50 Comment(s)

1. I just finished listening to John’s story on the podcast.

   My story is very similar but I was confused when John said he was returning to the church. When I returned to the church, I committed to living the law of chastity and was re-baptized. However, in listening to John’s story, he gave the impression that he could not get re-baptized because he was gay. That is not true, it was the inability to live the law of chastity that prevented him from being re-baptized, not the fact that he was gay.

   I just wanted to clarify that point for other out there that may be making the same journey back. Thanks.

   Comment # 1 by Michael | Jul 5, 2006 | Reply

2. In my essay, I acknowledged that the main obstacle to my being rebaptized was not my sexual orientation per se, but my commitment to remain in a loving relationship with my partner of fourteen years.

   As I mentioned in the interview, I have fasted and prayed and struggled with this. I have put myself into the very frightening and vulnerable position of asking God whether it was his will that I terminate my relationship with my partner. I say frightening and vulnerable, because I knew that to ask such a question would put me in an extremely painful position should God’s answer to me be, Yes, I should break off the relationship.

   Every time I have put this question to God, God’s answer was that not only was I “allowed” to remain in a loving and committed relationship with my partner, but that to leave him, to break my commitment to him, would be wrong and a sin. I have finally stopped asking the question because I have experienced a kind of “rebuke” through the Holy Spirit. The Spirit has essentially told me that I have already asked for and received a clear and unmistakeable answer, and continuing to ask betrays a lack of faith. I can’t say that the answer to this question will be the same for everyone, but I am certain beyond the shadow of a doubt that it is the answer for me.

   As anyone who has experienced a truly loving and intimate relationship with another human being knows, such a relationship grows into something so much more than just the “things” we get out of it. Even when we focus on the emotional support and caring that take place in such a relationship, not to mention financial and social interdependence, as well as meeting our needs for sexual intimacy–all of this still does not sum up what such a relationship is. Ultimately, it is in the context of such relationships that we most easily learn the true nature of love as self sacrifice and mutual giving. The notion that within such commitments we learn the true nature of “agape” or Christ-like love is consistent with Biblical teaching and with Latter-day Saint beliefs about human nature and the family.

   Currently, the church’s position is that I must renounce my relationship with my partner in order to be baptized. That being the case, I cannot be baptized. But the church does not require me to be celibate in order to attend meetings, to listen to and learn from members of my ward and stake and from General Authorities, to live the Word of Wisdom, to fast, to pray, to study the scriptures, to bear my testimony privately to friends, family or acquaintances, or to love and serve others. I choose to do all those things.

   I realize that my use of the term “return” to the church may be confusing to some, who expect it means I’ve been re-baptized. I mean it in the sense that I have openly and publicly embraced my testimony of Joseph Smith as a prophet, of the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and of the Restoration. These were all things I at one point publicly denied, but now embrace. In that very real sense I have “returned.” I can bear testimony to the palpable change this has wrought in my life for the better. I feel like a truly different person.

   I of course acknowledge that technically I am not a member of the church. But I see my current anomalous status as analagous to the status of black Mormons prior to 1978. They could be baptized, but they could not receive the priesthood or go to the temple. This effectively–in the eyes of most church members at that time–barred blacks from any possibility of achieving exaltation and eternal life. Imagine the faith that must have been required of African Americans who embraced the gospel prior to 1978!

   I find that I am only able to accept my anomalous status because I have received such powerful witnesses of God’s love for me. In light of the assurances I have received, I choose to remain faithful to who and what I am AND faithful to my partner and our relationship AND as faithful and committed to the church as I am allowed to be.

   Comment # 2 by John Gustav-Wrathall | Jul 5, 2006 | Reply

3. Hi John,

   I really enjoyed your podcast. Thanks for sharing.

   I am a straight female who left when I was single in my thirties (had never married). I left partly out of solidarity with my gay friends in and out of the Church. Church leaders were always saying that singles–gays and straights–were bound by the same law of chastity, and that it didn’t matter if a straight person didn’t get married throughout life; he/she was still expected to remain completely celibate. For many people in my singles ward (average age 27-30 or so), this meant they were afraid even to date because they were afraid of “messing up”, “losing their salvation,” “being a bad example,” etc.

   This is to say I’m impressed by your life and happy you have found a companion. I also felt incredibly stifled and oppressed(and depressed) by the Church’s views on single adults (gays and straights). I voluntarily remained a virgin throughout my single state, even after leaving the Church. I married a great man and am very happy but would never dream of aligning myself with such a harmful organization–the Church is made for families (read: man, wife, kids, preferably married young). It is detrimental to others.

   I cannot understand why you choose to “return.”

   Another biggie for me was the LDS church’s vision of the afterlife, with the highest tier reserved for those forutnate enough to be married. What do you think will happen to you after this life? How does the Church’s view affect your opinion of yourself? Do you expect to be “made straight” in the afterlife, have your baptism and temple work done, and be sealed to a woman? Come on!?!

   Comment # 3 by Stunned | Jul 6, 2006 | Reply

4. I don’t think it is particularly easy for singles, regardless of whether you are in or out of the church, whether you are gay or straight, and whether you are chaste or sexually active. Whatever way you choose to cope holds its own risks and its own opportunities. Ultimately the only thing that helps any of us through is love.

   Based on some of your questions, it sounds like you haven’t read my Sunstone article. Now that you’ve listened to the podcast, you should pick up a copy and read the essay!

   My friends, my sister, and my partner have asked me the same “Why?” you ask. My sister left the church years ago for many of the same reasons you did. She was angry when she heard I wanted to return to the church. It was hard for her not to see my desire for reconciliation as a kind of betrayal. But it’s not. Everyone is entitled to their own path.

   Comment # 4 by John Gustav-Wrathall | Jul 6, 2006 | Reply

5. John,

   First, I’ll admit first off that I haven’t read your essay—but I will. I did, however, read your initial editorial as you expressed your wonder at the possibility of being called to reconnect with your Mormon roots after attending last year’s Sunstone symposium.

   Second, I absolutely loved listening to this podcast. Wherever your path leads you, I was truly impressed by your desire to remain connected to the Spirit of our Father’s guidance in your life. And with what I perceive to be a very humble heart and open mind. I sincerely wish you the best in your spiritual journey and feel grateful that there are men out there like you who are confident enough in who you are as a person, and of the Father’s love for you, that you feel peaceful about moving forward—as much as possible—in your growing reconnection with Mormonism, despite what skeptics or critics might say.

   I followed a similar, and yet very different, path. A few years ago, I, as a homosexual member of the Church, was terribly conflicted—though I don’t think I’ve ever entertained thoughts of suicide. Once I started coming to terms with my feelings, I found some hope in the expectation of reorientation with the therapy I was encouraged by my bishop to receive. While it was helpful in many ways, I became discouraged when the results I expected weren’t happening. For the first time, I doubted my future in the Church. There were weeks I would cry myself to sleep because of the conflict I felt… because of the fear I had of life outside of an institution and paradigm I had always so dearly loved and relied on for security.

   After several months of this, I decided to distance myself from the Church. I still believed in the gospel, but to try to remain an active Church member seemed unworkable. I started exploring the idea of a relationship with a man, and eventually developed deep feelings for someone I entered into a relationship with. I loved him and valued that relationship, and while I felt distant from the institutional Church, I felt a more keen sense of God’s love for me than I had ever felt in my life—a more tangible feeling of His presence than I had ever experienced. I didn’t feel that He—in my situation—honored the relationship I was in, necessarily, but just that He loved me and that He would ever be with me, watching over me.

   It was during that time that I realized the possibility and necessity of developing a relationship with my Father in Heaven outside of “institution” and in seeking the Spirit to guide me—in my unique mortal circumstances—along the continuum of personal and spiritual progress we call the plan of salvation. As our relationship progressed, I felt quite happy and at peace with the direction I was going in life, and just when I felt I was where I wanted to be, I felt an unmistakably divine call to end that relationship and to come back to the Church. It was hard for him, but I chose to follow what I felt to be God’s will for me. And it was difficult, but the peace and perspective I felt in the spiritual impressions I felt enabled me to move forward with confidence. With my choice to return to the Church I accepted celibacy as a requirement unless/until I felt able and desirous to marry a woman, but I no longer felt any sense of conflict. I still marvel at the deep and unsolicited change of heart I experienced.

   I’m pretty open with those close to me about my homosexuality, and people ask me if I feel like my commitment to celibacy is a sacrifice, but I genuinely don’t. I feel so peaceful and sustained in the knowledge that God loves me, is aware of me, and is working in and through my life, that I simply continue forward, open to the myriad of possibilities for my life. I suspect that I will develop a relationship with a woman and marry at some point, even as far as that feels from me now, but right now it is enough for me to strive to serve the Lord in other ways.

   My main reason for sharing this, I think, is that I have a deep sense of appreciation for the intimacy and immediacy of God’s workings in our lives, wherever those workings may lead us individually, and I felt that in the words and tone of your story here. Thank you for your example of striving to remain true and close to God and His holy Spirit, even though others may not fully understand your path. Again, I sincerely wish you the best in your journey.

   Comment # 5 by Brett | Jul 7, 2006 | Reply

6. Thanks, Brett.

   Comment # 6 by John Gustav-Wrathall | Jul 7, 2006 | Reply

7. I wonder if reconnecting with our spiritual roots really means returning to the LDS church? I have found a great deal of satisfaction in interaction with New Order Mormons, post-mormons, sunstone mormons, and inactives, without having to return to church. I suppose what I’m saying is that mormonism, both spiritually and culturally, is much bigger than LDS, Inc. I can understand your journey from the standpoint of you making personal choices that feel right to you; but objectively I cannot understand making the choice to return to and participate in and, god forbid, maybe even pay tithing to an organization that actively seeks the repression and domination of gays and lesbians around the world. I hope you will understand why, even as I try to muster compassion for you, Johh, your story makes me incredibly angry.

