44 Comment(s)

1. Thank you for posting these, John!

   Comment # 1 by Nick Literski | Nov 12, 2007 | Reply

2. I just watched Clark Pingree’s section of the videos and I have to say, in light of Holly Welker’s article in October’s Sunstone, that he has a typically male view of his “right” to a relationship. I snorted at his comment that he didn’t feel he could live a celibate life, even though “plenty of women in the Church are in just this situation.” Then he completely dismissed the topic and went on to talk about himself (which of course was the purpose of his presentation, so I can’t fault him for that). But his casual mention and then dismissal of the subject leads me to wonder if, in his definition of the Plan of Salvation, it’s perfectly acceptable for heterosexual women (or men, though that idea seems not to have crossed his mind) to live without companionship and marriage in this life. Is that because they can find someone in the afterlife? So why can’t he? Also, if he expects to have an eternal relationship with his partner, wouldn’t that partner also need to be baptized, etc. in order to accept the Plan of Salvation? So gay Mormons should only partner with other gay Mormons? I’m not being sarcastic here, I want to know. Clark, if you’re reading this, tell me what you think.

   Comment # 2 by Villate | Nov 12, 2007 | Reply

3. Why it is the church’s job to explain whom God loves and whom he does not love? I just don’t think the church (or anyone else) ought to be speaking for God’s emotions. I propose that the church get the commandments straightened out and let God alone with his emotions. First we get Nelson talk on the limits of divine love and now this. Can we stop being the harbingers of divine love and couching everything in those terms?

   Comment # 3 by tiredmormon | Nov 12, 2007 | Reply

4. I am supportive of the church’s position, although I admit it’s a difficult issue.

   When I was a teenager I had a friend who repeatedly called things “gay” and such. This bothered me and eventually I asked him if he was a homophobe. His response I will never forget: “We’re Mormons. Don’t we have to be?”

   It was that moment that I determined that the answer, for me at least, would be “No, you idiot!” (although I didn’t say that to him at the time, I wish I had). This was long before I understood the true position of the church on the subject.

   I’m glad that our church doesn’t share the view of other Christian conservatives that spin this as such a black-and-white issue. If someone feels they were “born like that”, who am I to argue with him/her? However, I support the church in not giving in to accept acting on the feelings even while accepting the validity of the feelings. Our church, I feel, is very unique in this regard. It’s not an unreasonable position considering there are many poeple who don’t get to act on their sexual feelings for a variety of reasons. Still, I feel greatly for those in this position. Anyone who struggles with this issue but still remains faithful and chaste must be the greatest spiritual giants there are, in my opinion.

   Comment # 4 by Horebite | Nov 12, 2007 | Reply

5. In part 1, he mentions something about John (Dehlin) putting some documentaries about homosexuality in the church up on the internet. Anyone know where those are?

   Comment # 5 by austin smith | Nov 12, 2007 | Reply

6. This is a great panel discussion. Thanks for posting it.

   A couple of observations…

   Ron said he felt the new Church literature on this subject described homosexual orientation as a “core characteristic” of individuals. It is true that the pamphlet “God Loveth His Children” acknowledges that homosexual orientation encompasses emotional and social elements, not just physical/sexual. But the thrust of the new literature is to suggest that homosexuality is not part of our eternal natures or selves. I suspect the general authorities who’ve made recent statements — Elder Oaks, Elder Wickman, Elder Holland — would describe homosexual orientation as “core.” It has been explicitly suggested that homosexuality will vanish in the next life.

   Ron correctly points out that this is a brand new theological position. In fact, I think it runs contrary to fundamental Mormon understandings of the fundamental continuity of human character between this life and the next. See, for example, Alma 34:34: “that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.”

   This is where Clark’s testimony is important. He and many other gay men and lesbians (and I include myself) have experienced our sexual orientation as a core aspect of who we are. When we embrace this aspect of ourselves, we find peace, we feel closer to others and to God, and we find true joy in loving relationships with members of the same sex. When we reject this aspect of ourselves, we experience intense conflict, anguish, depression, and become alienated from friends, family, and from God. To us, this feels like part of our “created,” God-intended selves, as Clark repeatedly emphasizes throughout his talk. So many of us still feel a fundamental disconnect between some of the official statements, and our deepest, profoundest experiences.

   I have a testimony of the Church. I feel drawn to Church fellowship, and have been attending Church regularly for two years now, and have sought to live as many principles of the gospel as I can, while also honoring my 15-year loving commitment to my same-sex partner, and given the restrictions of being excommunicated. Clark apparently has a testimony as well, though he acknowledges that he has distanced himself from the Church in significant ways.

   Another piece of Clark’s presentation that I can totally relate to his is very strong sense of connection to his Heavenly Father — the love and guidance and comfort he feels he has received from God in coming to terms with this. I have experienced this as well, and an incredibly outpouring of the Spirit as I have returned to regular Church attendance and incorporating regular prayer, scripture study, and the word of wisdom into my life, and as I have applied the principles of chastity to my relationship. I have felt completely embraced by God and supported in this path.

   I do not feel any obstacles at all or any contradiction at all between the fundamental principles of the Gospel, or between my life as a spirit child of our Heavenly Father, and my loving relationship with my partner. There are obvious disconnects between my experience and current Church practice. I’m not sure what to make of those disconnects, but I pray that the Church will willingly listen to our experiences and be willing to wrestle with the disconnects as a community, so that we don’t have to wrestle with them painfully and alone, as we have had to do for so many years.

