walk away from reading the New Testament in knowing that I shouldn’t judge anyone or I shall be judged. Jesus said he is here for the sinner, not for the holy person. There is no lesser or greater sin. Jesus chastised the religious leaders of all religions for their way of controlling the people of the land. God gives us our free agency to choose how we want to live our lives and that he still loves us. I know I can’t love God enough to get myself into heaven. I know that in order to get into heaven, everyone must believe that Jesus Christ came here to earth to be a sacrifice to God for the sins of all mankind that lived since Adam and Eve up until God’s Day of Judgement that is yet to come. Life in a nutshell. Have I missed anything?
If Dallin Oaks wasn’t doing so much damage….I would probably feel a bit of sorrow for him (in his old age and personal obession with homosexuality). But, in the position he occupies…and the bully pulpit which has been given to him (by his close friend, President Nelson) I’m just embarrassed for him – and us – who have been and are part of the Mormon Community. When he passes from this earth…perhaps he should be buried next to Boyd K. Packer; our other great “watcher at the gate”.
These two birds perched on the top branch of the tree Mormon are somewhat unique. Both were selected to be apostles by then third counselor in the First Presidency Gordon B. Hinckley who thought the needs for additional leadership could not wait for a few more years until the death of the sitting prophet; the previous practice of selecting apostles when the prophet (and both counselors in this case) was mentally incapacitated. Especially since next in line to be the prophet was the right-wing crank E.T.Benson and it was anybody’s guess who he might select, before he lapsed into relative harmless dementia.
Both of these new apostles had much greater accomplishments in the world. One a top surgeon, the other a top lawyer. (It is debatable whether excellence in these fields is conductive to ecclesiastical leadership). Most previous apostles either had stronger kinship connections and/or more experience in the mid-upper echelon of church leadership. Expectations for both ran unusually higher than for most other apostles and silenced any criticism Hinckley might have faced for the unusual decision. They both soon humbly blended into the rank and file of the Q12.
Both later lost their first spouses to death, the mothers of their large families. With demanding careers of their husbands and not insignificant church callings, both of these spouses had to have been the ones holding down the fort at home. Both apostles then married women decades younger than them after a suitable waiting period. Both are sealed to their second spouses who had not previously married and who had made the best of what probably appeared to be perpetual singlehood with career accomplishments. The perspective of the “faded rose” or the “spinster” in Mormondom who never married (until late) is unique in this circle of upper echelon where marriage and family is all and everything to their women folk.
It is my opinion, after having seen the effects of old age on both my parents, my spouse’s parents, my grandparents and my spouses grandparents and many of the members in my a large extended family in which I grew up- that people the ages of these two top leaders do not function the way they did when they were younger. In fact we spent the last weekend staying with a delightful 91 year old woman who is in great shape but has her moments and her quirks of old age. The spouses of these elderly men undoubtedly have enormous influence over them, along with their adult children and their more vigorous colleagues in their positions of leadership.
I would not look just to the individual for responsibility for what is being done at this time, but to those to whom they listen and depend upon.I also do not think Henry B. Crying is in any better condition to drive the bigger agenda, he is just trying to make it through the next day too.
Put this saddle on the right horse.
I’ve mentioned before that we have happily married gay neighbors who have adopted 3 children from foster care. My lived experience with them has been one that has opened my eyes over the past 10 years. There is so much love. It is real, not counterfeit. We babysit for each other. We carpool. When I was sick they brought over meals and vice versa. My family is welcome at their church, but they aren’t welcome at mine. It breaks my heart! My children are growing up with families like this. They have gay friends at school. Two children in our ward came out as gay in the past year, and their families are now spiritually tortured. One large family has stopped attending in order to support their 15 year old. We also have a sister who unbeknownst to her married a gay man. He was trying to remain LDS and lived a lie. Back in the 90s that was the advice he received. He couldn’t stick with it and he left. It is heartbreaking. I just wish that our prophets and seers had been at the forefront of scientific understanding so our own LGBT brothers and sisters (and all of us really) hadn’t been tossed to and fro with the ever changing position on homosexuality. I appreciate learning how other churches have handled it. We should look for truth where we can find it.
Mike writes: “Put this saddle on the right horse.”
Do you let someone else choose your horse? Pick a horse that you LIKE and get on with it.
brjones writes “Most people who are leaving or have left the LDS church have friends, family members, and loved ones who remain in the church”
Indeed. It closely resembles a divorce and can be difficult for persons that are friends to both of the divorcing parties. The people getting divorced sometimes demand allegiance; choose one or the other, you cannot remain friends to both as either or both will consider you a traitor.
