The Fourth Path: Gay, Mormon, Celibate
A fascinating discussion is taking place over at Mormon Mentality with regard to recent changes made to the BYU honor code on the subject of homosexuality. Most interesting to me is the news that a group of gay BYU students took an active part in initiating and approving the changes to the honor code. One of these students, a bright, articulate, self-described 'current, homosexual BYU student, [and] a committed Latter-day Saint,' named Tito took part in some of the meetings between the students and administration where this issue was discussed. He says, 'Since I'm choosing to remain committed to the Church, I obviously don't feel homosexual relationships are morally acceptable,' but goes on to explain that he supports his many gay friends who choose 'homosexual relationships for their path.'
I must admit that when I hear Tito's frank dual admission to be both a homosexual and committed Latter-day Saint, it makes my head spin in all sorts of dizzy, disparate directions, from feelings of admiration and wonder to feelings of sympathy and even pity. The dizziness comes from the difficulty I have in connecting the dots between the equally powerful need to both: 1.) Believe in something that gives one's life meaning; and 2.) Fully love (and be loved by) a partner. In the case of gay-but-committed-Mormons, these two life-infusing needs seem hopelessly incongruous. As such, gay Mormons would seem to have one of four paths to choose from:
1.) Reject the religion, choose/create a new faith/meaning, and enjoy a 'full' relationship with a same-sex partner. The examples of such people are endless.
2.) Enjoy a 'full' relationship with a same-sex partner and maintain belief in (and ties to) Mormonism, albeit on a more restricted/limited basis (i.e. no callings, temple, or priesthood privileges). Past Sunstone contributors Buckley Jeppson and John Gustav-Wrathall have both walked this path.
3.) Maintain belief and full membership in Mormonism and marry an opposite-sex partner. Ben Christensen is a good example.
4.) Maintain belief and full membership in Mormonism and remain single and celibate. Ty Mansfield, co-author of In Quiet Desperation, is a good example. (See also this excellent review of IQD by Robert Rees.)
This 'Fourth Path' is relatively new (or more openly acknowledged and accepted) and is made possible by growing awareness regarding sexual orientation in general, and by the Church's fairly recent position on gays that: 1.) Delineates between same-sex feelings (not a sin) and same-sex behavior (a sin); and 2.) Discourages opposite-sex marriage as a means of dealing with same-sex attraction. This leaves gay Mormons without a viable alternative other than the default option of perpetual singlehood and celibacy. To be sure, both the Church and many gay Mormons hold out hope that therapy and/or faith may lead to heterosexual marriage and family in the future for some, but both camps also seem to be equally pragmatic and stoic in the realization that such an outcome may be unlikely for many, and that the rewards of marriage and family may need to be put off until the next life. Same-sex attraction is likened to a Job-like or Abraham-like test of faith and endurance.
So it is this Fourth Path that fascinates me the most, and not simply for the head-spinning, at-odds competition between the powerful needs of faith/belief and romantic love mentioned above. And not just because of the striking incongruity that the Fourth Path of celibacy and singlehood offers when juxtaposed against the traditional Mormon cultural and theological standard/ideal of partnership and family?¢Ç¨Äù by far the most recognizable and emphasized aspect of Mormonism. Besides these aspects (and others), what interests me most is the unspoken political ramifications inherent in the success or failure of these gay, single, and committed Mormons. In fact, if the four paths above were represented as a four-man political race, without question all eyes, both gay and straight, both Mormon and ex-Mormon, would be on the man running in lane #4.
Certainly, from the point of view of the Church, until a successful therapy or 'cure' can be found for those who have same-sex attraction, its hopes are pinned on the happiness and successful integration of those who walk the Fourth Path. Otherwise, the gospel must either undergo a radical readjustment that accommodates same-sex marriage, or be content with being a gospel for only 90 to 95 percent of the earth's inhabitants. Those who support the Church (and/or believe same-sex behavior to be immoral) will be rooting heavily for the success of these individuals.
But what about those Mormons and ex-Mormons who do not think that same-sex behavior is immoral? What about Gays who walk the First and Second Paths? Are they as unequivocal and enthusiastic in their support of those on the Fourth Path? I'd imagine that most no doubt desire that all individuals who have same-sex attraction find happiness where they may, be it in Mormonism or out, be it in the arms of a man or woman, or out; in short, they want each individual to fulfill their maximum being or essence. Conversely however, the success of those on the Fourth Path will likely mean the continued opposition and/or disapproval and alienation of those who either walk, or support those who walk, the First and Second Path.
Therefore, given that this path or option is relatively 'new' (in that it bears the fairly recent mark of tacit official sanction), it would seem that the success of this new generation of young, gay Mormons, the Ty Mansfields and the Titos (assuming he chooses the Fourth Path), is possessed with a kind of latent political charge. Their success or failure will almost certainly play a part in the shaping of policy and even doctrine and revelation with regard to sexual orientation, gender, marriage, and family in the future.