   Comment # 6 by John Gustav-Wrathall | Nov 12, 2007 | Reply

7. Sorry, I meant to say Elders Oaks, Wickman and Holland would likely not view homosexual orientation as “core.”

   Comment # 7 by John Gustav-Wrathall | Nov 12, 2007 | Reply

8. The other interviews can be found here:

   http://youtube.com/profile_videos?p=r&user=mormonstories&page=2

   and here:

   http://feeds.feedburner.com/MormonStoriesPodcast

   Comment # 8 by SunstoneBlog | Nov 15, 2007 | Reply

9. Austin

   You may find the documentaries by going to http://www.LDSResources.info and clicking on videos.

   John

   I believe Elder Wickman’s exact words were “There’s no denial that one’s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person…” Since this was a document produced by two attorneys who I assume always use words very carefully, I think we should take this statement at face value. It IS a major adjustment for official Church spokesmen to use the word “orientation” and as I say in the presentation I feel this is probably the most important change in the recent documents. I recently reviewed a number of Church publications from the 60s and 70s where over and over the statement was made that no one is born gay and gayness is even claimed to come from “selfishness.”. But now, Elder Oaks and Wickman make it very clear that the Church has no position on nature or nurture with reference to same gender attractions and Elder Holland says “attractions alone do not make you unworthy.” I could suggest other evidence of this shift but I have talked about much of this in my written version of this presentation so I will not repeat more of that here. These things all suggest that there has been a major shift and that “orientation” is being accepted as a “core characteristic” of persons. I think this is a wonderful new development in the position of our leaders and I welcome it.

   Comment # 9 by Ron Schow | Nov 17, 2007 | Reply

10. Ron - You are right.

    My point was that these statements also emphasize that homosexuality is definitely not a core characteristic of my “eternal” self. Clark here expressed (and I can certainly relate to the feelings he expressed) that to him, his feelings of love for and attraction to his same-sex partner certainly feel real and valid and even “eternal,” despite the fact that we are being told that these things will only be a part of our life and experience for the “nanosecond” of this mortal existence. I guess many of us are, therefore, still struggling to make sense of some of these statements in light of our personal experience.

    However, I didn’t mean to suggest that the shift in understanding represented by these three recent statements is not significant. And you are right, Elder Wickman did use the term “core characteristic,” and I’m sure he did not use that term lightly. To me that does indicate that our leaders are finally paying attention to the documented experience of gay and lesbian people, and are also paying attention to the substantial scientific and therapeutic evidence about the nature of sexuality in general and homosexuality in particular. As I recall, when I first read the Oaks/Wickman interview, one of my first reactions was a sense of tremendous relief that our leaders were finally acknowledging the reality that I actually experience, as opposed to some nightmare scenario in which I supposedly “chose” to be this way, and could just be fixed, and that failure to be fixed or to become heterosexual was all my fault. Certainly the new understanding is much closer to my own self-understanding than previous positions taken by Church leaders. And for that I do experience gratitude and hope.

    Comment # 10 by John Gustav-Wrathall | Nov 18, 2007 | Reply

11. “In godspeak, “incompatible” and “sin” are one and the same. “

    Comment # 11 by Martha Smith | Nov 18, 2007 | Reply

12. I can’t believe my comment was removed. Did it contain too much truth? Unless, it was removed on accident, your organization is PITIFUL!! You couch yourself as “alternative” and “free-thinking” but you are really just a bunch of politicallly correct NAZIs parroting to each other what you want to hear.

    Comment # 12 by Martha Smith | Nov 19, 2007 | Reply

13. Martha,

    Your comment is there - #11. It was held in moderation until you had one approved, but that policy is in place to cut down on spam. When I released #11, I also deleted two more that said the same thing, word for word, with the only difference being a paragraph mark in mid-sentence. You made your point, but it didn’t merit repeating three times.

    Comment # 13 by Rory | Nov 19, 2007 | Reply

14. As I recall, when I first read the Oaks/Wickman interview, one of my first reactions was a sense of tremendous relief that our leaders were finally acknowledging the reality that I actually experience, as opposed to some nightmare scenario in which I supposedly “chose” to be this way, and could just be fixed, and that failure to be fixed or to become heterosexual was all my fault.

    Current LDS teachings continue to assert that it is “all your fault” that you have not experienced a change in your sexual orientation. The recent pamphlet (subject of this thread), uses the following language:

    “While many Latter-day Saints, through individual effort, the exercise of faith, and reliance upon the enabling power of the Atonement, overcome same-gender attraction in mortality, others may not be free of this challenge in this life.”

    Likewise, the recent Holland article opines:

    “Through the exercise of faith, individual effort, and reliance upon the power of the Atonement, some may overcome same-gender attraction in mortality and marry. Others, however, may never be free of same-gender attraction in this life.” (Interestingly, the Liahona version, when shown in English on the lds.org website, uses “resolve,” rather than “overcome.”)

    In both cases, the author has laid out a simple three-step “recipe” for how “some” have “overcome” homosexuality:
    (1) individual effort
    (2) exercise of faith
    (3) reliance on the power of the Atonement.

    The sentence structure is clear in its indication that MANY or at least SOME will “overcome” homosexuality through these three steps, while those OTHERS, who do not adequately apply these steps, will continue to be gay throughout this life.

    In praising the recognition of sexual orientation as a “core characteristic,” we needn’t ignore the fact that LDS leaders continue to promote the fantasy that religious observances will turn a homosexual person into a heterosexual person. The language cited above is especially dangerous to those LDS who are attempting to reconcile their honest feelings with the teachings of leaders who, for all intents and purposes, are treated as infalliable. These persons, confronted with such language, will invariably reason that they have not put forth enough individual effort, exercised enough faith, or relied enough on the Atonement. This is the sort of thing that leads young people to suicide.