“has an interest in a person at the head of a group with 16 million members, spreading hate and bigotry at every opportunity.”
As I said, persons in this divorce demand allegiance and cast aspersions on the former spouse. In this instance, you cast a statement on what is marriage as “spreading hate and bigotry”, which in my mind dilutes instances of someone actually doing that. I appreciate clarity; waffling on important issues can lead to misunderstanding and even greater grief down the road.
My good friend of 40 or so years demanded an acceptance of his new lifestyle that I was unwilling to agree to. In all other aspects he was gracious, friendly and charitable; but his new lifestyle demands allegiance to his beliefs and he cannot tolerate that mine have not changed. So, we are “divorced” figuratively speaking. By that I mean we don’t try to pretend that nothing has changed, and we also don’t continue to do word battle over who is wrong. I like him a lot; but he is on a different road now. Perhaps the roads will rejoin in the next life, but it is unlikely in this one.
“but his new lifestyle demands allegiance to his beliefs and he cannot tolerate that mine have not changed.”
I’m curious as to how his demands for allegiance manifests itself?”
Sometimes, I think we underestimate the power of just listening and the art of validation, which is often misunderstood .
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pieces-mind/201204/understanding-validation-way-communicate-acceptance
Lois asks “I’m curious as to how his demands for allegiance manifests itself?”
Thank you for asking! I didn’t want to write more than seemed appropriate absent an expression of interest.
To maintain his privacy and dignity, I will necessarily be a bit vague.
He had invited me to supper with him and his partner. I was curious to evaluate his partner; it is hardly any different with someone getting married and you have known that someone for a lifetime and it looks a bit suspicious on the surface — partner is 20 years younger, unemployed, looks a bit like a “gold digger”. Friend had been married, many children, large house and wonderful family — in fact, it was the most perfect family I have ever known, and I watched those children grow from babies. I was almost an uncle to them. Not a hint of same sex desire by anyone.
Wife dies, children are grown, now with families of their own, and scattered to the winds. He’s all alone in a huge house in unHappy Valley.
Along comes a younger man. The house is sold and off they go on world tours. I get a postcard is all; them married in front of a huge poster in San Francisco of a nearly naked man, a Calvin Klein advertisement about three storys high. His new man has a profoundly possessive stance holding onto Friend; as in, “Look what I’ve got”. Friend just wants a friend, doesn’t want to be alone in the world. In his 60’s there’s not a lot of libido anyway.
They return to the states. Friend invites me to supper. Then suddenly I am dis-invited. Why is that? I don’t know but Friend starts asking questions and laying out a theology that is very unlike the man I have known for 40 years that for all those years he was wrong and now finally he has found truth, love and holiness! I come to the conclusion that his new man wants me out of the picture and is putting a lot of pressure on Friend to not only disinvite me but to have no further correspondence.
That’s a lot of pressure, so I do the kindest thing I can think of, and step out of his life. Meanwhile I see on a facebook page they have supper-orgies at their houses; a rotating invitation among the group they go from house to house and have suppers and orgies. Friend probably meant for me to participate in supper but was nervous about my reaction to orgy, particularly if it produces an odd number of guests.
Michael 2:
I did pick my own horse. Not a matter of “like.”
Born to it and undeniable testimony.
I think it was called orthodox Mormon but the brand has been changed recently.
I got bucked off repeatedly and landed face first in a pile of horse biscuits.
Still trying to wipe them off my glasses so I can see enough to catch something to ride; horse, mule, jackass, or maybe a goat.
Lois, I just remembered something that is politically relevant. He was a strong advocate for a law prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals where I am opposed to such a law for its lack of “safe harbor”.
That is to say, a company can protect itself from lawsuit by ensuring the proper numbers of genders, colors, abilities; things you can SEE and thus discriminate against or protect yourself from accusations of discrimination.
But I have no way of knowing at a hiring interview your sexual preference. If later I find your performance inadequate, or you just don’t get along with the team, I can fire the team or I can fire you. Then suddenly out comes the same-sex preference card that you have been saving for just this occasion, and now the company must prove the impossible — that it did not fire you because of your sexual preference. They are not permitted to ASK at a hiring interview!
It is consequently impossible to hire the correct number of sexually preferenced individuals and a company could inadvertently find itself in trespass.
I asked Friend to answer his objection; what is the safe harbor but he had no answer and I am pretty sure neither does anyone else. How does someone obey the law, but more importantly, how can someone SHOW obedience to law, when it is illegal (so far as I know) to inquire about your sexual preference in the first place?