   Comment # 7 by J. Todd Ormsbee | Jul 8, 2006 | Reply

8. Todd:

   For me, it is not a question of connecting to Mormonism culturally. If it were, I would probably be satisfied simply to be connected to the Sunstone community. I note on the “New Order Mormons” web site that their mission is to support Mormons “who no longer believe” but who wish to “maintain membership for cultural or social reasons.” My situation is the inverse of theirs: I have a testimony but I cannot be a member.

   For me, it is also not a question of being part of a community that accepts me unconditionally as an openly gay man living in a committed relationship. If that were the case, I would be satisfied simply to remain within the cozy confines of the United Church of Christ.

   I am deeply, eternally grateful for the Spirit-led efforts of non-Mormons and ex-Mormons to make this world a better place, to promote love, tolerance, and understanding. Furthermore, I know from personal experience that most gay and lesbian Mormons probably need to distance themselves from the church at least for a time, if not permanently, just in order to survive. Again–I’m not sure if you’ve read my essay, but if you have you know that I believe my journey OUT of the church 20 years ago was as Spirit-led as my journey back TO the church within the past year. I’m not sure why my journey would invalidate yours or anyone else’s. It is not my desire to make you angry.

   For me ultimately it is a question of listening to and obeying the Holy Spirit. I have no interest in cultural Mormonism–or in any kind of cultural Christianity for that matter–but in a living relationship with a living God. Once I heard the voice of the Holy Spirit again, I experienced all the unconditional love, all the validation, and all the forgiveness I need now or will ever need, far surpassing the love or validation I could receive from any institution or group of people. And I am absolutely and fiercely determined to listen to that voice and follow it. I do not ever want to be without it in my life again. That voice is leading me to seek reconciliation with the church.

   Through my interactions in recent months with active, committed members of the LDS Church, I have become utterly convinced that the church is not the enemy here. I find that those I used to assume were the enemy share my understanding that all of us are children of God striving to return to his presence. They are people who love me and who are struggling to come to terms with the realities of this world, just as I am.

   Sure, there’s lack of understanding. There are folks who don’t–who may never–get it. No church–and I can testify personally to that–has a monopoly on that. But it is not the failure to understand that will have the final word; it is our obedience to the Spirit, and flowing from that, our understanding, our commmitment and, ultimately, our love.

   Comment # 8 by John Gustav-Wrathall | Jul 9, 2006 | Reply

9. John, you write that you are “deeply, eternally grateful for the Spirit-led efforts of non-Mormons and ex-Mormons to make this world a better place, to promote love, tolerance, and understanding.” Of course, among those who are trying to make this world a better place are atheists and agnostics who do NOT consider their efforts to be “Spirit-led.” I hope you appreciate our efforts as well.

   Where your story leaves Mr. Ormsbee feeling angry, it leaves me feeling sad, and none too optimistic. Why? Not believing in the reality of the “spirit” or “voice” which you say is “leading” you hither and yon, I see you failing (or perhaps refusing) to engage the reality of (and take real responsibility for) your own situation.

   Consider for a moment the language you use to describe your efforts to alleviate your suffering, in particular the way that language casts you as passive: You say it is a matter of “listening to and OBEYING the Holy Spirit.” You are “absolutely and fiercely determined to listen to that voice and FOLLOW it.” You write that “[t]hat voice is LEADING ME to seek reconciliation” and add that what “will have the final word…is our OBEDIENCE to the Spirit.”

   Such humility! But it’s not humility at all, since what you’re actually obeying is not an external reality but the promptings of your own spiritual imagination. That’s not humility, it’s arrogance. True humility requires that we conform our thoughts and desires to empirically verifiable realities. When we do that, the claims we make about the world can be thoughtfully evaluated in dialogue with the reality-based claims of others. This is why science progresses while theology goes nowhere.

   All of your faux passivity, you write, characterizes those “who are struggling to come to terms with the realities of this world.” From my perspective, it would make more sense to “come to terms with the realities of this world” by actually engaging with, well, reality. And the Holy Spirit is not a reality; it is a theological construct that springs out of a reality. It is the product of a long and complex series of tangible realities we call history. That history includes some admirable human yearning to do good and to discover truth, but also, of course, plenty of bigotry, ignorance, hatred, and self-justification.

   The Holy Spirit may be telling you that you’re OK as a gay man. But the Holy Spirit is also telling the leaders of the church that you’re not. And it’s telling Fred Phelps that you’re destined for hell, and it’s telling certain Iranian clerics that you should be hanged, and it’s telling certain presidents of this fair land that you’re unfit to serve in the military, etc., etc.

   Now, don’t get me wrong. I don’t agree with the Church authorities, with Phelps, or with the Iranian clerics. On the other hand, I see absolutely no reason to believe your statements about the Holy Spirit over those of the others. How can I possibly evaluate the truth of such claims? Could anything possibly be more subjective and unverifiable than the claim that “The voice of a spirit, a voice that only I can hear, whispered in my ear that X is true”?

   All I can do is take your word for it. But I have no more reason to take your word for it than to take Phelps’s word for it.

   What I’m suggesting, of course, is that you STOP listening to that voice you think you’re hearing and that you join the reality-based community where claims are based on tangible realities equally accessible to all observers: the secular world of empirical reality. Of course I understand the difficulty here. For you, joining that community would mean repudiating not just the LDS Church’s homophobia but also the Church’s other theological claims, and all the comfort they provide. A scary prospect, to be sure. But your alternative, which is to continue to try to dismantle the master’s house with the master’s tools, seems to me even bleaker. What I mean is that your continued reliance on the guidance of the Holy Spirit presupposes the authority of the Holy Spirit, and what that spirit is telling your ecclesiastical master is, to put it bluntly, that you’re a sort of cosmic misfire, that you are out of synch with God’s desires, that you will not attain exaltation, etc. In a word, that you’re fundamentally and significantly inferior.

   I can only shake my head in sadness when I read of someone whose identity has been so cruelly divided against itself that he or she compulsively returns again and again to the bosom of a cruel master, whether it be an abusive husband or an abusive church. In either case the victim is taken back, but only on condition that he or she accept the fundamental premise of their inferority.

   Nothing of that sort can properly be considered “love.” Love never conditions itself upon self-negation. Power does that. But never love.

   I wish you luck.

   Comment # 9 by David Mazel | Jul 9, 2006 | Reply

10. I think the most valuable thing about John’s story is that he told his story well. I don’t think it has a claim on anybody besides himself.

    At the same time, I appreciate what David says. When someone says they have truth, and that truth cannot be empirically validated, it presents huge problems if they want to share or enforce that truth.

    The biggest thing I had to let go of in my own journey was the need to be right. For many years I felt like I had to buttress my own position and invalidate the Church’s in order to have validity myself.

    But I found out I was making the same mistake both ways. In both situations I was stuck inside of what I thought was true. I insisted on occupying a box. I’d prefer to see truth as a living, changing thing. Any attempt we make at articulating truth is inevitably a metaphor. But metaphors have their uses.

    So, instead of looking for truth, I look for powerful metaphors, and then I bring them into dialogue with one another. Hegel’s fingerprints all over the place.

    I see both John’s and David’s metaphors as being quite powerful.

    Comment # 10 by Stephen Carter | Jul 10, 2006 | Reply

11. Stephen, thanks for the generous words.

    As far as I am concerned, the only things in life that will have any kind of ultimate value–the only things that in a sense are “real”–are the love we give, the justice we build, and the peace we make. And for the record, I believe that to be true whether the one giving, building, or making is Mormon or non-Mormon, Atheist or true believer.

    Comment # 11 by John Gustav-Wrathall | Jul 10, 2006 | Reply

12. I find David’s post (#9) and Stephen’s post (#10) more sad than inspiring. To solely base your “reality” and life upon those tangible verifications using the five senses limits you to a life devoid of deeper meaning and fulfillment.

    David asserts and Stephen agrees “When someone says they have truth, and that truth cannot be empirically validated, it presents huge problems if they want to share or enforce that truth.” That is not correct. It only means that sharing that truth requires the receiver to understand the truth through the same method with which the sharer initially discovered the truth.

    For example, if I am committed to my partner and I spend many years with him, I learn many truths about him through means other than those related to the five senses. I eventually grow to love him in a way that cannot be communicated to someone else unless they learn about him in the same way. I cannot “prove” to anyone else that I love him just as I cannot share the taste of mustard with someone else or describe the color yellow to someone else UNLESS they take the same steps I have to gain that knowledge and understanding.

    The only reason that people voluntarily limit themselves to “empirically validated” truth is allow themselves to gain comfort for their beliefs from the confirmation of others.

    David and Stephen, please help me understand how you “empirically validate” the proposition that gay men did not voluntarily choose to have feelings for the same sex? You can’t. Every argument you make will involve some requirement of faith by the person to whom you are attempting to convice.

    I cannot demonstrate to my brother that these feelings came naturally using any scientific process that can be “empirically validated”. As my brother has never experienced such feelings, he cannot only believe upon my experiences to validate such claims. He must have faith in my experiences.

    So, if he must exercise faith in believing that I did not choose these feelings, what makes it “truth”? Why cannot Phelps be correct when he states that the feelings are chosen? Do you mean to tell me that the both of you do not get your blood boiling when faced with someone that emphatically denies that the feelings are natural and tells you they are chosen? Your first response is “How do you know if you have never experienced them?”. How do you calmly and rationally provide that person with evidence that can be empirically validated by all using the scientific method? You don’t because such evidence does not exist.

    I would argue that the reason why you need to have a reality based upon empirically validated observations is because you do not have sufficient confidence in other methods of discovering truth. I challenge the both of you to limit one day in your life to only those things that can be empirically validated by others. All conversation, all actions, all motivations and all interactions should be based solely upon verifiable facts. Then tell me how much fulfillment you get out of that day.

    I can totally relate to John’s experience with the Holy Ghost just as I can totally relate to his re-affirmed testimony. If you are sincere in wanting to “validate” the truth of his journey, you only need to follow Moroni’s promise with humility and meekness, letting go of the pride and ego which prevent us from discovering such truths. The process is the same for everyone and it can only be shared when discovered for ones self.