    Comment # 14 by Nick Literski | Nov 19, 2007 | Reply

15. Nick, clever of you to catch those language nuances! The Church hierarchy has rationalized itself into a cul-de-sac with such legalistic maneuvering, which does not save anybody! It simply keeps the attention of the people on Salt Lake City, rather than on the Christ, a lesson which the CoC has only recently learned.

    Martha, you seem an angry person. I, too, was once in a rage at being disillusioned from my projections on LDS Church leaders for more wisdom than they deserved. It has taken many years to pull those projections back inside myself, where they belong, and find the God of Love and peace. You complain about Nazi-like behavior in Sunstone. In this I think you are mistaken, although I acknowledge a Nazi streak in the present ecclesiastical enterprise. I was once a Mormon Nazi myself! So long as exclusivity and seniority are retained as official policies in the ecclesiastical enterprise, the institution is on a despotic path, despite magnificent PR efforts to claim otherwise and trying to cover its tracks.

    ENK

    Comment # 15 by Eugene Kovalenko | Nov 19, 2007 | Reply

16. Nick - I agree this could be read that way, and I think there’s legitimate concern that the pamphlet can still reinforce feelings of shame in the vast majority for whom any kind of change is impossible. But I still feel that the overall spirit of the pamphlet, if you read it from beginning to end, makes it clear that leaders are acknowledging that change is not possible for most, that failure to change is not blameworthy, and that it is the responsibility of the Saints to welcome gay men and lesbians with open arms into the community of the faithful. Furthermore, the Oaks/Wickman statement made it clear that the Church neither endorses nor encourages reparative therapy. Finally, marriage is specifically discouraged unless there is strong mutual attraction between those entering into it.

    It’ll take a while for the Saints to digest this, but I think this has the potential to begin to transform the Church’s attitudes on this subject in a very wholesome way.

    Comment # 16 by John Gustav-Wrathall | Nov 19, 2007 | Reply

17. John, you’re certainly right that the pamphlet is a step forward. I think the authors intended to say exactly what you suggest. It might have been helpful if they had run the wording by a few gay LDS members, to get their reactions and input. I’m betting such a review would have resulted in better wording. It would have been very helpful if the statement had been clarified, to acknowledge that the continued experience of homosexual attraction does not indicate that one has somehow failed deity.

    Comment # 17 by Nick Literski | Nov 20, 2007 | Reply

18. Testing to see if my comment gets through and suggest that the Church and its membership reevaluate all of their flawed assumptions and from whence they came.

    Comment # 18 by Nicholas Blacksmith | Nov 21, 2007 | Reply

19. Thus saith the Supreme and Almighty Source of all that is, has been, and will be: “A joyous and respectful relationship of any kind is pleasing in my sight, whether it be open, exclusive, plural, plutonic, intimate, same gender, or opposite gender. This IS the Principle. Keep it straight.”

    Comment # 19 by Nicholas Blacksmith | Nov 21, 2007 | Reply

20. Well, Nicholas, I’d like to believe your “Thus saith” is a revelation from the Almighty! In any case, I like and agree with the “quote” as it cuts through all the rationalizations so far. Please continue to comment on other threads. You may give us all more to reflect upon.

    Comment # 20 by Eugene Kovalenko | Nov 22, 2007 | Reply

21. I have listened to this entire panel once through and to Clark Pingree’s comments twice. Because my name and my recent article (”Clean-Shaven: No More Beards: Straight Women, Gay Men and Mormonism”) in Sunstone October 07 are invoked, I want to announce my unequivocal support for Clark’s position and his assessment of his situation. I ardently agree with him that he has the right to search out a soulmate, a man he desires, loves and cherishes body, mind and soul, with whom he can spend his life. I further believe that his desire for such a partner is entirely righteous and entirely in keeping with time-proven wisdom about what allows human beings to foster contentment, stability, joy and growth not only in their own lives, but the lives of those around them. I see no reason why Clark should opt for physically celibate and emotionally sterile relationships when so many around him are not only allowed but commanded to foster intimate, loving, complete marriages. I am heartened and pleased that accepting the truth about himself has enabled him to live with more generosity, clarity and hope, not only in his relationship with himself, but with his family and other loved ones.

    I was also grateful for his statement that “to be partnered with a woman physically, emotionally, spiritually and personally throughout all eternity is not my definition of celestial glory: it is my definition of hell.” This is a harsh statement, but I believe it is an honest and necessary one, and I thank him for making it. No one should have to accept a sort of psychological hell as an eternal condition of some theologically defined “heaven.” I am glad that he chose to forgo this hell, and I believe his choice was absolutely the right one.

    But suppose he made a different choice. Suppose he had submitted to pressure from counselors, clergymen, (or rather, clergyMEN), family, friends, whoever, to marry a woman. Suppose he’d found a woman with whom he shared a friendship. Suppose he’d thought to himself, “She’s the best substitution for what I REALLY want,” and married her. Suppose, because she was straight, that she fell in love with her husband in all the ways he couldn’t love her. Suppose she wanted to be as intimate as possible with this man she loved with her whole being, and suppose he simply couldn’t give her that. Think about the psychological, emotional and spiritual devastation done to the partner who senses, on some level, that being married to her is her husband’s definition of hell.

    All too often, and for far too long, the church has created a culture where such marriages were not only allowed but encouraged. Even now, the blogosphere is full of gay Mormon men who write about being married to straight Mormon women, and straight Mormon women who write about being married to gay Mormon men. (Though you can find a lot more gay Mormon men who write about being divorced and a lot more straight Mormon women who write about the incredible trauma their marriages caused.) You can find one still-married man who discusses the fact that for a while, he found his marriage so painful that his fondest wish was that his wife would die, that when the phone rang, it would be someone telling him his wife had been killed in a car accident–though he claims to have worked through that now and to be glad each time she comes home safe and sound. Meanwhile, from the wives, you can find entries on how to help their husbands avoid gay porn or how to distract them when a good-looking guy out jogging runs by in next to nothing.