Michael 2, I don’t think I’m demanding allegiance from anyone. The opposite of allegiance is not indifference or silence. Oaks is free to believe and say what he wants, as are those who follow him. I don’t expect or demand anything from them. That doesn’t mean I’m not similarly able to form opinions about those beliefs and statements, and to express my feelings about them. Allegiance has nothing to do with it.
With respect to your comments on my comments about hate and bigotry, I take issue with your characterization. In my opinion Oaks goes far beyond simply making a “statement on what marriage is.” If he had said “marriage is between a man and a woman” and left it at that, your criticism would be more accurate. However, saying people who support the gay-marriage, transgender, and abortion rights movements are of or influenced by or in league with satan, goes well beyond simply defining what marriage is. It’s a demonization of those who refuse to accept the church’s positions on those issues.
And for that matter, it’s interesting that you seem to decry demands for allegiance, when that’s what Oaks is explicitly doing here, when he says opposition to the church’s positions comes from satan.
Another vague antidote after the order of Michael 2:
I had a friend, not that close. He was married but they didn’t get along and divorced when he was in his late 50’s. He was admittedly obnoxious, more so than I am which is quite a bit. I didn’t see him for a few years. He was in the military as a civilian contractor and moved around the Far East.
Next time I seen him he has suffered a stroke and is in a wheel chair. He recovered enough to walk around with a cane. By his side appeared a young attractive Asian woman, probably no older than 30.I took her to be his nurse or maybe sort of like a nanny. He introduced her to me as his wife and she doesn’t speak much English.
He claims that there are millions of women in certain Asian countries who will marry an American guy and they don’t really care how old or healthy. They make great wives and if they don’t “behave” you can send them back and get another one.
Misbehavior, my friend describes, is commonly drug addiction, theft, affairs with younger men, secret prostitution and anger management issues. All this reported among my friend’s friends who have had bad experiences with their mail-order brides. So far my friend has been either more selective or lucky.
Next I hear of him is that he has brought 2 more women to live with him. I didn’t inquire as to the nature of any orgies between them, probably more like a different girl on select nights.
This proves nothing about heterosexuality and promiscuity. My friend is being a dirty old boy-man-and taking advantage of women in hopeless circumstances. For them it might even be an improvement if they have already been repeatedly sold into prostitution and beaten since they were a young adolescent.
Michael 2, you’re conflating two separate things in your most recent comment. Nondiscrimination laws are not the same as hiring quotas. Laws that make it illegal to discriminate in employment decisions based on one’s sexual orientation do not require companies to hire a minimum number of “sexually preferenced individuals.” Under such laws, a company could have no LGBTQ employees and still be in total compliance with the law. All such laws require is that hiring, firing, promotion, and other decisions are not made based on the sexual orientation of the employee in question. That said, your question about how a company can prove it has not violated such laws is a valid one. On its face, such laws appear to put companies in a position of having to prove a negative. The way nondiscrimination laws often operate is with what are known as shifting burdens. Usually the employee making the claim that he or she was discriminated against will have to demonstrate, to a reasonably sufficient degree, that their employment was negatively affected due specifically to their sexual orientation (or whatever the protected class at issue may be). If they can demonstrate the likelihood that discrimination occurred, the burden then shifts to the employer to prove the decisions that adversely affected the employee were not motivated by his or her sexual orientation. There are many examples of companies that have been accused of discrimination in the workplace, and have successfully defended themselves against such claims. Fastidious record keeping, document preservation, and adherence to company policies are the easiest ways for companies to protect themselves.
I am perplexed by two things here. First is the notion that calling sin a sin is equivalent to hate. Is condemnation of alcohol condemnation of drinkers? Even if you think moderate drinking is okay, I’ve never heard this type of personal reaction against talks reinforcing the word of wisdom.
The second thing that perplexes me is the notion that the Bible somehow supports same-sex relationships, and the icing on the cake is the notion that biblical verses that condemn same-sex acts are taken out of context. The context of each of those scriptures was a culture that had absolutely no acceptance of same-sex relationships. To pretend otherwise is to ignore the context. And if that lack of acceptance is something that God disapproves of, wouldn’t the liberal Christian notion that “if it were so bad, it would have been condemned” apply equally to the sin of intolerance?