    As far as validating the truths of others, the scriptures provide the way to “empirically validate” such truths - “by their fruits ye shall know them”. I have never been led astray if I truly look at their fruits and not concentrate on their words.

    Comment # 12 by Michael | Jul 10, 2006 | Reply

13. Michael, thanks for the analogy.

    I found myself not quite sure how to respond to the suggestion that my understanding of my own situation is not based on “reality,” or worse yet, that I am “oppressed” or “divided against myself” or “enslaved” by the church somehow.

    I’m a grown man, 42 years old, been living in a committed relationship with my partner for 14 years, left the church 20 years ago. I have explored many different ways of understanding the world since then, including atheism. I have been pretty alienated from the church for most of that time; had pretty much cut my ties with it completely. No one has coerced me into this path. On the other hand, I found myself quite surprised that the Spirit spoke to me when it did, in the way it did.

    I find it impossible to respond to the charge that I am “oppressed,” despite the fact that I do not in the least feel oppressed. As a result of the choices I am making, I find myself truly liberated, integrated, engaged with the world, and at peace with myself in ways I never have before. But someone else is now telling me that despite my experience, despite what I know and feel for myself, that I should believe I’m oppressed on the basis of some objective criteria that I don’t find objective at all; and that the only way for me not to be oppressed is to take his word for it that my experience is somehow false, not based on reality, etc.

    I didn’t quite know how to respond to this, since my experience seemed not to count in this discussion. I really appreciated Michael’s analogies clarifying just what’s going on here.

    I cannot vouch for someone else’s experience of the Holy Spirit. I can, however, tell when someone is behaving in a loving manner. If we need objective criteria that the Spirit is at work, we should start there. You don’t need a witness of the Holy Ghost, for instance, to tell where Fred Phelps is coming from.

    Comment # 13 by John Gustav-Wrathall | Jul 10, 2006 | Reply

14. Amen, brother, amen.

    Comment # 14 by Michael | Jul 10, 2006 | Reply

15. Michael, you make a good point. I’ll restrict my words only to “enforce” and get rid of share. The main arena I was thinking of was that of public policy. I think public policy should be based as much as possible on empirical evidence.

    As for one’s personal life, I think that you should take your fulfillment from where you find it. I agree with Kierkegaard that our relationship with God (or the universe) is entirely subjective and is unjudgable by anyone outside that relationship.

    That’s why I appreciate John’s story so much. It’s a vivid portrait of a fascinating, fulfilling, and idiosyncratic relationship with God, as John concieves of Him. I can feel that relationship when I read his essay. And some of it resonates with my own experience.

    Comment # 15 by Stephen Carter | Jul 10, 2006 | Reply

16. Sorry to be so late in adding a link to read John’s essay. I think it will help the discussion to learn more about John’s experience than what he and I were able to cover in the podcast. http://www.sunstoneonline.com/podcast/wrathall.pdf

    I’ve enjoyed the conversation above and specifically would like to invite David (post #9) to write me if he’d like me to start a blog conversation directly dedicated to the issues he raises. It seems like a non-starter in this thread, but the matters he raises are things that I believe deserve a good conversation in a Sunstone forum. If so, David please write me at dan@sunstoneonline.com.

    Dan Wotherspoon
    Editor, Sunstone

    Comment # 16 by Dan | Jul 11, 2006 | Reply

17. As so often happens, this thread has unraveled into too many threads to treat adequately, and as I’m busy right now with family matters (my dad’s about to get a heart bypass) I don’t have time to take Dan up on his offer.

    Right now I would like only to respond to the claim made above that for one to “solely base your ‘reality’ and life upon…tangible verifications using the five senses limits you to a life devoid of deeper meaning and fulfillment.” All I can say is that the world as it presents itself to my senses, the so-called “natural world,” is itself overwhelming enough in its beauty and complexity and power to provide all the “meaning and fulfillment” I need. The life I have, and the world I know, is quite bountiful enough to satisfy me. The phenomenological reality that others find so limiting dazzles me so much I don’t need other realities. And I don’t need to live forever. Others have an appetite for more than what the “limited” world offers, but that strikes me personally as rather grasping. In any event I believe that appetite leads them astray.

    Comment # 17 by David Mazel | Jul 11, 2006 | Reply

18. In #9, David Mazel urges John to “join the reality-based community where claims are based on tangible realities equally accessible to all observers: the secular world of empirical reality”. Earlier in that post, David claimed: “[W]hat [John is] actually obeying is not an external reality but the promptings of [his] own spiritual imagination.” On what tangible realities equally accessible to all observers is that claim of David’s made?

    Comment # 18 by Nat Whilk | Jul 17, 2006 | Reply

19. Nat,

    David’s claim is not made on any tangible realities. That is the problem. He has bought into the scientific mindset that everything is and can be measured through the five senses without first thinking through how much of his current life is conducted by means other than those five senses.

    If he really studied it out in his mind, he would realize that most of the things he has accomplished in his life have been based upon faith in “non-tangible” hopes and dreams. Why does a gay man go out searching for a love in the first place? Because he has faith in a non-verifiable emotion that cannot be demonstrated to anyone else.

    His argument does not hold water.

    Comment # 19 by Michael | Jul 17, 2006 | Reply

20. I have a fairly rigorous scientific background, and realize the value of empirical evidence and properly controlled scientific experimentation. But I am also aware of the inherent limitations in this mode of acquiring truth. Studies in eastern philosophies several decades ago helped me broaden my perspective.

    A book I recently read, A Brief History of Everything, by Ken Wilber, does an excellent job of explaining where and how science and reductionist approaches apply, and where they don’t apply.

    Comment # 20 by Don | Jul 17, 2006 | Reply

21. Nat, Michael, Don,

    My claim is not that “everything is and can be measured through the five senses.” In fact I don’t think that at all, and I never said I did. Rather my claims are 1.) that the empirically observable provides the best basis for dialogue, and 2.) that when the promptings of the spirit conflict with the observable reality, go with the latter. If you do those things, you have joined the reality-based community.

    Nat, you quote my statement that what John “actually [is] obeying is not an external reality but the promptings of [his] own spiritual imagination.” Then you ask specifically “On what tangible realities equally accessible to all observers is that claim of David’s made?

    I’ve actually made two claims here. First is that what John “actually [is] obeying is not an external reality.” By that, of course, I mean that the Holy Spirit is not accessible to the common senses. I could be wrong, but I believe even Christians say that the Holy Spirit is not a part of phenomenological reality.

    The second claim is that what John is obeying is “the promptings of [his] own spiritual imagination.”

    How is this based on “tangible realities equally accessible to all observers”? Simple. First, one reads through the anthropological data demonstrating the incredible diversity of incompatible beliefs about spiritual beings. Second, one observes that these entities always seem to have no existence whatsoever except to those who have first come to believe in their existence. Third, one observes that what all believers in a given spiritual entity have in common is not a history of empirical observation of that entity; what they have in common is a shared mental construct (i.e., imagination), a shared way of interpreting events, making sense of their world, etc. By a not-very-complex process of inference, one concludes that these things are imagined. (Of course, any particular believer is likely to say that this is true of the other guy’s spirits, but not of his own, and I can’t prove that ain’t so. Similarly, I cannot prove that there isn’t a boulder out there somewhere whose fall down the mountain was an instance not of gravity but of something wholly spiritual.)

    You might or might not agree with my conclusion–but surely you will admit that it is based on “tangible realities equally accessible to all observers.”

    Now back to nursing….

    Comment # 21 by David Mazel | Jul 18, 2006 | Reply

22. David:

    There is a clear, objectively verifiable external reality to which I cling: Love. Part of the reason I am drawn back to the LDS faith is because of the clarity of the message that “everything which persuadeth to do good is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ.”

    I appreciate your passion for justice; I share it, and have always shared it. It simply doesn’t worry me that people of different faiths perceive the workings of the Spirit differently. It doesn’t worry me that some people prefer not to believe in the Spirit at all. That is the nature of the veil; we “see through a glass darkly” if at all. It would be peculiar indeed if we all leaped to the same conclusions. But to the extent that we love deeply, that we struggle for justice, and that we live compassionately, we are on the same path.

    Since embracing the call of the Spirit, and committing to return as best I can to the church, my life has changed for the better in clearly discernable ways–you can ask any of the folks who know me well. And if anything, my commitment to peace, reconciliation, and justice has deepened, not lessened.

    I would hope that would make any lover of justice happy, not sad. It doesn’t grieve me to hear that folks might find a more joyful, authentic path in another faith or in no faith at all. From my point of view, where I see good, I see the Spirit at work.

    Comment # 22 by John Gustav-Wrathall | Jul 18, 2006 | Reply

23. David Mazel writes: “I’ve actually made two claims here. First is that what John ‘actually [is] obeying is not an external reality.’ By that, of course, I mean that the Holy Spirit is not accessible to the common senses.”

    Why “of course”? There’s nothing I see in the definitions of either the word “external” or the word “reality” that requires external realities to be accessible to the common senses.

    David continues: “I could be wrong, but I believe even Christians say that the Holy Spirit is not a part of phenomenological reality.”

    That the Holy Spirit can be a cause of events discernible to the common observer is, in fact, part of the historical Christian witness. The common observer’s ability to sense the existence of, say, antitauons is similarly indirect.

    David continues: “[O]ne reads through the anthropological data demonstrating the incredible diversity of incompatible beliefs about spiritual beings.”

    The inconsistency of eyewitness testimony in the context of criminal law is well-known and well-demonstrated, yet we do not conclude from that that eyesight is not a real sense.

    David continues: “[O]ne observes that these entities always seem to have no existence whatsoever except to those who have first come to believe in their existence“.

    This is false. Numerous people claim to have had encounters with spiritual entities with no prior belief in their existence. If you delete the words “seem to” so that these people can be dismissed, then you are faced with explaining how you are able to empirically observe people’s beliefs.

    David continues: “By a not-very-complex process of inference, one concludes that these things are imagined.”

    “[N]ot-very-complex” and “sound” are, of course, not synonymous.