    I’m really pretty much a libertarian when it comes to marriage: I believe not only same-sex marriage but polygamy should be legal among consenting adults. I admit the polygamy thing is weird; I think it should be legal among adults (I’m glad Warren Jeffs was convicted in Utah and hope the same happens in Arizona) not because I think it produces especially happy families, but because I can see no truly logical grounds for keeping it illegal. However, I get riled up when religion is used to defend arrangements that privilege the well-being of men at the expense of the well-being of women, and that happens far too often in discussions about marriage within an LDS context, whether the marriages involve gay husbands or straight husbands; what matters is not the orientation of the husband but the gender of the wife, who is the helpmeet, who is the one who sacrifices, who is the one who supports.

    OK: I can acknowledge that despite the overwhelming failure of mixed-orientation marriages, there is the statistical possibility that some few are actually quite loving and fulfilling, that the marriages will last if not for all time and eternity, at least until death the spouses do part.

    Furthermore, I readily acknowledge that no matter how successful the marriages are in the longterm, at the beginning, when someone makes up his/her mind to propose and someone else makes up his/her mind to accept, these men have the right to find substitutes for what they really want, and these women have the right to be the substitutes for what their husbands really want. I just think that settling in this way doesn’t do much to advance the spiritual development of the rest of us.

    Whereas Clark Pingree’s stance does, in my opinion, advance the spiritual development of the rest of the planet. I think the world will be a better place when Clark and those like him don’t have to suffer anguish before deciding that they are entitled to a fulfilling, loving partnership that complements rather than contradicts and undermines the desires of their entire beings. (I use that kind of vague locution because like Clark, I don’t want to reduce homosexuality to mere physical desire–I do believe he is right when he says that what his orientation encompasses every part of who he is.)

    That said, I want to raise a couple of criticisms not of Clark’s comments, but of the panel: It’s composed entirely of men, and its focus is almost entirely on male sexuality and male perspectives. This is what I was getting at in the introduction to my essay, when I wrote

    At the 2005 Sunstone Symposium, I attended several panels on homosexual issues, and noticed that not only was the predominant focus of such panels male sexuality, most participants were male–in one case [Steps in the Right Direction? Evaluating New LDS Publications on Homosexuality], they were exclusively male, though not exclusively gay. Just as when I read the Book of Mormon or surveyed the artwork in any LDS visitor’s center, I found myself wondering, Where are the women? More specifically, where are the lesbians, where are the wives, ex-wives, ex-fiances of gay men? There were plenty such women among my acquaintance, but we weren’t discussing homosexuality, at least not at Sunstone in 2005. No one asked us, and we didn’t volunteer. Why not?

    or in an endnote, when I noted that in much of the discourse about homosexuality, “the unconscious assumption seems to be that gay is a subset of male rather than of human being; the unconscious message seems to be that lesbian experience doesn’t count.”

    Gentlemen: would it REALLY be so hard to find a woman willing to discuss this topic? Admittedly, I have a feeling that it might be hard to find an LDS lesbian willing to speak publicly about this; I’ve been told that historically (perhaps things have changed recently), Affirmation has had a very hard time convincing lesbians to invest in the organization, and I’ve been told by lesbians that one reason is that the organization has, at least in the past, been very patriarchal–for instance, women were called up by male members and given “callings” in affirmation, which reinforced their subordinate and secondary position. As one lesbian told me, in her experience, homosexuals are second-class members in Mormondom; women are second-class members as well; put the two subject positions together, and it renders the person in them all but invisible. That’s why she has nothing to do any more with either Sunstone or Affirmation; she got tired of being reminded how irrelevant she was, even in organizations that were supposed to support this struggle she was in, but were really only about the men.

    But why don’t you fight this? If you can’t find a woman to be on your panel, why not acknowledge explicitly what your panel excludes, and talk about your desire to have female voices and points of view included in the future? Why not announce explicitly your support for women, for lesbians, for the wives and ex-wives of gay men?

    Come on, guys–it really shouldn’t be that hard, either to remember that women exist or to find respectful ways to include them from the beginning in the discourse. Someone like me shouldn’t have to come along and point out to you that in your discussion of this issue, women exist only as what it would be hell to be married to. And I say that not to criticize Clark, but to demonstrate that he’s the only one who really raises the issue of what’s at stake for women in the discussion as you men frame it.

    Comment # 21 by Holly Welker | Nov 28, 2007 | Reply

22. Holly

    A woman was scheduled to be part of our Seattle panel, but cancelled about one week prior to the occasion. Last summer, at SLC Sunstone, I was part of a panel and addressed this new Church position and a woman was included in our panel. We also included a woman in our Dialogue articles in Fall 2005 and this was at my invitation. I appreciate your suggestion that women’s voices need to be heard. Currently, there are a series of interviews being presented of ten women married to gay men on the http://www.LDSLights.org website. I suggest you may want to watch as those appear.

    Comment # 22 by Ron Schow | Dec 1, 2007 | Reply

23. This is a perennial problem in GLBT organizations. I know Mormon lesbians exist, because I personally know three who live here in the Twin Cities, which is saying something in a town where gay Mormons are rarer than hen’s teeth.

    At the University of Minnesota in the early days of GLBT student group activism, organizations quickly split up along lines of gender. Women split off and formed their own organizations because the guys just didn’t understand their issues. Women also often preferred to put their time and energy into organizations that addressed women’s issues in general, rather than just specifically lesbian. Later (when I got involved in the late 1980s), we started to organize in coalition fashion. This worked fairly well, because women had control of their own organizations, and by working in alliance, women’s issues were represented in our activist work with the University administration, and the men could gradually get a clue without the women having to pay (too) a high price to educate them.