I am similarly perplexed that anyone would actually compare drinking alcohol to being homosexual or transgender. No one is born with an innate desire to drink alcohol. Nor have I ever heard of an individual who considers their desire to drink alcohol to be a fundamental component of who they are as a human being. Drinking or not drinking alcohol does not have any bearing on whether a person is able to have their most fundamental and basic human needs met; namely experiencing romantic love and sexual intimacy. The mormon church has not declared drinking alcohol to be apostasy, and members who engage in it are not excommunicated, nor are the children of parents who drink alcohol in their home denied the right to be baptized into the church. I don’t recall a recent conference talk in which a member of the first presidency declared that anyone who opposes the church’s position on alcohol is in league with satan. Finally, I’m not aware of a spike in young people committing suicide because of the way they’re treated by their church and its members, including their own families at the direction of that church, based not even on the fact that they actually drink alcohol, or have even tried alcohol, but for even admitting an interest in it.
Apart from those things, great comparison.
@Dsc: I assume you didn’t read the arguments the authors of the document presented? Please read them. From my perspective, all of the prohibitions in the Bible boil down to the prohibitions in Leviticus. That’s it. Paul’s prohibitions are based on Leviticus as well. I’ve got some questions for you then:
* How far should we let an Iron Age society’s religious views dictate ours? What about the other aspects of the Iron Age society’s religion? Which parts should we keep and which should go? Should we allow polygamy? Concubinage? Slavery? Levirate marriage?
* Do you wear merino wool? Do you let women worship with men? Do you stone adulterers or cut off the hands of thieves? Should we prohibit cross-breeding cattle? Sowing differing crops in the same field? Should menstruating women be considered unclean, requiring them to undergo purification rituals? Should mildew require purification rituals? Why discard those but keep the prohibition against homosexuality? You should consider that there are faithful, serious Christians who do not see why we should discard nearly all of the Levitical prohibitions yet maintain this one, especially given the fact that the Holy Spirit is active in these people’s lives and that Jesus asked us to love others *as ourselves*. We can’t make room? We can’t consider that maybe this prohibition should be revisited along with the others? Hopefully you can see that it is not as cut-and-dried as you thought and that good, serious Christians can ask these questions in good faith.
bjones,
“No one is born with an innate desire to drink alcohol.” This actually isn’t true. Substance addition, including alcoholism, has a large genetic component.
Alcohol use is not considered apostasy, but then again, neither is homosexual behavior. I suppose if one entered into a covenant or contract to continue drinking for the rest of their lives, that would be considered apostasy. In his talk “Brother’s Keeper” in October 1986, Elder Oaks denounced alcohol and those who profit from it (specifically calling out members of the Church) and implied that such were in league with Satan (I know I’ve heard much more recent talks making the same point, usually now throwing alcohol and drugs in with pornography).
Finally, I know it’s popular to tie rising suicide rates to the Church somehow, but the data don’t show that. Spikes in the suicide rate simply don’t coincide with actions by the Church that allegedly led to the spikes (for example, the suicide rate in Utah in 2016 was no higher than 2015, undermining the oft-repeated claim that the policy on same-sex parent families led to a spike in suicides. I can’t speak for the whole Church (incidentally, neither can you), but in my experience, members have become much more sensitive to the issue of orientation and to separate orientation from behavior in recent decades.
Cody,
I read many of the arguments, and they all suffer from the same flaw: they transform the near-universal condemnation of same-sex romantic relationships during the time of the Bible into support for the permissibility of such relationships through some form of logical sleight of hand. That’s fine, since nearly all religious systems, including my own, have a great deal of consonant dissonance that must be resolved one way or another, but it just seems to stretch logic too far to argue simultaneously that the Bible is the word of God and to reject the notion that the Bible condemns same-sex romantic relationships. To say that such directives are no longer applicable for a variety of reasons is one thing. To argue that they don’t say what they plainly say is something entirely different.
As to your questions: 1. It depends on what you think the nature of scripture is, I suppose. If you believe that the Bible is a collection of useful stories from which we can learn great lessons, I would think that following the example of the people depicted in the Bible only makes sense when it matches your moral framework. If you believe the Bible is the direct, inerrant word of God, then what the Bible says goes, regardless of modern sensibilities. If you believe, as I do, that the Bible is the imperfectly transmitted inspired words of divinely appointed prophets, then you have to ask what does and doesn’t apply today, what has been correctly transmitted, and then compare that with God’s current divinely appointed prophets. Regarding polygamy, concubinage, levirate marriage, and slavery, I regard the biblical teachings on each as teachings for their time but not ours, in part because of modern revelation and in part because of my reading of scripture. These (except levirate marriage) are examples of practices permitted by implication in the Bible, not commanded. (Incidentally, given that there is no prohibition on polygamy in the Bible, do you believe that a polygamist can be a faithful Christian?)