    David continues: “You might or might not agree with my conclusion–but surely you will admit that it is based on ‘tangible realities equally accessible to all observers.’”

    You are correct that the word “based” leaves a lot of wiggle room, especially when the empirical data is allowed to include you having read things. (Or should I say *thinking* that you’ve read things. As I understand it, an empirical justification of the sense that one’s memory reflects an external reality is a classic conundrum.) I think John’s probably read things, too, and that some of the things he’s read contributed to his conclusions.

    Comment # 23 by Nat Whilk | Jul 20, 2006 | Reply

24. Nat, physicists, regardless of their religion, agree on the existence of the antitauon. Physicists of different religions do not similarly agree on the existence of the Holy Spirit. Only Christian physicists do. Christian and nonchristian alike might observe the same phenomena which the Christian explains as the workings of the Holy Spirit, but the nonchristian will not make the same inference.

    Why is that?

    Comment # 24 by David Mazel | Jul 20, 2006 | Reply

25. David,

    I completely understand where you’re coming from, more than I can explain here, and I approach much of the world in this way. But if in your world view you are only accepting externally verifiable realities, you are ignoring other realities. These ideas are present in many other contexts, but the book I referred to initially, “A Brief History of Everything” (Ken Wilber) does the best job I’ve come across of articulating these concepts.

    If you haven’t read it, I suspect you would enjoy it greatly. Ironically, he seems to have developed his own somewhat ‘cultish’ following (at least that was my impression when perusing his website), but the ideas and perspective he covers in his book(s) stand as valid, regardless, in my opinion.

    As someone who is currently, by definition, agnostic (literally without knowledge, using that term in its most profound and transcendant sense), I found those ideas very useful. So I’m not trying to convince you of anything (since I really don’t know what I’d convince you about anyway!), but offer it as something useful to someone searching for truth with an open mind.

    Comment # 25 by Don | Jul 21, 2006 | Reply

26. Everyone, I’d like to return briefly to my original post of July 9, in which I wrote, “True humility requires that we conform our thoughts and desires to empirically verifiable realities. When we do that, the claims we make about the world can be thoughtfully evaluated in dialogue with the reality-based claims of others. This is why science progresses while theology goes nowhere.”

    Please note that “conform” does not mean “limit.” When I say that “true humility requires that we CONFORM our thoughts and desires to empirically verifiable realities” I’m not saying that the empirically verifiable is all that exists. I am saying that it’s arrogant to cling to a belief in spiritual entities after one realizes that the belief is empirically contradicted. (I would go beyond that and invoke a form of Occam’s razor: if something can be explained via the empirical and the spiritual, go with the empirical.)

    Anyway, I didn’t say that the empirically verifiable is all there is.

    I did say that the empirically verifiable is the best basis for dialogue. Nat and I can converse intelligibly about antitauons in a way that we cannot converse about the Holy Spirit.

    Some have written as if I didn’t know that science is reductive. Of course it is reductive. We all know that. Science’s reductiveness is strategic and effective. Physicists, using their reductive techniques in their sophisticated form of reality-based dialogue, will probably learn more and more about antitauons. Theologians will never get anywhere in their understanding of the Holy Spirit.

    Consider a claim that I’m sure everyone on this site will find obnoxious, namely, Bruce McConkie’s pre-1979 claim about black people’s experiences in this life, namely, that they were experiencing the consequences of their lack of spiritual valor in the ancient war in heaven. How am I supposed to engage in dialogue with someone who makes such a claim? To find common ground for the discussion, he and I are going to have to back up so far as to make it hardly worth the effort. And how am I supposed to gauge the validity of such a claim, other than to say that empirically verifiable human history offers an explanation of the African American experience that does not require us to believe in spirits? And how is McConkie’s claim really different from the claim of a gay man that he is returning to his homophobic church at the promptings of the Holy Spirit?

    Comment # 26 by David Mazel | Jul 21, 2006 | Reply

27. It was hard for her not to see my desire for reconciliation as a kind of betrayal. But it’s not. Everyone is entitled to their own path.

    Nicely said.

    David Mazel — I’m wondering why the vigor in your efforts here?

    Your page didn’t give me much of a clue

    “David Mazel, who can usually be found slouching towards Gomorrah on the campus of Adams State College, is a tenured radical working to close the American mind while celebrating the death of outrage, assaulting American ideals, and hastening the death of the West by telling liberal lies about the American right.”

    Comment # 27 by Stephen M (Ethesis) | Jul 22, 2006 | Reply

28. David,

    In true sincerity, please define “homophobic” in a empircally verifiable way so we can properly respond to your last post (#26). I do not find the church homophobic at all. However, I do find many members who are homophobic. But my definition of homophobic also allows for condemnation of an irresponsible behaviour while recognizing that orientation is a natural variation in life. I know there are others that would define homophobia as all forms of judgment concerning gay persons, even if it only deals with tangent items affecting the gay community such as excessive drug use or higher than average STD infections.

    Your displeasure at John’s decision to return to church is based upon your claim that the church is homophobic. So I kindly ask for a clear definition of what defines homophobic so we can all compare our own experiences against the definition you provide.

    As I said, in my experience and based upon my definition, the church is not homophobic.

    Comment # 28 by Michael | Jul 24, 2006 | Reply

29. Stephen, the sentence you quoted from my home page is a string of right-wing book titles disparaging liberal academics (The Closing of the American Mind, The Death of Outrage, etc.).

    And what “vigor” are your referring to?

    Michael, as I am using the term, “homophobia” refers to an aversion to or prejudice against homosexuality. If someone learns that their son is gay and feels unhappy about it, that’s homophobia. (It’s not some exotic anomaly infecting only “bad” people; in its milder forms, it’s deeply ingrained and very widespread in our culture.) The “LDS Church,” as I am using that term, refers to the church’s official authority structure.

    Comment # 29 by Anonymous | Jul 24, 2006 | Reply

30. In the early 1990’s I rediscovered the teachings of Joseph Smith and experienced a powerful eprsonal conversion to Mormonism’s unqiue doctrines on the nature of Deity, man and existence. Ten years earlier, after graduating from BYU, I requested excommunication from the LDS Church. With a desire to return to Mormonism, in 1994 I was rebaptized into the LDS Church. Being a gay man, I decided (after much thought and prayer) that I could committ to a life of celibacy. I never for an instant entertained the notion that I would ever marry a woman. Even if a woman would have been willing to marry me despite my past gay experiences, I simply could not bring myself to think that such a union would bring nothing but happiness to both of us.

    Having been away from the LDS Church since 1982, I was surprised by the monumental changes in LDS theology and culture: LDS Mormonism had become much more Christ centered, and the distance that once separated LDS Mormonism from Evangelical Christianity had shortened to an amazing degree. The LDS Church had become part of the political Religious Right. Shortly after I was rebaptized, the Church began involving itself in the campaigne against same-sex marriage and same-sex civil unions.

    The frustration that I experienced within a few years of being rebaptized came from never being able to mention that I was homosexual and that, at time, my committment to celibacy FELT like a very big sacrifice.
    Even in being celibate, I’m fairly certain that were I (when moving into a new ward) were to tell my bihsop that I was dealing with “same-sex attraction,” I would probably not have been called to serve the Elders Quorum, teach Priesthood or Gospel Doctrine (calls that were extended to me in every single Ward to which I belonged.) Being celibate simply would not have been enough to qualify me. As my homosexuality was still a part of my nature (despite celibac), many LDS leaders would have nevertheless viewed me as struggling with the powers of darkness and/or Satan. The LDS Church’s insistance that homosexuality per se does not exist but simply “gender confusion” or a spiritual short-coming colors the entire issue. I wonder how many faith LDS friends and associates, who on occassion thanked me for bearing my testimony in Testimony meetings, or who had good things to say about lessons I taught in Priesthood or talks I gave in Sacrament–would feel the same way if they knew that my sexual desires were toward other men? The desire alone–even when not acted upon–would have been seen as a spiritual evil so great that it would undermine any testimony I bore.

    This is why the Bishop in NYC who rebaptized me, told me that following my rebaptism interview I should never mention my past gay experiences or my homosexiality again. “After this interview, it is forgiven and forgotten in the Lord’s eyes,” he told me. “Even if Priesthood leaders in the future should ask you about your past, you have absolutely no obligation to answer their questions. In fact, I would advise you not to. The past is behind you forever.”

    Of course, LDS culture is built around marriage.I was in my mid-30’s and was what many people seemed to think of as attractive. As soon as people realized I was single, they immediately set about trying to set me up on dates with daughters, sisters, single mothers and friends-of-friends. I turned down all such offers. Surprisngly, if anyone suspected I was a celibate gay man, they never let on to me.

    Within four years of my rebaptism, however, for the first time in my entire life I was overcome with the feeling of being alone. I had many good and kind “close” friends in the LDS Church. (In fact, like most LDS, ALL of my friends and associates outside of the workplace ended up being LDS.) But the fact remained that I could not tell them that I was homosexual and dealing with profound loneliness due to me commitment to celibacy. I was certain that it would change their feelings towards me. (Experiences since then have borne this out.)

    And of course since the Church’s stand seems to be that “homosexuality” does not even exist, but is merely “gender confusion,” an illusion or a spiritual deception–one could not say, “I am feeling very alone because I am a celibate homosexual.” I wasn’t free to go to Church leaders or friends and ask for a blessing concerning this issue, or request that they keep me in their prayers in regard to this specific issue. Instead, I had to pretend that I was really a celibate heterosexual who simply had no interest in getting married at this time.

    When I told a “close” LDS friend that I didn’t see myself getting married (even without mentioning my sexuality), this friend more or less went “off the deep end”–telling me that the Brethren tell us that marriage is essential to exaltation, and begging me to promise that I would never say such a thing again; begged (and I mean BEGGED) me to promise her that I would continue to “leave open” the possibility of marrying. Our long conversation ended with this friend bearing testimony that I would indeed find a wife and marry her.