    Maybe we need a separate organization for Mormon lesbians. That sounds scary and radical, so it must be a good idea. I would support that, though I also support the idea of men doing their homework to make general support organizations more democratic and more responsive to the needs of lesbians.

    Comment # 23 by John Gustav-Wrathall | Dec 1, 2007 | Reply

24. Nick

    In comment #17 you say this.

    **********
    It would have been very helpful if the statement had been clarified, to acknowledge that the continued experience of homosexual attraction does not indicate that one has somehow failed deity.
    *******

    I understand the concern you express. But I really believe the acknowledgement you ask for is there. Here is a sentence from the pamphlet p. 6. “Attractions alone do not make you unworthy.” Here is a similar statement from Elder Holland, p. 44. “In saying this, let me make it clear that attractions alone, troublesome as they may be, do not make one unworthy.”

    Comment # 24 by Ron Schow | Dec 1, 2007 | Reply

25. Ron,

    Don’t you think the deeper problem here is who accepts the notion of some earthly authority believing he speaks for God on the matter of “worthiness”, whereas “God, who loveth all children” in fact speaks to all His children individually about this all the time via their respective consciences. In the deepest recesses of my own heart, mind and soul, there is no human being of whatever stripe, gender or ecclesiastical persuasion that can speak to me or anyone else in behalf of our Creator Father in terms of “worthiness”. It matters not who believes and makes any such claim to the contrary. Let each child of God find and cherish his/her own direct relatiohshop to our Maker.

    Comment # 25 by Eugene Kovalenko | Dec 1, 2007 | Reply

26. Hi again, Eugene -

    I’m curious to know whether you acknowledge the dilemma that your view expressed in post #25 creates. If everyone is left to “find and cherish his/her own direct relationship to our Maker” without any guidance or information about what God is or what God expects of us, doesn’t it seem that that will lead to a lot of confusion and discord? Organized religion is very far from perfect, and each person obviously must come to his or her own conclusions about what God intends for his or her life and purpose. I will grant that, on occasion, what God wants someone to do may in fact go against something He seems to have commanded in another situation. Joseph Smith seemed to think so, and certainly people have the freedom to reject previous beliefs in any case, whether they’re correct or not. However, doesn’t there have to be some kind of objective reality, even if it is rejected? If no one is authorized to communicate God’s general will for human beings, it seems like the flaws of organized religion (disagreement about basic tenets, intolerance, self-righteousness, misunderstanding and wresting of God’s words - if they can even be applicable to more than one person in such a situation) will be multiplied by six billion, with none of the unifying and comforting benefits. You have yourself admitted that your path to God has caused interpersonal problems. Imagine that your relationship to God became subject to delusion - it happens all too often. Without any “authoritative” source of information about what is and is not appropriate, whether for behavior or belief, wouldn’t the world devolve into even greater chaos than exists now? I happen to believe that most of the theological tenets and guidelines for behavior (and thought, to an extent) espoused by the General Authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints are in fact the will of God and approved by Him. I fully understand that some - perhaps many - people within the Church use these tenets and guidelines as clubs to manipulate and control others. That is the fault of individuals and a flaw in human nature. Perhaps it is also a flaw in the organization itself, but I tend to think that people who rely on the Church to determine their worthiness rather than examining themselves and making the necessary adjustments (sometimes with ecclesiastical help) are just as much to blame for being manipulated. Why God set it up this way, I don’t know. Frankly, I think your way is a lot better, except that people are so darn mean, stupid, greedy, and easily deceived by their own desires and perhaps otherworldly entities who wish them ill. What I really want to know, I guess, is whether you recognize the ability of God to speak to you (and the whole world) through other human beings, or whether you think that that paradigm is just made up by people so they can wield power over each other. If it is bunk, then how can anyone be expected to find any truth about God or His will if that truth has to be filtered through the individual’s own wishes, expectations, and self-centeredness? Or is there any truth at all? Is it all just subjective in your view? I am sure I will be thinking about this tomorrow rather than listening to the testimonies of the other members of the ward.

    Comment # 26 by Villate | Dec 1, 2007 | Reply

27. Villate, I read your thoughtful, albeit presumptuous comment #26 to my non-LDS Christian wife Birgitta. Her response was: “It seems V doesn’t trust God enough to believe that He directs people who put their trust in Him to guide them to do the right thing. There are two kinds of belief in God: 1) mental assent, intellectual; 2) a living faith and trust in Him from moment to moment in facing all complexities of life.”

    I like her comment a lot.

    My question for you is: do you not have your own direct connection to God independent of some external authority?

    Then you say: “What I really want to know, I guess, is whether you recognize the ability of God to speak to you (and the whole world) through other human beings…”

    I very much believe in a faith community — such as Sunstone, the Community of Christ, and other LDS and non LDS believers — as an effective means for helping me (and the whole world) experience a direct personal connection to God. I don’t place much faith in the LDS ecclesiastic enterprise to do this, however, because my experience is that it has been, as you say, generally more concerned with “power tripping” than in “beloving”.

    I’m sending you an updated Sunstone paper FYI via email that spells this out and would love to know your responses. I would also invite you to explore my personal URL blog on my kovalenko.org family website titled “Orthodox/Mormon Odyssey”, which is an account of an on-going dialogue between Russian Orthodox Priest John Hennies and me. I am greatly inspired by this holy man! We are exploring how to come to community with our respective religious traditions which represent opposite extremes of Christianity. Father John has taken a strong interest in Mormonism because of his granddaughter’s interest in attending wholesome Mormon sponsored dances and her having participated in a recent re-enactment of the pioneer trek west from Nauvoo.