(Note: The blog post at Mormon Mentality appears to have prompted a Salt Lake Tribune article.)
April 17th, 2007 at 11:18 AM
I’m not so sure the LDS church is hanging its hopes on this “Fourth Path.” While the old advice of “get married and everything will be okay” has officially been discontinued, young gay men are still receiving this message, whether directly or by implication. In fact, the specific advice, per Dallin Oaks, is that one should not “deceive” a potential spouse regarding this matter in courtship.
Just a few weeks ago, an organization of LDS psychotherapists held their annual convention in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building at Salt Lake City. Given the ownership of the building, I think it’s fair to reason that the LDS church approved of this organization, and of the presentations planned. In one of these presentations, three young married men were trotted out in front of the audience, openly acknowledging that they were gay. Each of these young men was careful to point out that he revealed his orientation to his spouse prior to marriage. Each claimed that they were following the LDS plan to create eternal families, etc., etc. Each expressed confidence that their marriages would be successful, in spite of acknowledged challenges in regard to physical intimacy.
I think we will see more and more of this. Of course, the LDS church likely doesn’t have many (or any?) 60 year old gay married men, who can or will stand up and tell the world that they’ve been successfully married for 40 years. The LDS church has to rely on relative newlyweds, which in my opinion, is quite telling. My first response to these testimonies is always “let’s follow up ten years from now.” In the meantime, the LDS church is likely to point to these young men as examples of “the lord’s way,” and make those in your “Fourth Path” feel inadequate.
April 17th, 2007 at 11:44 AM
One thing I find quite disturbing is that somehow in our society it is getting more and more commonplace to believe that fantasies and passions of the mind outside of a marriage personal relationship is not sin. For instance- A man who is married and sealed in the temple who comes out later and says that he is attracted to other men is in my opinion in a state of sin. Look at it another way- Take another married man in the temple who comes out years later and states that he is attracted to small children or other married women- same thing, sin!
Sexuality is a passion that everyone has to learn to control and bridal. Everyone at some point goes through a stage of sexual fantasy immoral behavior wheather they play it out or not. It may just be a fleeting moment of exposure to pornography or seeing someone naked but everyone has to learn to control the impulse of the driven physical body as it is exposed and is arroused. People who are in control of that passion who are married are people who recognize weakness of the flesh and also know that certain thoughts and actions are to be used only within the confines of their spousal relationship. Any feelings of attraction outside of their spousal relationship should be avoided. I also think it is safe to say that we can all admire beauty and purity of both sexes without crossing the line of attraction. I would find it somewhat difficult to be married to a wife who was more attracted to other women, children, men or animals over myself!
Because same gender attraction is sexual in nature I believe that persuing that attraction in ones mind only leads to heartache and eternal misery. There will be no same sex marriages that will endure the eternities!
April 17th, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Nick,
I’m not sure that it’s safe to assume that either the group of psychotherapists or the content of their meeting has official sanction of the LDS Church, not unless all meetings that take place in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building are vetted and approved by Church leadership. Do you know if this is the case?
April 17th, 2007 at 11:57 AM
Matt, many faithful fully-participating heterosexual saints remain single and celibate throughout all or most of their mortal lives. Your fascination and “head spinning” that homsexual saints would or could remain faithful and celibate seems to ignore, and perhaps condescend or insult, the many faithful, single and celibate heterosexuals in the church, many of whom have little or no hope for a celestial marriage in this life. Many worthy sisters are kept from marriage by the mere statistic of not enough faithful LDS men to go around. Demographics may also keep faithful brethren from finding suitable wives in the church. Many singles, men and women, are physically, emotionally or spiritually “broken” to the point where marriage is no longer a viable option. Such brokenness may be result of sin, but often it is not or is through no fault of the individual. Therefore, regardless of how one views homosexual orientation, as either something that needs to be fixed, or as a natural state/condition, the lifelong celibacy and faithfullness expected of homosexual single saints is no more than what is asked of many heterosexual single saints.
Nick, wasn’t there an interview between one of the church’s PR people and Elder Oaks and another GA, in which Elder Oaks formally negated the church’s previous admonition to “just get married anyway” ? I remember reading it at lds.org in one of the news sections.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:00 PM
Rob,
First, the LDS church has been rather firm lately, in teaching that homosexual attraction is not, in itself, sinful. Rather, the LDS church teaches that homosexual behavior is sinful. That said, I’m not sure your expressed views are representative of the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. You’re welcome to believe as you choose, of course.
I’m not entirely sure why you feel the need to bring pedophilia or beastiality into this discussion. Neither are related to the topic at hand, i.e. homosexuality.