    By 2002, my frustration with the LDS Church drift toward more traditionally Evangelical Christian theology and my intense loneliness reached the breaking point. I decided to leave the LDS Church. In making this decision, a factor as great (even greater) than my homosexuality was my conviction that the LDS Church was no longer very “Mormon” The most unique and positive elements of Joseph Smith’s teachings were no longer present in the LDS Church. In fact, most were openly denied or underplayed.

    Yet I knew I was a Mormon. My testimony of certain Mormon doctrines simply made it impossible for me to return to Christianity or embrace one of the more open-minded denominations such as the Unitarians or the Quakers.

    The big question was: What type of Mormon was I?

    In 2003 I discovered Reform Mormonism–a home-based Mormon tradition that embraces all of Joseph’s most unique teachings, that celebrates Free Agency, the value of the individual over the collective–as well as Eternal Progression, personal responsibility and rational thought. Reform Mormonism also accepts homosexuality as perfectly natural and good.

    In the end, it was Joseph Smith himself who helped me see the light regarding my homosexuality.

    All my life I struggled to understand why and/or IF God created me homosexual. If homosexuality is a sin, then God comes always came across as a rather sadistic parent, creating me to have desires and the commanding me not to act on them–even when acting on them harmed no one else but only violated His commands.

    The turning point in my life –the moment in which I became, in a sense, a “born-again” Mormon and an openly homosexual ma-came when I realized that God did NOT create me as a homosexual BECAUSE God did not create me at all.

    “Intelligence or light of truth was not created, neither indeed can it be,” (Doctrine & Covenants)

    “The mind of man is eternal…without beginning or end….God never had the power to create the mind of man because God could not create Himself.” (Joseph Smith, “The King Follett Discourse.”)

    Joseph Smith taught that I am an eternal being; that I am uncreated and co-equal with God. I am, in short, an eternal part of nature–which is uncreated, eternal and without beginning or end. Like God, I simply AM. And I happen to BE homosexual. My homosexuality is not a “condition,” not the result of confusion, not an illusion, not a spiritual or ethical weakness. It is simply an aspect of my eternal, uncreated self.

    The moment at which the words of Jospeh’s King Follett Discourse came to my mind can only be described as a soul-saving revelation. I has always imagined that to accept my homosexuality would be to feel as if I was surrendering or “giving in.” Instead, the moment in which I saw my true relationship with God, realized the objective reality of my nature was the moment in which I felt engulfed in Light, liberated from chains that had weighted me down all my life.

    The past three years since coverting to Reform Mormonism have been the happiest of my life. I never imagined that life could be this joyous, and that I could see myself, my relatioonship with others and with my Heavenly Parents with such clarity.

    Comment # 30 by Rob | Aug 17, 2006 | Reply

31. Very interesting post, Rob. Similar to you, I had my name removed from the records of the LDS church, largely because modern LDS-ism had so little in common with actual Mormonism (that, and I could no longer buy into the traditional model of “sin” and “atonement”). The fact that I took this action at the same time that I came out as a gay man naturally led many to believe I had different motives.

    Before I left the LDS church, I could have been described as borderline Fundamentalist Mormon. The only thing that kept me from pursuing that path further, was that I simply couldn’t see any legitimacy to their authority claims. So now, my spirituality is strictly an individual thing. I have explained to friends that I carry with me many things from Joseph—they just happen to be things that no longer have any place within the modern LDS church.

    Comment # 31 by Nick Literski | Aug 17, 2006 | Reply

32. Responding to #30…

    What a journey, Rob. I was particularly struck by this comment: “Within four years of my rebaptism, however, for the first time in my entire life I was overcome with the feeling of being alone.”

    Your commitment to celibacy was admirable. I’ve read many stories of other Gay LDS who have made a similar commitment, or who have married women and are committed to sublimating their same sex attraction.

    I just don’t think a life long commitment to celibacy [or to a wife one *cannot* be sexually attracted to (I'm ruling out those with bisexual attraction here)] is a workable life long reality, despite what Elder Lance Wickman says:

    {begin quote}

    One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”

    Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.

    The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.

    {end quote}

    I respect Elder Wickman’s beliefs, but to me this isn’t just about sexual gratification. Besides being about love, family, all of the things the Church holds most sacred, it is an issue of “identity”. The quote above treats same sex attraction as if it were an inconsequential or minor aspect of one’s being or personhood, as if it could be discarded without changing the essence of the person.

    I don’t know — Nick or Rob will have to weigh in here — but despite the pain you’ve experienced relative to SSA throughout your lives, if you were given the chance to be heterosexual in the next life, would you take it? Who knows, maybe you would? To me though it seems inextricably tied to your essence, to what makes you “you”.

    For the full article with Elders Wickman and Oaks, see:

    http://www.lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-202-4-202,00.html

    I also love this article by Robert Rees called Between Suicide and Celibacy:

    http://www.dialoguejournal.com/excerpts/38-4a.pdf

    Comment # 32 by Matt Thurston | Aug 17, 2006 | Reply

33. That’s the first time I’ve seen those particular comments from Elder Wickman. I went to the website to read the entire article, and found it truly disturbing.

    Elder Oaks apparently feels the need to continue this “homosexuality is not a noun . . . it is an adjective.” Funny, but the dictionary I just consulted gives several definitions that describe homosexuality as a noun, and zero that describe it as an adjective. Elder Wickman uses the term, “gender orientation,” perpetuating the stereotype that gay men are automatically effeminate, or want to be women. Elder Oaks dismisses being gay as the equivalent of being tempted to steal, or drink alcohol.

    On the other hand, at least Oaks condemned the past aversion “therapy” torture which was once conducted at the university he presided over.

    I would like to know exactly where Wickman gets his dogma that homosexuality only exists “in this nanosecond of our eternal existence.” I imagine he would point to the Proclamation on the Family, but that document specifies “gender” as eternal, without comment on sexual orientation.

    Oaks’ little discussion of deity and discrimination is circular beyond belief. In essence, he says that while some situations exist that would make it appear that deity is discriminatory, those situations can’t be discriminatory, because deity would not discriminate. Huh??

    I believe this is also the first “counsel” I have seen from an LDS leader, telling families that they should reject the partner of a gay family member. If one of my five LDS daughters told me that my partner was not welcome in their home, or could not be acknowledged in public, I would politely let them know that in “uninviting” my partner, they were “uninviting” me. Granted, Oaks and Wickman slightly soften this advice, but it clearly gives license to some very cold, unloving behavior.

    Forgive my rant, but that “interview” was simply amazing.

    Now, to Matt’s question: If I had the opportunity to be heterosexual in “the next life,” or even in some future incarnation (for those who believe in such), would I take that opportunity?

    The short answer is “no.” It took many years of struggle for me to accept myself as a gay man, and to come out of the proverbial closet. Like many gay LDS men, I prayed, fasted, cried, etc., asking deity to “fix” me, and make me straight. It didn’t happen. During that time, though, there were moments of quiet honesty, when I had to admit that I didn’t WANT to be changed—that yes, being gay (though I didn’t use that word for myself back then) was very much a part of my nature—of who I was and am.

    As an openly gay man, I find myself THANKFUL that I am gay. Yes, I’ve heard all the arguments that nobody in their right mind would choose to be gay, due to the social stigma, etc. The fact is, however, that I have learned to value my own gay experience. I am grateful for the understanding and appreciation I have for things that “straight” men can never grasp. I’m grateful that I know what it is like to make love to another man–and yes, having been married, I know enough to compare that experience with the alternative. I am grateful to experience the fraternity, even the “tribal” sense of unity that can exist among gay men. In short, I am thankful for the JOY that I experience in being an openly gay man. I fought and struggled far too long, to ever willingly give up the peace, wholeness, fulfillment, and joy that I have found.

    Comment # 33 by Nick Literski | Aug 18, 2006 | Reply

34. I found Rob’s account of his struggles to remain faithful and within the church painful and deeply moving. To me, this highlights the double-bind in which gay folks in the church find themselves. Even when we make tremendous sacrifices–such as remaining celibate along with all the attendant pain and loneliness that usually entails–we find that we are still treated as if we are not good enough.

    If I were to attempt to live a life of celibacy, I know for certain that I could not–would not attempt to–do it in secret. Yet, based on my own observations and what others have experienced, Rob is probably right. Just the fact of knowing that we are same-sex oriented is enough to make us inferior in the eyes of many, if not most, church members and leaders.

    But not all. I know for a fact that many members and leaders in the church DO understand the nature of what we are struggling with, and would be supportive in every way, and would not view the failure of someone in this situation to marry as an indication that they are unworthy in any way. Far from it.

    I am absolutely convinced that there is yet MUCH light and knowledge needed in the church on this subject. In the meantime those of us who are gay or lesbian face very difficult choices in relation to the church, none of which are very easy or comfortable:

    1) We can totally reject the church. I tried this for twenty years, but have gradually realized that this is not an option for me, because I have a testimony of the gospel.

    2) We can try to live the church’s teachings and remain in good standing by getting married. I hope that anyone considering this path will listen to the recording of the Sunstone Symposium panel in which Emily Pearson, Annette Daly, and Doe Daughtery spoke. My understanding is that church leaders have been advised by the leaders of the church that it is unsound to advise gay men to marry as a means of overcoming their homosexuality.

    3) We can try to live the church’s teachings and remain in good standing by living a life of celibacy. This imposes an incredible burden of loneliness on the one trying to follow this path. This will also leave us in a sort of “shadow region” in the church. Many will not understand us; we may find ourselves marginalized in terms of church callings and other participation because of the strong emphasis on marriage.

    4) We can live in a relationship with a member of the same-sex, but in every other way attempt to adopt the teachings and principles of the gospel and live them as faithfully as we can. If we choose this option (and if we are open and honest with others about it) we will be excommunicated from the church. We will still be permitted to attend meetings, but any possibility of service or active participation in sacrament, priesthood or temple functions will be denied us.

    5) We can live in a relationship with a member of the same-sex, and then lie to church leaders about it in order to maintain our standing within the church. Personally, I do not consider this a “faithful” option, but I know of individuals who are trying to reconcile their LDS faith with their sexual orientation in this way.