    Comment # 27 by Eugene Kovalenko | Dec 3, 2007 | Reply

28. Hi Eugene -

    I’m not sure what you found presumptuous about my comment, but I hope you didn’t take offense, since I meant none. Tell your wife that it’s not God I don’t trust to communicate, but human beings to see past their own desires and perceptions. Although it does seem that God has been very inconsistent in the way He communicates, so maybe I don’t trust Him after all. I have a very low estimation of human nature in general, however, so I’m sure this clouds my perception. And I agree that organized religion tends to bring out awful tendencies in many people, as you seem to have experienced in your life in the LDS church. This tendency is not unique to LDS people, though, and other groups have their own problems. It comes back to human nature - I’m reminded of Joseph Smith’s comment that all men (and women - he had plenty of problems with the Relief Society!), when they get a little authority, tend to exercise unrighteous dominion.

    I do have a connection to God independent of ecclesiastical authority - I specifically wrote that I believe that people must develop their own understanding of God’s will for them (which obviously involves having a relationship with God) and that those who rely on a church or authority to do so for them are in error. However, this is on an individual level. On a macro level, what troubles me is that without some foundation of what is true about God, which necessarily has to come from a centralized source (prophet, church organization, etc.) in order to be consistent, God’s will in general (if it even exists) is subject to so many varied interpretations that it becomes meaningless. The mujahideen blowing up a bus full of folks on their way to school and work has as valid a “truth” about God as Mother Teresa ministering to the dying and forgotten in Calcutta or the gay Mormon who rejects the mainstream interpretation of the plan of salvation (to keep this just slightly on topic). I just can’t believe that that’s the case - if it is, I may as well abandon belief in any kind of higher power at all.

    I am swamped this morning (I should actually be doing some work instead of typing this), but I will read your essay this afternoon and evening and respond via e-mail, since this is veering off-topic.

    Comment # 28 by Villate | Dec 3, 2007 | Reply

29. #24:
    Dr. Schow, you are correct that the pamphlet and talk state clearly that homosexual attraction does not, in itself, make one “unworthy.” I don’t point to questions of worthiness, but rather to an individual’s sense of success vs. failure.

    The passages I pointed to give a “formula,” by which the authors believe that “some” or “many” homosexual persons can become heterosexual. I’m sure you would agree that this sort of “step by step formula” is a very common rhetorical device in the LDS church. The structure appears in countless articles, conference talks, etc. This rhetorical tradition, coupled with its invocation by an apostle, makes the formula into a promise of sorts—”if you do A, B and C, you will get D.” Because of the faith that is placed in the words of an LDS apostle, many LDS will blame themselves when the formula doesn’t work, rather than question the counsel. Such a situation creates a small crisis of faith, which many will attempt to resolve by determining that they must not have put forth “enough” effort, “enough” faith, or “enough” reliance on the atonement. I know this from personal experience, when I anguished over my inability to “overcome” my homosexuality.

    All that said, I am certainly glad to see the progress that these statements do show. I would not want to discourage further progress by making the authors feel like their efforts are unappreciated.

    Comment # 29 by Nick Literski | Dec 3, 2007 | Reply

30. Nick L #24, you’ve probably told your story before in these threads, but would you, again, tell us how you managed to transcend your reliance on LDS authority and embrace your own direct connection to “atonement”? When and how did you come to realize that you had the capability to come into and celebrate your own true self? I believe your story would bless us all by your telling it.

    Comment # 30 by Eugene Kovalenko | Dec 3, 2007 | Reply

31. Ron:

    I am glad to know that a woman was originally scheduled to be one of four participants in the Seattle presentation. (I am willing to wait for anything approaching parity in these matters, as any attention to women’s voices is an improvement.)

    I hope you see why it would have been wise for you to mention in your introduction of the panel everything you state here, and more. As anyone who’s been to grad school should know, acknowledging the limitations and parameters of your study is a basic requirement of good scholarship, and failing to do so can create the impression that you’re either entirely unaware of said limitations, or else carelessly disregarding relevant material.

    John GW

    Why would it be scary and radical to create a separate organization for Mormon lesbians? After all, there’s a precedent for a Mormon organization dedicated to the concerns of and controlled by women: Relief Society. Are you even sure that no such organization exists? The Affirmation website provides a page of women’s links, which include LDS Lesbians, Mormon Lesbians, Northwest Mormon Lesbians, and European LDS Lesbians.

    Comment # 31 by Holly Welker | Dec 4, 2007 | Reply

32. NIck

    I understand the concern you express and the A, B, C formula you mention WAS in the 1992 statement by the Church and did promise results in this life (See my written remarks on http://www.LDSResources.info). But in the 2007 statement in the similar sentence the A, B, C formula is mentioned, it now says “…others may not be free of this challenge in this life.” Along with the statement that “Attractions do not make you unworthy” a continuing challenge throughout this life should no longer create the anguish you describe. The Brethren explain that some will not “overcome.” By the way, this new statement does NOT say “homosexual persons will become heterosexual” as you suggest in your comment above. Again, the previous statement did but this one DOES NOT.

    I believe it is important, Nick, to help LDS members realize that the concerns you express are NO LONGER in the guiding Church document. Yes, the statement could go further, but getting 15 Brethren to agree on this statement is a major development. We should help our members understand that the Brethren DO understand that the feelings may not go away even for a most worthy person.