I’m also not sure I understand your reasoning in the final paragraph of your post. You point out that homosexual attraction is “sexual in nature,” as if heterosexual attraction is not. Then, if I understand you correctly, you suggest that having homosexual thoughts “only” leads to “heartache and eternal misery.” Why do you believe this, Rob? Do you have experience in having homosexual thoughts? Have you conducted some sort of study, wherein you followed the life experiences of individuals who had homosexual thoughts, and observed that they had “heartache and eternal misery?” As a gay man who certainly has had “homosexual thoughts,” I can tell you that the only “heartache and eternal misery” I ever experienced was the inevitable result of trying to be something and someone that I wasn’t.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:00 PM
A woman who speaks with great insight and feeling about her choice of what you describe as the “Fourth Path” blogs at http://how-i-deal.blogspot.com/
April 17th, 2007 at 12:06 PM
Tom,
I do not have definite knowledge that all meetings held within LDS church headquarters buildings have the express approval of LDS church leadership. Considering, however, that even the use of stake centers must have the approval of the respective stake presidencies, I very much doubt that LDS headquarters facilities are granted without actual approval of the proposed use.
Can you imagine, for example, the LDS church allowing a Sunstone Symposium to be held in the Joseph Smith Memorial Building?
April 17th, 2007 at 12:11 PM
Regarding this 4th way,
I have anecdotal evidence from a Bishop acquaintance of mine that in his urban singles ward, he has called celibate gay men to leadership positions in his ward (ie, EQ presidencies, etc), with the understanding that their orientation does not make them unworthy. Rather, it is in acting on those impulses that worthiness is violated. He has stressed that for gay men, the chastity requirements are the same as for single heterosexual men in his ward.
This started a few years ago, but I don’t have a recent update on how it has worked. I suspect there are other examples of this out there.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:35 PM
“Nick, wasn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t there an interview between one of the church?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s PR people and Elder Oaks and another GA, in which Elder Oaks formally negated the church?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s previous admonition to ?¢Ç¨?ìjust get married anyway?¢Ç¨¬ù ? I remember reading it at lds.org in one of the news sections.”
Yes, hence my comment that such advice had been “officially” discontinued. The fact remains, however, that this message is still implicity (and sometimes even explicitly, in spite of leaders’ counsel) given to gay LDS men. Eternal marriage is taught as the only path to eternal happiness. Therefore, gay LSD men (many of whom are closeted, of course) end up marrying, in order to fulfill what they think deity demands of them.
April 17th, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Ahem….”gay LDS men….” Sorry!
April 17th, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Nick #1 and others, I’m not sure the Church is hanging its hopes on the Fourth Path either, but given the Oaks/Wickman interview a few months back, and the implication that heterosexual marriage is now discouraged, it would seem that that is where their hopes lie by default. Although I’m sure they hold out hope that some kind of therapy/cure can help homosexuals find love and fulfillment in traditional heterosexual marriages, as your example of the recent convention held at the JS Building at BYU suggests.
I wonder why the Church hasn’t been more vocal in their support of gays on the Fourth Path (or Third Path for that matter), given what is at stake, to say nothing of the love and support these gay Mormons will need to accomplish this daunting path/goal? Why no talks in conference about extending love and support to single, gay, and committed Mormons? Why no lessons in PH/RS outlining the current LDS position on homosexuality? Is the greater Mormon Church even aware of these subtle changes? Why not profile people like Tito or Ben Christensen or Ty Mansfield in Ensign? Why isn’t Kevinf’s anecdotal evidence of a Bishop with a gay, celibate, Mormon EQ Pres. getting publicity?
Are they unsure of their position? Are they hedging their bets on the hopes that more will be learned about same-sex attraction before committing to a position? Do they recognize the inherent contradiction/hypocrisy in the idea that required celibacy flies in the face of all that is Mormon?
April 17th, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Nick, implicit pressure to marry as a gay has not been my experience. Given an overt denial that the church encourages marriage for this purpose, what precisely makes you think there is implicit messages contradicting this?
April 17th, 2007 at 4:20 PM
anon-for-now-please (#4) and others,
You make some good points. Elder Wickman made a similar point when he said:
I don’t think the comparison follows. Single, heterosexual men and women at least have the opportunity to marry and have a fulfilling relationship, the opportunity to love and be loved. Whether or not they accomplish that objective in their lives is beside the point. The opportunity is everything, just ask women before they had the right to vote, or blacks before they were free men. What women made of the their right to vote and what blacks made of their freedom was up to them, but they no doubt cherished that freedom/opportunity.
Elder Wickman’s example doesn’t work for me either. Gays are not handicapped. And Rob’s pedophilia and beastiality examples don’t work either. Pedophiles and Beastialophiles (?) object of affection/lust is not another consenting adult.
Here is the link to the entire interview with Elder’s Oaks and Wickman.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:20 PM
Are gays sinning if they hold hands with or kiss someone of the same sex? The BYU honor code seems to so indicate. Straights and gays are therefore not treated alike in this respect.
April 17th, 2007 at 6:41 PM
Personally, I hope Courtney Wickman’s unnamed disability is mental, and profound enough that she doesn’t know her father shamelessly exploited her in order to score a rhetorical point in a largely political interview. Shameful.