    6) Rob’s decision to affiliate himself with “Reform Mormonism” (or, I suppose, any other group of Mormons such as the Community of Christ, who embrace the teachings of Joseph Smith but are more embracing of GLBT folks) represents another option. Again, this is not an option for me since my testimony of the gospel includes my conviction that the LDS church holds the true priesthood keys. I would need a witness from the Spirit that other such groups also hold the keys that Joseph restored.

    I see this as a “pick your poison” kind of choice. No matter which way I go, there will be some attendant struggle and pain. There will be a cross for me to bear. The two options that are most appealing to me at this point in my life are (3) and (4). With the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I have chosen (4). The Spirit has assured me that this is a faithful choice, and the presence of the Holy Spirit had helped to heal much of the pain and continues to help me live with the burdens imposed by this choice. Without the witness and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I would find it impossible to walk in this path.

    I firmly believe that (3) is also a faithful choice, and I fully support in every way I possibly can–morally, socially, and prayerfully–those who feel called to live with that choice. I think it is necessary to acknowledge that this is a choice the majority of gay and lesbian folks will not be able to sustain for their entire lives. Some may be able to, and to the extent they embrace this faithful path, I believe they will be blessed.

    In response to Matt’s question (though he didn’t address it directly to me)… I would not choose to be anything other than what I am. I believe it is possible I chose to enter mortality knowing that I would face this particular trial. Even if I did not, I know that I chose to enter mortality knowing that I would face SOME trial. If this is it, so be it.

    I suspect, though I have no proof of this, that my sexual orientation is an eternal aspect of my spirit, and that there is divine potential in the love I share with my partner, just as the seeds of divinity can be found in the love shared by heterosexual couples.

    Even if my “suspicion” is wrong, and I freely acknowledge it may be, the only other thing that makes sense to me is that our sexual orientation is an accident of a flawed mortal existence. We cannot and should not be punished for something in our mortal natures which we did not create. Unfortunately, none of the choices available to us to deal with the accidents of our mortal existence.

    At the Sunstone symposium, I wept to hear Carol Lynn Pearson’s presentation Saturday. And I was completely overwhelmed to hear the loving, compassionate words spoken by Bill Bradshaw in response to the paper I presented. The love he expressed left me utterly speechless. There are Latter-day Saints who love us and embrace us as we are, in every meaningful sense of that word, who stand in solidarity with us, no matter how we choose to deal with the painful and difficult situations we often face. Hey you straight Saints out there, if you are one of those, SPEAK OUT! We need to hear your voices. We need the encouragement that your solidarity with us provides. And we need you to stay faithful in the church and KEEP WORKING!

    By the way, though I don’t feel called to join “Reform Mormonism,” I am intrigued by Rob’s statement that his faith was renewed understanding of the principles that Joseph Smith revealed that helped him to come to a full acceptance of himself as a gay man. This very much resonates with my own experience. Delving into the teachings of the prophet has also cemented my commitments as a Latter-day Saint. And the closer I have come to the church, the more truly I have sought the companionship and guidance of the Holy Spirit, the more deeply affirmed I have felt as a gay man and the closer I have felt to my same-sex partner.

    Comment # 34 by John Gustav-Wrathall | Aug 18, 2006 | Reply

35. The Wickman/Oaks article is now being discussed at some length at several blogs, most prominently (155 comments so far) at Millenial Star: http://www.millennialstar.org/index.php/2006/08/16/p1738#more1738

    Many have commented that the article is a step in the right direction. Rob, Nick, and John, the conversation happening at Millenial Star would benefit greatly by your experiences.

    Comment # 35 by Matt Thurston | Aug 18, 2006 | Reply

36. I’d like to respond to Matt’s assertion that same-sex attractions did not exist in pre-earth life and won’t exist afterwards.

    This is an idea to which I clung for decades–and which I had to discard when I realized the full implications of Joseph Smith’s teachings in the King Follett Discourse.

    Some background information first:

    Having accepted the above assertion, for years I fasted, prayed, read books, consulted the writings of reparitive experts, etc.–all with the unshakeable conviction that if I simply understood the workings of my mind and how these interacted with my emotions, I could somehow “undo the damage or errors” that caused my homosexuality.

    I knew that sexual arousal for humans is psychological; that sexual arousal is a physical manifestation of an emotional/psychological state.

    So I began to think of my mind as a ball of threads and strings, all intertwined with one another.

    I reasoned that if the threads that “caused” my homosexuality could be indentified and then pulled from the ball, I would be on my way to becoming a heterosexual.

    My life-changing “revelation” came when the full force of Joseph Smith’s teachings on the nature of the mind hit me.

    Joseph taught that the mind was eternal, uncreated and co-equal with God. One’s essential identity–one’s mind–is eternal; it was not made by God, and certainly I did NOT create it myself.

    A question suddenlycame to mind: What if I could succeed in removing from the ball of thread (my mind) those strings and threads that were responsible for my homosexuality?

    It is the tension of all the inter-twined strings and threads that actually make a ball of strings a BALL. Try to tear some of the strings or threads out, and the ball will probably rip apart and no longer be a ball.

    So it is with the mind.

    To remove from my mind those aspects reponsible for my sexual orientation (if, indeed, it is even possible to identify those aspects…and I’m not certain that it is) would be to destroy my mind as it now exists. It would damage who I AM. It would change the very essence of who I am. I would no longer be ME.

    I do not see sexuality as being one isolated aspect of the individual human being that can be sacrificed, removed or overcome.

    (SIDENOTE: Early Mormon theology confirms this view. Parley P.Pratt’s 1840’s missionary tract “Intelligence & Affection” warned that it was wrong for one to pray that one’s sexual desires be lessed or removed. In fact, in contrast the traditional Christian concepts and Victorian sexualk mores, he taught that one should pray that God would INCREASE and strengthen one’s seuxla desires. Now I don’t for a moment think that Pratt [a product of the early 19th century] would embrace homosexuality as natural or good. But he nevertheless saw the damage that trying to “overcome” one’s sexuality could do to the individual. He taught that THIS ATTEMPT was the real perversion of sex.)

    I realized that according to Joseph Smith’s new theological paradigm (what I call the Mormon Paradigm) the eternal, uncreated mind of the individual is constantly progressing to a greater, more complexed state.

    Existence in time and space (life on earth) is not a step down, but a step up. Nature is not fallen or inherently sinful as Orthodox Christianity teached. (From the beginning of his career Joseph taught that the so-called Fall was a fall upwards; that it was a GOOD thing; a step FORWARD in the Eternal Progression of the individual.)

    The one constant in the so-called Pre-existence, our current life on earth and the eternities beyond is ONE’S MIND.

    There’s the old saying that human sexuality is “between the ears, not between the legs”…meaning, human sexuality is of the mind, not the body.

    That being the case, I am firmly convinced that inasmuch as any of us existed as thinking individuals in a Pre-earth life, those aspects of the mind which define our sexual orientation in THIS life were present at that time as an important aspect of our eternal, uncreated, naturally occuring individual SELVES. One’s sexuality and sexual orientation can not be discarded or repaired in eternity, because it was never chosen and is not in and of itself anything that needs repair.

    Like many devout LDS Mormons I had for decades rejected the word “homosexual” as an adjective to describe an individual. I insisted that while certain acts, thoughts and desires could be labeled homosexual, a person could not. Another reason I resisted the label “homosexual” was because I simply could not relate to so much in Gay culture. I could not separate being “homosexual” from the drag queens and such in Gay Pride parades.

    But through Joseph Smith’s teachings, I realized that there really was such a thing as a homosexual mind. “Homosexual” is the perfect adjective to describe a type of human being, and there is nothing immoral or unethical in being a homosexual–and a homosexual involved in a homosexual relationship.

    For myself, there is no pain or “cross to bear” in accepting one’s sexual nature. But there is a terrible cross and much pain in denying or repressing one’s homosexuality. Such denial and repression is what leads to sexual perversion, self-loathing and the denigration of that very aspect of human nature that should draw us to others in the most profound and valuable relationships in this life and in the next.

    I understand, too, that the LDS Church’s theology is built on the idea of Priesthood authority being restored to the earth through Joseph Smith and existing to this day in an earthly institution (the LDS Church itself).

    But as a Reform Mormon and as a student of Mormon history, I can find no evidence (contemporary to 1829 and 1830) to support the restoration of Priesthood keys through John the Baptist and others. In fact, all the evidence indicates that this notion was introduced several years later (1832-34) when the story of the Gold Plates came under attack and a great number of Mormons began to leave the Church. That, of course, is another topic altogether. I only bring it up here because the issue of Priesthood authority and keys is so central to LDS theology, and many LDS homosexuals lead unhappy lives because they believe they must submitt to their Church’s Priesthood authority in order to please God. I don’t believe that such authority (as presented by the LDS Church) even exists. I can’t justify any human being sacrificing himself for the sake of any religious instutition.

    Comment # 36 by Rob | Aug 18, 2006 | Reply

37. Rob:

    I find your speculations very interesting–compelling even. I just read a very interesting article in the Spring 2006 issue of Dialogue about the relationship between “intelligence” and “spirit” that explores similar issues.

    I do not know whether our sexuality belongs to the realm of “intelligence” or “mind” as you suggest, whether it belongs to the realm of “spirit” (i.e., that portion of our eternal selves which was parented by God, somehow incorporating our eternal, uncreated intelligence), or whether it belongs to the realm of “body” or “nature” which is combined with our spirit to create our eternal “soul.”

    Certainly, my own experience tells me that our sexuality is much broader than mere physical urges or attractions. I agree with you that it encompasses emotional, social, and intellectual elements that could certainly place it within the realm of intelligence. Even if my partner and I did not have sex, I would still be attracted to him in myriad other ways, would still share a connection with him that feels profoundly spiritual and even “eternal.” I’ve said as much in my Sunstone article, and continue to affirm that our relationship certainly “feels” this way.