With respect to other Levitical laws and practices, there is a clear difference between those and the prohibition of homosexuality, which is that it is reinforced in the New Testament. In harmony with my view of scripture, the Law of Moses was given to a particular people at a particular time, and much of the law dealt with ritual, symbolism, or health or other concerns relevant to that time and place.
I certainly did not mean to imply that serious, faithful Christians cannot reach a different conclusion. I do not think that Christians with permissive views of sexuality or other matters are bad Christians or lack sufficient faith in God. I disagree with their interpretation of scripture, sure, but I do not regard them as lesser Christians. Just as I try not to doubt another’s faith in God based on their beliefs about sexuality, I am dismayed that some liberal Christians immediately suppose that conservatives’ defense of traditional sexual norms is due to hate or ignorance. There was nothing in Elder Oaks’ talk that was intended to excuse violence to or ostracism of anybody.
Cody,
I want to clarify my first sentence. I was referring to the arguments made in Mormonheretic’s link, which I immediately jumped to in my mind since that was what my original comment was responding to. It just occurred to me that you were probably referring to “To Set Our Hope”, which is, in my opinion, a much more honest look at the issue in that it recognizes that Paul probably meant what he said, but that we may be free to argue with the particular conclusion and still respect his writings as scripture. This is not the kind of logically deficient argument I refer to. It is certainly one I disagree with, but I believe it to be intellectually honest.
@Dsc: Yes, I meant the “To Set Our Hope” document.
““No one is born with an innate desire to drink alcohol.” This actually isn’t true. Substance addition, including alcoholism, has a large genetic component.”
It actually is true, Dsc. Substance addiction is indeed recognized as having a heavy genetic component, but it’s certainly not localized in alcohol, or even an innate desire to use addictive substances. I’ve never heard a person say they knew when they were five years old that they wanted to drink alcohol, even though they may be predisposed to become an addict. Additionally, a person who is genetically predisposed to become an addict could just as easily become addicted to substances which are perfectly acceptable according to the Word of Wisdom. It has nothing specifically to do with alcohol. In any event, this is completely beside the point that alcohol is not treated remotely the same in the church as homosexuality, and is a terrible comparison.
And as relates to homosexual behavior as apostasy, I should have said more specifically that same-sex marriage, which oaks specifically condemned last weekend, is explicitly defined in Handbook 1 as apostasy. See the 2015 article below in which a church spokesman confirms the change to the handbook.
https://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-issues-update-on-what-is-considered-apostasy
Finally, I would agree with you that the church membership has become much more sensitive to the distinction between orientation and behavior (a distinction that is, in my personal opinion, ludicrous) which is why you see so many of them condemning oaks’ recent comments, which indicate he has not.
brjones,
Of course the analogy isn’t perfect, but the primary principle, that the objected to behavior has some connection to an innate component is more or less the same for these purposes. Someone who is predisposed to alcoholism but has not tried alcohol doesn’t know when they are five that they want to drink alcohol simply because they’ve never experienced alcohol. And you’re right that it’s not treated the same as homosexuality–there is not a large contingent of members petitioning the Church to change its doctrine on alcohol.
I am very familiar with the handbook policy on this, so I’m not sure why you feel the need to educate me on it. This is precisely why I pointed out that there’s no contract or covenant that would cause the Church to declare someone apostate with respect to alcohol.
“which indicate he has not.” What part of Elder Oaks’ talk condemns orientation, rather than behaviors?
I appreciated this overview, Cody, both as a fellow Mormon-turned Episcopalian, and as someone who happens to be gay. I’m quite familiar with the scriptural and theological arguments about this issue, and can intellectually appreciate why people come to different conclusions. But on a personal level, I have to say that my conversion to the Episcopal faith has kindled a renewed relationship with God that I didn’t think was possible, and that participating in a religious community that’s LGTBQ-affirming has healed things in me that I barely knew were broken. I know the Episcopal church paid a price to take that path, and I am so grateful that they decided it was worth doing. It actually brought me to tears the first time I learned about the censure by the Anglican Communion (which barred TEC from participating in decision-making for three years over this issue). Because after a lifetime of being in a faith tradition that informed its gay members that they needed to make sacrifices for the church, I had a glimpse of the opposite approach: a church that was willing to make sacrifices for its gay members. Of course TEC isn’t perfect; like any church, it’s got plenty of challenges. But it’s changed my life.
Lynnette, thank you very much for sharing your perspective.