April 17th, 2007 at 7:52 PM
-L- (#12),
Do you have any anecdotal evidence or feeling re the goals and hopes of the current generation of young, gay, committed Mormons? Are they looking, like you, to marry a heterosexual partner and raise a family (i.e. what I call the “Third Path”), or are they committed to a single, celibate life (i.e. the “Fourth Path”)? (Feel free not to use my clunky labels if you want.)
And I’m curious what you think of my Comment #11? Do you feel there is enough support and publicity/awareness from the Church for gay Mormons on either the Third or Fourth Path?
Thanks.
April 17th, 2007 at 8:51 PM
Nick (#1),
You must not have attended the presentation you refer to in your comment. I did. I doubt the three men who participated in that presentation would appreciate your description of them being “trotted out in front of the audience.” They participated willingly with their wives, and their candor and honesty were impressive. Two of them said they had fully disclosed their situations to their wives prior to their weddings; one did not (his wife learned about it nine months later). The same two said they had difficulty with intimacy at the beginning of their marriages but that it continued to improve with time. These two seemed to have relationships that, while not free from challenges, were loving and fulfilling.
I believe one of the reasons there aren’t as many older people participating in events like this conference is that most older people in long-term marriages do not continue to self-identify as “gay.” The issue doesn’t loom so large in their lives anymore. They don’t maintain involvement with Evergreen and similar organizations (as the above-mentioned couples still do), so they have less reason or opportunity to participate in events like the above-mentioned conference.
April 17th, 2007 at 8:54 PM
Rob (#2):
One thing I find quite disturbing is that somehow in our society it is getting more and more commonplace to believe that fantasies and passions of the mind outside of a marriage personal relationship is not sin. For instance- A man who is married and sealed in the temple who comes out later and says that he is attracted to other men is in my opinion in a state of sin.
I can’t help but be a bit skeptical of this claim. First of all, attraction is more or less a passive act. I don’t actively choose whether or not I’m going to be attracted to a particular person I pass on the street; it’s more of an instinctive reaction. And I don’t believe it’s sinful or unfaithful to recognize the attractiveness of a person (male or female) other than one’s spouse. Being attracted to someone (i.e., “other men”) is not the same as lusting after them or acting upon that attraction.
Additionally, sexual fantasy is widely recognized as a regular (and to an extent, unavoidable) behavior. Oftentimes, the content of fantasies has nothing to do with the type of behavior one would actually be willing to engage in.
Surely sexual passions must be handled responsibly, but they cannot be entirely turned off like a light switch. It seems to me that you are arguing in favor of not sexual morality or responsibility, but repression, which is far from healthy (particularly for singles and other celibates who have virtually no outlet for sexual expression).
April 17th, 2007 at 8:56 PM
No doubt this is a bit of a threadjack, but I am totally uncomfortable with Elder Wickman’s equation of disabled=unmarriageable (and don’t even get me started on how much I dislike the ‘h-word’). Nick I’m with you that this use of Courtney’s story is an exploitation of her dignity.
April 17th, 2007 at 8:59 PM
I was raised a Catholic. I attended Saturday catechism as a child and had daily religion classes later when I attended Catholic school. Committed faithful people who did not ever marry were part and parcel of my religious background. They were nuns and priests.
I can see the fourth way working for people if they decide that they are going to devote their lives to the service of God as they understand God. There is something beautiful about a level of faith that would allow one to sacrifice human partnership in order to live a godly life.
I certainly don’t think it’s a sacrifice that all gays and lesbians are called to make. I use the word “called” deliberately. I think some people feel deeply that this is what God would have them do. I think the young gay men who are married to women (and perhaps lesbian women married to men) feel the same way. I wish them happiness, fulfillment and success. I sure as hell couldn’t do it.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:02 PM
Oh, and as for the main post…
I also can’t help but be skeptical of the “success stories” about gay Mormons enjoying healthy heterosexual marriages. As has already been pointed out, such examples involve newlyweds, for the most part. And for every such marriage that does “succeed,” there are dozens more that fail. Encouraging homosexuals to marry a member of the opposite sex is irresponsible, in my opinion.
I don’t know how I feel about the “Fourth Path.” A lifetime of celibacy is a tall order. I’m not sure that I could honestly encourage someone to follow this path either.
April 17th, 2007 at 9:42 PM
Dottie raises a good point in comparing hetero/homosexual celibacy standards. Thousands of single LDS men and women attend church meetings together with many public displays of affection including, but not limited to, handholding, hugs, backrubs and kissing (sometimes encouraged by bishops trying to fertilize marital prospects). Even those not steadily dating have been known to go on occasional dates and even – gasp – dance together. So these otherwise celibate men and women do (generally) have opportunities to both experience and express physical affection which generally does not lead to marriage or even sexual intimacy. Some of these hetero men and women may continue their celibacy – whether forced upon them or chosen by them – until the day they die.
The bar is obviously higher for homosexuals, especially men, where simple public hugging, hand-holding, and walking arm-in-arm, is regarded as open sin and a sign that there is probably more going on “behind closed doors” (or at least that the couple is quickly headed on a slippery slope to sin). And as for opportunities to develop friendships through dating or dancing – well, that is clearly out of the question.