    Furthermore, if our sexual orientation is indeed an eternal element of our spirit selves or even of our “uncreated mind,” that would be the best possible explanation I can imagine for why the vast majority of individuals who have prayed, fasted, and struggled to “change” have found their prayers unanswered. If our sexual orientation is indeed an eternal aspect of ourselves, a wise Heavenly Father would never grant such requests, even if he could.

    I also acknowledge that things are not always as we “perceive” them. That is why I approach the task of discerning the doctrinal issues related to homosexuality with as much humility as possible. I acknowledge my intellectual insights, hunches, feelings and perceptions as having value. I place an even higher value on my experiences with the Holy Spirit. But I acknowledge that as time goes on I may learn or experience other things that will clarify, revise or even correct what I “know” now. There’s no short cut for acquiring spiritual knowledge and wisdom.

    Through my connection with the Holy Spirit, I feel grounded enough that it does not ultimately worry me that I cannot currently be in good standing in the church (though it is not always easy to keep the tension of believing in the church and being forced to remain in the margins, on the outside). I have received strong witnesses, however, that if I have patience, honor my partner, and live as faithfully as I can, things will all work out in the end. This gives me some spiritual “leeway” to remain open to other peoples’ points of view, and to wait and see what new light breaks forth.

    I should say, by the way, that a lot of gay and lesbian Latter-day Saints are in crisis. Suicide is a huge problem for gay Latter-day Saints. There are many whose lives literally hang in the balance, because their sense of self has been totally demolished by condemnation, misunderstanding, and destructive rhetoric. I hope anyone reading this who is in crisis understands clearly: You are OK as you are. God loves you. The situation in the church right now is very difficult, but things will work out in the end. You do not need to abandon your faith or your sense of meaning in life to affirm and feel good about who you are.

    I am fully aware of the history (both official and unofficial) of the restoration of the priesthood keys. I do have a testimony that the LDS Church has the keys of the priesthood. I would not characterize myself as “unhappy” because I must submit to that authority. As I said, I trust that all will work out eventually.

    John

    Comment # 37 by John Gustav-Wrathall | Aug 18, 2006 | Reply

38. John,
    Have you read the book of essays from Signature Books entitled “Line Upon Line”? In it is a very good article on how Joseph Smith never taught one of the LDS Church’s central doctrines: that Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother actually gave birth to our spirits/intelligences.

    Joseph never taught it. He taught that the mind of man–”the intelligence is a spirit from everlasting to everlasting. There was no creation about it.”

    After Joseph’s death, as the LDS embraced polygamy, Orson Pratt and others began teaching that spirits were sexually produced by our Heavenly Parents…as a theological justification of Plural Marriage.

    Comment # 38 by Rob | Aug 19, 2006 | Reply

39. Rob:

    I have not read “Line Upon Line,” though I’ve seen articles from it quoted, and am interested in reading it.

    I am aware of the notion that Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother somehow sexually produced our spirits, though I always assumed that such notions were individual speculation, or extrapolation from a number of scriptural texts which do specifically describe God “creating” the spirits of humankind. Unless you’re aware of scriptures I’m not, the only semi-canonical reference to Mother in Heaven in Eliza R. Snow’s hymn “O My Father.” I’ve always viewed belief in Heavenly Mother, and notions of the technical process by which spirit children are created as belonging to the mysteries; though they have definite basis in non-canonical teachings of Joseph Smith and others.

    All the same, my understanding is that the notion of uncreated intelligences progressing by receiving “bodies” of spirit, and then further progressing by receiving bodies of flesh or tabernacle is pretty well established in the Mormon canon. It’s just the mechanics of it (particularly the spirit bodies part) that are vague.

    If there is more emphasis on eternal heterosexuality in the Heavens now than there was 20 years ago (I don’t personally know that there is, because I certainly haven’t heard anything about this over the pulpit in my home ward), then maybe that’s one of the developments I’ve missed in the last twenty years of being away from the church.

    It has occurred to me that in response to the gay rights movement and the push for same sex marriage, and in order to justify the church’s current policies of exclusion, many individual members may be developing a heterosexually-oriented cosmology as a way to rationalize and defend church policy… In much the same way that a sort of folk theology of black fence-sitters in the preexistence emerged in order for ordinary Mormons to explain to themselves and others why the church refused to ordain black people pre-1978. (Of course this racist cosmology got a few nods from general authorities like Bruce R. McConkie, though it was never official or canonical.)

    I think it is extremely helpful to remind ourselves exactly what scripture does say (and, of course, what it does not say), and to be careful to distinguish what is extrapolation and/or speculation, and what is strictly canonical. I always like to remind myself that what I know is like an atom and what I don’t know is like the rest of the universe outside that single atom.

    John

    Comment # 39 by John Gustav-Wrathall | Aug 19, 2006 | Reply

40. John: Thanks for your insights, steadfasteness and mostly your kind heart. I don’t have the burden to carry that you do, but I admire your forthright courage and well-stated positions. While I am skeptical as to whether Joseph Smith taught the doctrine of a Mother in Heaven and spirit birth, I am open to the possibility that he did so. We just have no concrete evidence showing that he did — but there is a good deal of circumstantial evidence suggesting that he did.

    That said, my own experience is that the vision of the pre-mortal exisitence is one of the most edifying revelations given by Joseph Smith and it clarifies a great deal for me and places life in a broader perspective that works for me. I believe that remarkable folks like you and others who took on the burden of a same-sex orientation are and were truly remarkable for choosing to learn the lessons that arise from such amazing challenges. It appears to me that you are learning those lessons well.

    I especially like your statement: “I think it is extremely helpful to remind ourselves exactly what scripture does say (and, of course, what it does not say), and to be careful to distinguish what is extrapolation and/or speculation, and what is strictly canonical. I always like to remind myself that what I know is like an atom and what I don’t know is like the rest of the universe outside that single atom.”

    Comment # 40 by Blake | Aug 20, 2006 | Reply

41. Blake:

    LDS beliefs about eternal marriage and about the nature of exaltation and about the nature of our relationship with God certainly imply that there is a Heavenly Mother, even if there is no explicit mention of her in canonized scripture. And I personally believe in Heavenly Mother.

    I recently spoke to a group of non-LDS seminary students (at United Theological Seminary in New Brighton, Minnesota) and shared with them some of the uniquely LDS understandings about the plan of salvation. There was some discussion about the use of “inclusive language” to speak of God–many liberal Protestants have taken to referring to God in gender neutral language or referring to God as both “He” and “She.”

    I explained to the class that while I believe it is very important to use language that helps all of us–women and men–see ourselves as equal participants in the work of God, and helps all of us–women as well as men–see the divine spark in ourselves, I had trouble with “gender inclusive language” about God because I believe in a Heavenly Mother.

    It was interesting watching peoples’ faces when I explained this… There was a sort of flash of recognition, like, “Oh! Now I understand!”

    It’s just to say, this is an important belief to me personally, and I think it has the potential to transform our understanding of ourselves and our relationship to God. It also has the potential to transform our understanding of the nature of the marriage covenant.

    At the same time, I think it is wrong to use beliefs about gender and marriage in a way that makes anyone feel less than whole or less than a child of God. I believe if we use doctrines about eternal marriage in a way that denigrates women or that denigrates gay people, then our understanding and our use of those doctrines must be wrong. Then it is time for us to return to God in prayer and ask for additional understanding.

    Sometimes that understanding may not be forthcoming. We will not have a complete vision or understanding of these things, or of the eternal role and destiny of those who are gay or lesbian, until God is ready to reveal them to us (which will actually be when we are ready to receive them). Until that time, I believe we are still being tried by God to see how compassionately we are able to respond with what limited knowledge we have at this time. It is not until after the trial of our faith that we receive the blessing…

    John

    Comment # 41 by John Gustav-Wrathall | Aug 21, 2006 | Reply

42. John,

    Thanks so much for another insightful posting here.

    The Mormon doctrine of a Mother in Heaven is firmly established in Utah Mormon theology. It was explicitly taught in the Lecture Before the Veil portion of the LDS Endowment until 1905..when the theological overview section of the LEcture was removed. The doctrine of Heavenly Mother was central to LDS theology throughout the last half of the 1800’s, being tuaght openly by Brigham Young, Heber C, Kimball, the Pratt Brothers, President Snow and Eliza R. Snow….to name but a few. The 1877 LDS Church sponsored book WOMEN OF MORMONDOM layed out the doctrine in explicit detail.

    However, the doctrine was firmly grounded in another LDS doctrine which the 20th and 21st century LDS Church denies was ever taught: The Adam God doctrine. The doctrine was central to the LDS Endowment ceremony and was explained in the now absent Lecture Before the Veil. Briefly it was this: Heavenly Father and Mother–under the direction of the Gods above them–came to earth, ate the fruits of the earth so that their celestial bodies would become mortal again, this allowing them, through sex, to produce bodies for the uncreated spirits in the eternal world. So mankind is physically decsended from Heaven Father and Heavenly Mother who were in fact those figures we know as Adam and Eve.

    Joseph Smith did teach the doctrine of Heavenly Mother…and he equated her with Eve. Oliver Cowdrey recorded going to the woods with Joseph and another man (I forget his name) to pray. While there, they had a vision of a beautifully formed man and woman. In his account, Oliver records that Joseph identified the couple as Adam and Eve. The othetr witness, in his account, records that Joseph identified them as Heavenly Father and Mother. \

    In the LDS Church’s Proclamation on the Family (issued in thge late 1990;s) the LDS Brethren state that we are the product of “Heavenly Parents.”

    Thus Heavenly Mother is not just speculation, but LDS Mormon doctrine–to this day….though I know that many LDS converts and apologists are very uncomfortable with this doctrine, since it is polytheistic and goes against the very foundation of orthodox Christianity.

    What is speculation is the idea that uncreated intelligences became spirits through some sort of sexual union between our Heavenly Parents. Joseph Smith himself taught “the intelligenece of man is a spirit from everlasting to everlasting.” The hairspliting about intelligence versus spirit has arisen in modern LDS apologetics as a way of dealing with the fact that Joseph taught the spirit was co-equal with God and uncreated (as opposed to Orson Pratt’s doctrine that spirits were sexually produced.)