    Comment # 32 by Ron Schow | Dec 4, 2007 | Reply

33. Let me put it this way. The language structure of the 2007 statements can be read in two equally valid ways:

    In what I think is your reading, the language states that out of a group who equally apply the “A, B. C formula,” either “many” (pamphlet) or “some” (Holland article) will “overcome” their homosexuality, while others will not. You then directly associate the “attractions do not make you unworthy” language to find a complete lack of judgement. Do I understand you correctly?

    In an equally valid, equally likely reading (and I would argue MORE likely reading, to those who have been conditioned to feel shame for their sexual orientation), the language actually defines “many” (pamphlet) and “some” (Holland article) as those specific persons who have applied the formula, and then indicates that these individuals have “overcome” their homosexuality. “Others” is consequently read, in both versions, to indicate those who have not applied the formula, and indicates that these individuals continue throughout their lives to experience homosexual attraction.

    Please understand that I’m not simply reading to find fault here. I’m applying my own experience as a gay man who anguished for nearly two decades over his homosexuality, in light of LDS teachings. I’m applying my experience with others who shared similar turmoil. Already having been taught, through years of even more unfortunate rhetoric, that they were perverse, these individuals are very likely to understand the new statement in the way I have described. I don’t think that was the intent of the authors, but while I applaud the good intentions, I don’t feel the continuing difficulty should be ignored.

    Comment # 33 by Nick Literski | Dec 4, 2007 | Reply

34. Nick

    You seem to understand my reading of the pamphlet and other statements. We seem to agree on the INTENT of Church leaders. I think if you read all three new documents it is apparent our leaders do not want members to feel shame about “attractions” whether or not they are overcome. On page 12 of the pamphlet President Hinckley is quoted as saying those with the such attraction may “go forward as do all other members of the Church.”

    If you are determined to interpret this A, B, C statement otherwise, I guess I cannot prevent that. I just wish you would not over-interpret what has been said in a negative way and suggest the leaders said things they didn’t like “homosexual persons will become heterosexual” or “those who have NOT applied the formula” are the ones who “continue throughout their lives to have homosexual attraction.” They did not say either of those things. Those are your words.

    I am going to do my best to encourage the interpretation which we apparently both think is their real intent. If you are going to continue to promote the idea the leaders want those with attractions to feel shame, I think that is unfortunate and inaccurate and of little help to those who seem to be your concern.

    Holly

    You say ….

    “As anyone who’s been to grad school should know”,..and then you speak of me as .”carelessly disregarding relevant material”

    First, thanks for the kind words. Second, maybe you should listen to my presentation in which I mention more than once the role that women have taken from the beginning of our work where they have consistently had a strong voice. In short, I agree with your interest in women being represented in these discussions. Unfortunately, I don’t expect to cover all the ground in a 20 minute presentation that I do in a journal article or in books we publish or in a several hundred page dissertation which I finished in graduate school. In your presentations, if you can cover all the bases, clearly you are a better person than I am. Perhaps you are also forgetting this subject is sometimes delicate. I don’t think the person who withdrew from our presentation wanted me to mention it that day.

    Finally, I will not have any more to say on these two topics just now on this blog. I’m through.

    Comment # 34 by Ron Schow | Dec 4, 2007 | Reply

35. Well, Ron, twenty minutes is indeed not long, but given that in the video posted above you felt at leisure to comment on the character of previous sessions at the symposium, to inform the audience how many children and grandchildren you have, to announce both your undergraduate major and minor, to ask for a show of hands as to how many people in the audience knew someone with same-gender attraction, etc, it’s hard to believe that time was the primary reason you neglected to mention gender or women’s perspective.

    Comment # 35 by Holly Welker | Dec 4, 2007 | Reply

36. Holly — My use of the terms “radical” and “scary” was tongue-in-cheek. Sorry, sometimes that doesn’t come across in print, without the use of annoying emoticons.

    I actually do think a lesbian Affirmation would be a fabulous idea.

    Comment # 36 by John Gustav-Wrathall | Dec 5, 2007 | Reply

37. Ron, I apologize that I seem to have offended you. It would be very unfortunate to lose your participation in the discussion.

    Despite my efforts at being clear, it does not appear that I’ve communicated well. I believe it was the intent of the authors to convey that homosexual attraction, in itself, was blameless. You seem to understand that, but in the same breath, you accuse me of “promot[ing] the idea the leaders want those with attractions to feel shame.” That is not an accurate statement of my opinion, let alone my intent. I have tried to convey that the specific choice of language in the pamphlet and article unintentionally sets up individuals who are already anguishing over their orientation to feel that they have failed to effectively apply what is presented as a “formula” to “overcome” homosexuality. The problem is simply one of the authors not understanding the likely response of their audience.

    What do you believe the authors meant when they wrote that “many” or “some” will “overcome” homosexuality? In the larger evangelical “ex-gay” movement, from which LDS leaders have taken much of their rhetoric on the subject, “overcoming” homosexuality clearly means no longer being homosexual. I’m not sure what other meaning you could ascribe to the word in the context of the pamphlet and article.

    Ron, I realize there is value in praising progress, even if it remains incomplete. There is much to praise in these statements. In fact, I see in Holland’s article an effort to soften certain troubling elements of the Oaks/Wickman “interview.” That’s not only progress, but “rapid response.” I see in your presentation, as well as your participation here, a strong desire to recognize progress and avoid any sort of criticism. Given your own circumstances, this is probably a wise approach to avoid repurcussions and encourage further efforts in the right direction. I’ll admit I tend to go more for the “blunt instrument to the head” approach at times. If you have some thoughts on how to better convey specific concerns, yet emphasize praiseworthy progress, I’d be pleased to hear them.