The church is not an easy place for many single adults, celibate or not, just because of its (sometimes over-)emphasis on marriage and family and the different way it treats non-married adults with respect to many things, including eligibility for callings and temple work. If the Church wants to encourage celibate homosexuals to remain actively involved, then it needs to publicly recognize and affirm that single adults are not pariahs, and that they can serve in callings and be inspired leaders and administrators just as capably as their married counterparts.
That might mean putting a little less emphasis on the need to marry and a little more emphasis on the need to know and follow Christ regardless of marital status or sexual attraction.
April 17th, 2007 at 10:41 PM
Ann (#20), Good point, but for them to succeed there needs to be a culture of support in place for such a lifestyle, a theology that “elevates celibacy to a high order of spiriutal living” which we currently don’t have in Mormonism. As Robert Rees said in his review of In Quiet Desperation,
This is why I keep asking why we’re not seeing more support from the Church for gay, committed, and celibate Mormons. You’d think they’d want to encourage and publicize the success stories. What is the alternative, other than encouraging heterosexual marriage or allowing same-sex marriage???
April 18th, 2007 at 7:15 AM
The reason I brought up the for instance with little children or animals was to point to the simple fact that we know those types of attraction to be “sin”. And yet, we also know that there are some few people who seem to be hopelessly attracted to children or animals, as if they are born that way. The point i was trying to make is that our bodies crave feelings- even those that seem unatural. It is up to us however to not give into feelings of pleasure that lead us down sinful paths. Therefor, I believe that someone who dwells on their same gender attraction thoughts is living in a state of sin just as the man who dwells on his thoughts of his attraction to the 10 year old girl next door!
If we discount thought and fantasy from what we call sin, then our church as a whole is in a world of hurt because it takes away personal copeability.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:45 AM
“Same-sex attraction is likened to a Job-like or Abraham-like test of faith and endurance.”
I don’t know that identifying (or be identified by others) as gay and experiencing same-sex attraction are necessarily the same thing.
April 18th, 2007 at 7:51 AM
-L- #12:
As you note, the official stance has changed from the old “get married and you’ll be okay” advice that damaged many lives. If you don’t mind though, let’s look at what Dallin Oaks said (in what was clearly a very carefully-worded, correllated mock interview/article):
“We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: ?¢Ç¨?ìMarriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.?¢Ç¨¬ù To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.
“On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity ?¢Ç¨Äù that?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.
“President Hinckley said that marriage is not a therapeutic step to solve problems.”
So, marriage is not seen as “therapy” or “cure.” Note, however, that Oaks interprets Hinckley’s words to mean that the “daughters of God” (no word on sons, apparently) must not be brought into such marriages “under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them.” Oaks then goes on to describe an implicit expectation—that a homosexual will “cleanse themselves of any transgression,” “deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background,” “feel a great attraction for a daughter of God,” and marry, thus enjoying “the blessings of eternity.” Yes, he couches all this as “IF.” Still, the language he uses (not to mention his position of authority) holds this out as the proper resolution, UNLESS that poor homo just can’t control himself. I would submit that any young, gay man who was attempting to be faithful to LDS-ism would read Oaks’ words above as a clear expectation. Any young gay LDS man who can’t “control themselves” enough to marry and have a family clearly does not measure up.
At the very least, we have a profoundly mixed message here.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:01 AM
Rivkah #17,
You are correct; I did not attend the conference. I read about it. I basically read exactly what you have said, and I don’t think I reported anything differently. It seems we only disagree in the sense that you don’t see any implicatinos behind the session being held in the first place. To me, the location speaks volumes. Combined with Dallin Oaks’ words, it seems clear to me that the church (notwithstanding its admission that marriage is not a “cure”) fully expects gay men to “control themselves” enough to successfully marry heterosexually and raise families.
April 18th, 2007 at 8:32 AM
Rob #24,
It seems to me that your statement betrays a number of misconceptions on your part. Allow me to explain:
You wrote:
“The reason I brought up the for instance with little children or animals was to point to the simple fact that we know those types of attraction to be ?¢Ç¨?ìsin?¢Ç¨¬ù. And yet, we also know that there are some few people who seem to be hopelessly attracted to children or animals, as if they are born that way.”
Rob, the implication of your statement, of course, is that you do not believe that homosexual persons are “born that way.” You use “seem” and “as if” to convey this message rather clearly. Now, I will readily admit that sexual orientation is a complex matter. There is no single explanation for homosexuality that covers all homosexual persons. There is, however, much to suggest that biology plays a profound role. In my own experience, I have made anecdotal observations which lead me to this conclusion. You see, Rob, I was married to a woman for 18 years, trying desperately to be the person that LDS teachings require. I don’t want to be graphic, Rob, but suffice it to say that even something as simple as body scents affected me differently than they do straight men. The natural scent of a woman literally made me violently nauseous, such that I was unable to bring pleasure to my then-wife in ways that many heterosexual men find nearly intoxicating. On the other hand, I have a very different response to (for example) the scent of male perspiration–it’s nearly euphoric. These are not “choices,” Rob, but simple, biological responses. Science, of course, has found such things as structural brain differences between gay men and straight men. To say that no homosexuals are “born that way” simply ignores reality.