    Reform Mormonism views all scripture as man-made literature; as something inspired by the faith of individuals, but in now way infalliable. Since Joseph Smith rewrote his revelations throughout his life in order to support his changing theological views, and as “The Book of Mormon” has undergone hundreds of changes (changes that change DOCTRINAL issues)–it’s clear that all branches of Mormonism reject a fundamentalist approach to scripture; an approach that places the authority of scripture above all other authorities.

    Brigham Young himself said that whenever he preached a sermon, edited it and then had it published to the Church and the world, he considered it scripture. LDS president Ezra Taft Benson in 1981 taught that the teachings of LDS presidents took precedent OVER scriptures.

    My point in bringing all this up is that Mormonism has never given any scripture the status that Protestant Christianity gives scripture. In Mormonism, scripture never has the final word.

    Again, I know that many LDS converts and apologists are very uncomfortable with this very liberal approach to scripture…since it is so clearly at odds with the beliefs/convictions of most American
    Christians.

    Comment # 42 by rob | Aug 21, 2006 | Reply

43. Not to hijack this thread, but given Jon’s determination to participate in the church, I think the church’s corporate behavior is relevant here.

    I live in Seattle. For some unknown reason, a rather sizeable portion of Seattle’s gay community is made up of former members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or those who remain “on the books” in name only. I am shocked to find myself continually running into men in this situation. Just in my limited experience, this issue is far more common among LDS than most would like to believe.

    Now, I think it’s safe to say that LDS leaders would like to see these men change their ways, and return to full fellowship in the church. One might even expect some sort of focused effort at reaching and reclaiming these individuals. Instead, I see actions and statements such as the recent “interview” with Elders Oaks and Wickman.

    I personally know two men who have decided, as a direct result of this interview, to have their names removed from the records of the church. One has already sent his letter, the other is about to. Neither of these men felt driven to do so when the political letter was read, urging LDS to lobby for a constitutional amendment defining marriage. They shrugged that event off, but this interview hit both of them very, very differently.

    I could go through a laundry list of things that these men found irritating or offensive, but let’s cut to the chase—the one thing that both found truly shocking. Never before, in their experience with the church, had they seen an apostle counsel members of the church to reject family members over a breach of a particular LDS teaching. Yes, they understood that the statement was softened a bit by language that each situation was different, and required prayer. Still, they read Elder Oaks’ language, indicating that if your partnered gay son comes to visit, you must reject the partner (which in essence is to reject the son also)—you should not allow them to spend the night in your house, you should not “acknowledge” them in public or introduce them to your friends, etc. It’s fair to say that most LDS will read these words from an apostle as being direction on how deity would have them react in such a situation.

    They, and I, understand that the counsel was geared toward protecting younger children in the family from improper influences. Even from this perspective, however, it singles out one particular issue. If Uncle Howard had an affair, and he came visiting with Aunt Harriett, would you tell them they weren’t welcome to spend the night at your house, because Howard’s adultery would be a bad example? Would you no longer introduce Howard to those in your social circle? Would you cease to acknowledge him? Of course not. In fact, if Howard was a serial killer, you’d pray for him and visit him in prison. If he was GAY, however, you’re now supposed to cut him off?

    My former in-laws were faced with a situation where a family member divorced his wife and immediately married the also-barely-divorced woman who’s family he had been home-teaching. The divorces were even set to be finalized the same day, until his first wife noticed and accused him of planning to do what he eventually did. It was known that inappropriate activity had taken place between this family member and the woman in question, while both were still married and he was the other family’s home teacher. How did my former in-laws react? They reached out with love to the couple–both their existing family member AND his new bride. They bent over backward in an attempt to avoid saying or doing anything that could hurt their feelings, especially the wife’s. It would appear that they behaved in a very “christlike” manner.

    It appears now that their behavior was fine, so long as the new spouse was a woman (no matter how ugly the circumstances). If their family member had brought a gay partner home, however, all that loving behavior would have been disobedient and sinful?

    This is really troubling.

    Comment # 43 by Nick Literski | Aug 23, 2006 | Reply

44. Nick:

    There are a number of things I found troubling about the interview, which I also commented on on the Millenial Star blog.

    My main concern was my perception that although the questions in the interview raised clear pastoral concerns, I thought there was a tendency to respond in a way that was defensive and political, rather than in a way that was truly pastoral. There’s not much to glean from the interview about how to deal with the complexities facing a real, live gay or lesbian person. What concrete advice was offered seemed to me to be geared toward protecting the church from having to deal with the issue–encouraging parents to draw boundaries that result in pushing the kids away, isolating families with gay kids who may have become sympathetic to their kids, discouraging gay folks from meeting in organizations where they are likely to meet other gay folks, etc.

    In fairness, however, General Authorities’ role is not pastoral, it’s not to deal one-on-one with individuals in their individual situations, and in fairness, Oaks and Wickman made it clear that handling individual situations requires prayer, attentiveness to the Spirit, and consideration of individual needs. The General Authorities’ role is to define boundaries overall for the church, and that’s what they did. I didn’t see the interview as completely negative; there were some steps forward (acknowledging sexual orientation is not usually chosen and making it clear that marriage is not a therapy).

    In fact, I thought their answer to the question about therapy very interesting… They seem to be distancing themselves from the Evergreen types who still claim that changing sexual orientation is a reasonable objective. This seems like a very significant shift to me.

    All the same, I did find it disappointing, because many who face a pastoral situation or pastoral needs will look to this statement to set the tone for how to deal with pastoral needs, and the tone here is not so positive. At least that was my perception… Perhaps others will look at it differently.

    But whether or not I found this statement helpful is a policy question. To me it does not change the fact that my life is better and I feel closer to God as a result of applying the principles of the gospel in my life and attending church and opening myself to learn in that context. I agreed with Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman that my primary identity is as a child of God…

    John

    Comment # 44 by John Gustav-Wrathall | Aug 23, 2006 | Reply

45. I just read the Wickman/Oaks interview.

    Usually I am very patient and understanding regarding all of this. But honestly, this two men strike me as complete idiots. I am embarrassed that I was ever a member of a denomination in which these morons would be viewed as respectable “leaders”–much less as spokesmen for God Himself. (Ridiculous!!!!!!!!)

    These men are not “patoral” in the least. They are simply the leaders of a big, wealthy religious corporation that has, since the late 1970’s, become part of the Religious Right.

    And yet when the LDS missionaries tell investigators about the supposed “restoration of the Priesthood” and the restoration of “apostles , seventies, etc.” it is with the understanding that the LDS Brethren’s role is “pastoral”…that they are there to “guide us” and “help us” and “teach us Heavenly Father’s plan.”

    They do not. Period.

    The Brethren are nothing more than administrators of a mighty corporation.

    And to be totally blunt I feel sorry for the poor suckers who continue to buy into their lies, and who continue to make excuses for “the Brethren” and sacrifice any hopes of their own happiness in the process. Those who continue to defend them are pretty much laying down on a sacrficial altar and hand the priest officiating the knife with which your life will be taken. What sort of a God are you worshipping if you believe that YOU are an object of sacrifice?

    Here’s the facts: for most human beings parental love (the love one has for one’s child) trumps all alse–including love of God. (I call this “The Fiddler On the Roof” syndrom…for those of you who are familiar with that story.)

    The LDS Church WILL change its stance on homosexuality in a few decades–because society IS changing on this subject–across the social and political spectrum…particularly among the MAJORITY of Americans age 30 and younger–even Evangelical Christians.

    The LDS Church will not change because God has revealed anything to the Brethren. The heavens are “as a stone” over the Brethren’s heads. They recieve no revelation from God in the way in which they claim.

    The LDS Church will change because within the next few decades fewer and fewer LDS mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters are going to sacrifice their gay children and siblings–even if it means “displeasing God.”

    The LDS membership has been leading the LDS Brethren for over a century, and they will continue to do so.

    The Brethren gave up polygamy because the majority of the LDS membership never accpeted it and found it repelent.

    The Brethren had their “revelation” on blacks and the Priesthood because the majority of the LDS membership were embarrassed and troubled by a blatantly racist God…and a theology based on Pre-Civil War doctrinal justifications for slavery.

    Likewise, the LDS Brethren (probably by the 2030’s) will accept homosexuals because the LDS membership will reach the point where they can no longer tolerate a doctrine that is based on ignorance of nature and human biology and which is based on a THREE THOUSAND YEAR OLD Middle Eastern tribal mentality regarding human sexuality.

    Sorry if my opinions offend any here. That’s not my intent…

    Though I have no qualms if I offend “the Brethren” since they are offensive themselves.

    Comment # 45 by Rob | Aug 24, 2006 | Reply

46. Rob:

    I simply don’t agree with you that the Holy Spirit has left the Church. I see it and experience it at work in my ward, and in the ministry of my ward’s leaders. I also see it at work at the highest levels of the church.

    I attended the General Conference broadcasts for the first time in twenty years in April 2006. I did not expect to be inspired. I was surprised. General Conference ended up being a peak spiritual experience for me. I found the words of the General Authorities had direct relevance to the issues and personal struggles in my life, and to me this confirmed that they are called to lead the church and they are leading it the way they should.

    Mormons believe in leaders who are inspired but not infallible. We do not believe it is necessary to agree with everything our leaders say. Our leaders may make mistakes and even stumble. I know that from knowing the history of the church. But that does not mean that I do not trust that the Holy Spirit is capable of leading the church in the direction it needs to go.

    John

    Comment # 46 by John Gustav-Wrathall | Aug 25, 2006 | Reply

47. John:
    I understand and repect your convictions with regard to the Church.

    But let me point out that I did NOT say that the Holy Spirit left the Church. In as much as every single human being on earth, by virtue of their human nature, has access to God and to the Holy Spirit–and in as much as the LDS Church is made up of human beings (the same as every other church on the face of the earth, no more and no less), the Holy Spirit will always be present in the LDS Church–the same as it will always be present in every other church and religious organization, no more and no less.

    The LDS Brethren do NOT claim that the LDS Church merely has the Holy Spirit.