    Comment # 37 by Nick Literski | Dec 5, 2007 | Reply

38. Hi John–thanks for clarifying. I absolutely didn’t get the humor. The web can be such an earnest place…. and yeah, emoticons might clarify tone, which is extremely useful, but they’re yellow and cartoony and goofy. I often feel weird using them myself, though I do it from time to time.

    I also like the idea of a lesbian affirmation. That’s an organization I’d add to the list of “causes I support with (small) cash donations.” The first non-profit organization besides the church I ever wrote a check to was the Hawaii marriage project in the early 1990s, because I was so horrified that the church, which I’d supported financially until I was into my late 20s, was spending money to fight the legalization of same-sex marriage. And then I decided there really might be a spiritual discipline to alms giving, and started looking for causes to support. Well-funded “scary, radical”;:-) Mormon lesbians might do quite a bit for GLBT affairs, Mormon feminism, Mormon womanhood, mother-in-heaven, and Mormonism, period.

    Comment # 38 by Holly Welker | Dec 5, 2007 | Reply

39. Nick

    I don’t feel at all offended so no apology is necessary. I just think we have pretty well explained our views. As you suggest, I do want to emphasize the positive, but I realize there are some concerns as I have noted on my blog at http://www.ldsresources.info. Feel free to send me email if you have some questions for me. Schorona@isu.edu. All the best to you.

    Comment # 39 by Ron Schow | Dec 5, 2007 | Reply

40. I really found the presentation and comments very interesting and illuminating. But I am just a little surprised that no one asked Clark how he is to have eternal increase in the celestial kingdom with his partner? Or does that also seem like a definition of hell? It rather seems to me that after you have learned everything there is to know about science, creating worlds, etc., that the only way to continue to eternally progress would be through children, as they are infinitely variable? I do not mean this in any way disrespectfully, I am just surprised that the subject never came up.

    Overall I was heartened by the improvement in the church’s stance on homosexuality, as this has always bothered me. It seems to me that they have made more progress in this area than they have in the area of women’s concerns over the past 30 years, where I actually see regression (ie Sister Beck’s recent conference talk).

    I really appreciated the gentleman’s comments who had been excommunicated, but still tried to participate as much as he was able in the church. I find that very brave, touching and inspiring. My heart truly goes out to you who struggle with this terrible dilemma. As a physician I am very aware of the biological nature of homosexuality. However, I must add that there is no scientific evidence that we all actually HAVE a soul, let alone that it could be male or female. So then we are back to faith , belief, and feelings, etc., as to whether or not the soul is eternally attracted to one sex or the other. When we remember the church actually teaches we are not “created” but coexisted as intelligences, and more or less were organized into our Heavenly Parents’ family (at least that is what I understand)
    it seems even more complicated.

    Comment # 40 by susan | Jan 10, 2008 | Reply

41. If I had the opportunity to do so in person, I would like to thank Clark for his amazing presentation. I was an active member of the Church up to 3 years ago, but finally realized that my feelings for the same sex was placing me in what I perceived was a “bad place”. So having been a convert of only a couple of years, I found it easier to just quietly fade into non-existence. I took off my garments (and cried dearly when I did so), put away all of my Mormon material and have chosen to lead a life as the person I am. A gay man. I find myself still quoting scripture on occasion, having Mormon thoughts and still “feeling” Mormon on the inside. I feel that my best years were in serving and being a part of the Church, but that in my current state I am unwelcome.

    Comment # 41 by brian | Mar 22, 2008 | Reply

42. brian:

    Sorry to hear that your experience led you to curtail your activity in the Church. I hope it was not because of how you were treated by fellow Saints. I will tell you that, as a heterosexual, I do not (and cannot, I’m sure) understand your feelings of same gender attraction. I can, however, understand and relate to feelings of disappointment and hurt. I will tell you that there are many ’straight’ members of the church that would welcome you into fellowship. Personally, I don’t care about your sexual orientation. I have no idea whether it is a ‘core’ characteristic or not. The fact of the matter is that your sexual orientation has no bearing on me and my personal relationship with God–and that is where my efforts should be concentrated. I may not understand you, but it should have no effect on how I treat you.

    The point is that I would hope you would find acceptance, if not understanding, in the heterosexual community. And most especially the LDS community. Sometimes, the wheels of understanding grind slowly, but they do grind.

    If you felt unwelcome by the insitution, I cannot do much (ok, anything) about that. If you felt unwelcome by the rank and file, I trust that will change. So, don’t give up on us. Some of us are trying (yeah, I know–in more ways than one).

    Comment # 42 by don | Apr 2, 2008 | Reply

43. My, my — so much anger and hatred. How easy it is for some to call those with whom they disagree “nazis.” How very, very sad.

    Comment # 43 by Robert | Apr 2, 2008 | Reply

44. With the same sex:

    No hugging,
    No Touching
    No Spooning
    No cuddles,
    No holding hands
    No dating
    ect.

    It appears to me that Holland is saying no to alot of things lately. The Lord has raised up the bar, but surely you saw this was coming after all the controversy over same-sex marriages and so on, I kinna did..

    To those who wanna just argue about it. Once the Lord has spoken we can’t change it, we can cry all we like and just stamp our feet around and bawl our eyes out and say, what no more cuddling, no more spooning, no more touching one another it’s not fair! But we can’t
    change his mind for we’re not God !.

    To those who try to argue and say the church is sofening its stand towards SSA expression.

    The church has conveyed a clearer understanding about SSA and its issues and the difficulties that people go through who have it, but the church aint sofened its stand at all when it comes to any phsyical expression of it. It is against physical expression of SSA as it is against adultery, same-sex marriages and so on. There’s been no change.

    Comment # 44 by Brent | Apr 14, 2008 | Reply

Post a Comment