You wrote:
“The point i was trying to make is that our bodies crave feelings- even those that seem unatural.”
Rob, can you conceive that homosexual feelings seem entirely NATURAL to homosexuals? Can you believe that heterosexual relations feel UNNATURAL to gay men? I have experienced both heterosexual and homosexual relations, Rob. Suffice it to say that the first time I was intimate with another man, I wondered what to even call what I had done for 18 years with a woman. For the first time, I felt the kind of transcendant feelings and sensations that most healthy people associate with sexual relations. There was such a dramatic, profound difference, that I hesitated to call what I had done with a woman “sex” at all.
You wrote:
“It is up to us however to not give into feelings of pleasure that lead us down sinful paths.”
Rob, are you a Mormon or a Puritan? “Feelings of pleasure” are not inherently sinful. Pretending to be straight when you are gay, however, is certainly a “sinful path.”
You wrote:
“Therefor[e], I believe that someone who dwells on their same gender attraction thoughts is living in a state of sin just as the man who dwells on his thoughts of his attraction to the 10 year old girl next door!
Rob, I’m sorry that you seem to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, despite the many profound differences between the two. A 10 year old girl is not a consenting adult. As a gay man, I have never had a sexual partner who was not a consenting adult.
You wrote:
“If we discount thought and fantasy from what we call sin, then our church as a whole is in a world of hurt because it takes away personal copeability.” [I assume you mean "culpability."]
Rob, such a statement flies in the face of Mormon doctrine, which considers sexual attraction a gift from deity. I don’t mean to be insulting, but your posts sound as if you have some serious issues of sexual repression. At the very least, you have a profound misunderstanding of the role of sexuality. What you are stating is quite at odds with the teachings of LDS general authorities on the subject.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:20 AM
Matt,
I just discovered this thread, so I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m jumping in.
You ask: (# 11) ?¢Ç¨?ìIs the greater Mormon Church even aware of these subtle changes? Why not profile people like Tito or Ben Christensen or Ty Mansfield in Ensign??¢Ç¨¬ù
Ben Christensen has left the Church and recently announced his divorce, so it wouldn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t do the Church much good to profile him in benefit of their cause.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:26 AM
Steve M.,
(#21) ?¢Ç¨?ìAnd for every such marriage that does ?¢Ç¨Àúsucceed,?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ there are dozens more that fail.?¢Ç¨¬ù
I feel pretty confident in saying here, Steve, that you simly don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know this. There?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s no way to get an accurate sample or statistic of those who do have ?¢Ç¨?ìsuccessful?¢Ç¨¬ù marriages?¢Ç¨Äùin any way we might hope to define success. I fully agree with Rivkah?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s (#17) comments. I know a handful of people in that situation, and I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m really not all that connected. To say that they are ?¢Ç¨?ìstraight?¢Ç¨¬ù is simplistic or that they never experience any degree of homosexual attraction, na?ɬØve. But they have?¢Ç¨Äùaccording to them?¢Ç¨Äùhealthy, fulfilling marriages with their spouses. If they are happy, should they really want more than that. What would you be skeptical about–that they say they’ve “changed”, or of their chances of success, or that they are happy? If it’s a matter of “change,” the real question is about how we define “change.” If it’s about success, only time will tell, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the “survival” rate of those marriages is as good or better than the survival rate of today’s heterosexual marriages in general. If it’s about being happy, it doesn’t really matter if you’re skeptical, because there’s a whole host of people to be skeptical of the happiness you might claim.
There?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s been quite a discussion on this in the last few posts on: http://ardentmormon.blogspot.com/
April 18th, 2007 at 11:27 AM
Rob, (#2, #24)
You know, I think I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m generally pretty even-keel, but your posts are pretty provocative and angering. And, frankly, you?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re making an ass of yourself.
It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s clear your confusing a lot of different issues, and this confusion?¢Ç¨Äùwhen translated into our teaching in the Church?¢Ç¨Äùonly exacerbates the shame and misunderstanding that already floods the general understanding of Church membership of many issues relating to psychological, emotional, sexual, social, and spiritual health and wellness.
As has already been mentioned, there is a big difference between ?¢Ç¨?ìattractions?¢Ç¨¬ù or ?¢Ç¨?ìfeelings?¢Ç¨¬ù and what the scriptures might refer to as ?¢Ç¨?ìimmoral thoughts.?¢Ç¨¬ù Attraction is not the same thing as fantasy. You use the (annoying) example of ?¢Ç¨?ìsomeone who dwells on their same gender attraction thoughts is living in a state of sin just as the man who dwells on his thoughts of his attraction to the 10 year old girl next door!?¢Ç¨¬ù But what about the healthily and happily married heterosexual man who is ?¢Ç¨?ìattracted?¢Ç¨¬ù to the secretary at is office? Is his attraction a sin? What if he is even ?¢Ç¨?ìtempted?¢Ç¨¬ù to want to ?¢Ç¨?ìknow?¢Ç¨¬ù her?¢Ç¨Äùin the biblical sense? Is that a sin? No, it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s not. For him to willfully entertain those thoughts or ?¢Ç¨?ìdwell on them,?¢Ç¨¬ù as you say, *would* be sinful?¢Ç¨Äùeven if it might be ?¢Ç¨?ìnatural.?¢Ç¨¬ù Don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t use what you see as ?¢Ç¨?ìunnatural?¢Ç¨¬ù or as gross perversions to make your point, because you are just as subject to the exact same issues?¢Ç¨Äùthough, perhaps, manifest differently?¢Ç¨Äùthan any one of us.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:28 AM
Nick,
(#28) ?¢Ç¨?ìThere is, however, much to suggest that biology plays a profound role.?¢Ç¨¬ù
It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s clear, Nick, that genetics and biology play a role?¢Ç¨Äùif not only because every aspect of our ?¢Ç¨?ìhumanness?¢Ç¨¬ù is so interconnected that it would be difficult if not impossible to sort out any on factor, or group of related factors, as play any more ?¢Ç¨?ìprofound [of a] role?¢Ç¨¬ù than any other factors. There is nothing in science to say that biological or genetic factors are determinative?¢Ç¨Äùrather than influential?¢Ç¨Äùin the development of homosexual attraction.
?¢Ç¨?ìI don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t want to be graphic, Rob, but suffice it to say that even something as simple as body scents affected me differently than they do straight men. The natural scent of a woman literally made me violently nauseous, such that I was unable to bring pleasure to my then-wife in ways that many heterosexual men find nearly intoxicating.?¢Ç¨¬ù
Let?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s be honest here, Nick: These are *your* issues?¢Ç¨Äùnot ?¢Ç¨?ìhomosexual?¢Ç¨¬ù issues, per se. Again, I know heterosexually married men who experience homosexual attraction who have come to understand and deal with their attractions in a healthy way, and for whom this is simply not the case. To use your own aversions as evidence that heterosexual relationships don’t work for homosexual men who *want* to be in those relationships and to make them work, is simply not germane to the discussion.
April 18th, 2007 at 11:35 AM
Thanks for stopping by Tito, I was hoping you’d find this thread.
Yikes! Ben Christensen has left the Church? Wow. I did not know that. Is this documented anywhere? Does Ben have a blog?
I was impressed with the articles Ben had written for Dialogue and was pulling for him on his journey. Is he now pursuing a gay path?
And, any thoughts on some of the questions I ask in Comment #11or #16?
For anyone interested, here is a link to a Dialogue article where Ben discusses his decision to remain married (to a woman) and his commitment to the Church, despite being a self-described “Gay Mormon.”
April 18th, 2007 at 11:52 AM
Tito,
Apparently I was not clear enough. In citing my own example, I noted that it was *anecdotal*, and something which gave *me* evidence that there are biological factors involved. It was not my intention to suggest that the same experience holds true for every gay man, nor even that every gay man is “biologically” gay. I would like to think I’m well-read and experienced enough not to so drastically oversimplify a very complex subject.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Nick,
Every gay person I have run into always states- “I can’t help it, I was born this way”. I believe it to be a lie. That is like saying that one cannot control their feelings. Gay people, especially the supposed “gay mormons” feel like they are feeling picked on and that God will understand. The truth of it is that homosexuality in any form whatsoever is an abomination in God’s sight. Are murderers born murderers? Are rapists born with those feelings? It is like saying that we do not have control over our passions or desires and that we must instead be controled by genetics (the natural man).
Will your gay lifestyle get you into heaven? Absolutely not, just as anyone else who breaks the law of chastity. Gay People plain and simpley choose to be gay. It is not something forced upon them neither is it something like a disease that they are stuck with. We are told by prophets not to look at pornography. And why? Because “scientifically” it has been proven that pornography stimulates the brain and body with chemical changes and can become highly addictive and destructive to ones personal life and possibly those around them. So does this mean that I am doomed to be addicted to pornography just because there is receptors in my brain for that stimulas? No, but I must keep myself from going down that path of destruction that part of me wants so badly to go down. Applying that to homosexuality, there are laws that tell us not to go down those paths just because our bodies feel inclined to do so. These laws are those of the gospel of Christ. God did not create us to be chained down by our carnal and evil appetites. Everyone who has been exposed to pornography at some level will readily admit that it could become addictive to them. Homosexual lifestyles demand that there is a minimal level of intimacy involved in order for that lifestyle to be enjoyed. So what is really the bottom line is that in order for a gay person to be satisfied in their relationship they must give way to the bodies natural desire to be aroused.
Applying that to a married man who can’t help himself to his appetite for picking up hookers and having pleasures with them should we say that this man is just doing what he feels natural or is he doing a sin? And how does one differentiate between the unfaithful spouse and the gay person? Who is justifiable before Christ? Neither! Some men never find fulfillment in relationships with grown women but they do in little children. Does this mean they were born that way? Scientific studies have also shown that Gay people can and do change if they desire it just as unfaithful spouses have been shown to change according to their desire also. I believe further then that being gay is just a cop out for saying that one cannot overcome his or her desire to overcome the bodies natural appetites. We could all give in to pornography addiction because that is how our brain and body were made but we also have commandments telling us what to avoid and the reasons why, this includes homosexual thoughts and feelings or any other carnal appetite that is pleasurable to the senses but lead us down dark pathways of sin!
April 18th, 2007 at 12:12 PM
A bit more for Tito:
I notice that you differentiate between “homosexual men who *want* to be in those [heterosexual]relationships and to make them work” and me. I was in a heterosexual marriage for 18 years, Tito, and wanted very much to make it work. For a time, I was able to do so. As I matured, however, and came to know myself better, I found the situation more and more unbearable. I am aware of quite a number of homosexual LDS men who are married to women, who have restorted to adulterous relationships in order to deal with this difficulty. I chose not to do that. Had I remained in the marriage, however, I think there is a very good likelihood that I would have ended my life within the next few years. I finally made the choice that I personally felt I had to make. I don’t think, however, that my 18 years of effort was an example of “not wanting” to do what the LDS church taught.
Further, I notice that you refer to homosexual men who are married to women, as having “come to understand and deal with their attractions in a healthy way.” Tito, it is one thing for you to hold certain religious beliefs, which forbid you from having an intimate relationship with another man. It is quite another for you to conclude that gay men who do not marry women are making an “unhealthy” choice. The former is a personal, spiritual judgment. The latter is something better left to a mental health professional.
All I’m saying, Tito, is please don’t rush to judgment, concluding that gay men who find a heterosexual marriage untenable just don’t “want it enough” or haven’t dealt with their homosexuality in a “healthy” way. I would hope that you understand the issue is far more complex than that.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:30 PM
Nick,
You aren’t being fair to Tito and quoted only a portion of his sentence. Your paragraph read
Further, I notice that you refer to homosexual men who are married to women, as having ?¢Ç¨?ìcome to understand and deal with their attractions in a healthy way.?¢Ç¨¬ù Tito, it is one thing for you to hold certain religious beliefs, which forbid you from having an intimate relationship with another man. It is quite another for you to conclude that gay men who do not marry women are making an ?¢Ç¨?ìunhealthy?¢Ç¨¬ù choice. The former is a personal, spiritual judgment. The latter is something better left to a mental health professional.
The complete sentence read “Again, I know heterosexually married men who experience homosexual attraction who have come to understand and deal with their attractions in a healthy way, and for whom this is simply not the case.”
Nor, does any thing that he wrote does he imply “that gay men who do not marry women are making an ?¢Ç¨?ìunhealthy?¢Ç¨¬ù choice.”
You are putting words in his mouth.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:37 PM
That second to last line was a disaster, should be
Nor, does anything that he wrote imply ?¢Ç¨?ìthat gay men who do not marry women are making an ?¢Ç¨?ìunhealthy?¢Ç¨¬ù choice.?¢Ç¨¬ù
I am a dufus
April 18th, 2007 at 12:39 PM
Thank you, Rob, for your testimony. I understand that you believe, in a very absolute way, the teachings of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, at least so far as they condemn homosexual relations. Your suggestion that homosexual attraction is sinful is not, as you know, the current position of your church. Because you believe as you do, I would expect you to live your life accordingly.
That said, please understand that I am not a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I do not believe the teachings of that organization on the subject of homosexuality to be the unquestionable truth, as you do. I do not think, as you suggest, that your deity will give me a free pass in violating his directives. To the contrary, I simply do not believe in the existence of the kind of deity you worship, nor do I believe that any actual deity has prohibited sexual relations between two consenting, adult gay men. It is quite irrelevant to me, whether you beileve I will reach your concept of “heaven” by means of my intimate relations.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:41 PM
MAC, if I have misunderstood Tito’s intent, I’m sure he’ll clarify. I think you and I disagree at this point on what he conveyed.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:44 PM
My understanding is that Ben said he no longer believed in the Church over a year ago, but that he continued to attend Church with his wife, to be a support to her. Someone please correct me if they know differently. I also don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know if he?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s now pursuing a gay path, but judging from what he?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s written, it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s at least a consideration. It seems like he?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s just trying to take all this a step at a time.
He recently blogged about his decision to divorce. You can read about it at The Fobcave.
To respond to comments #11or #16, I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think the Church?¢Ç¨Äùor anyone in the Church?¢Ç¨Äùis particularly excited about Path Four. But I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think Paths Three and Four are really that different. My goal is not to be celibate. My goal is simply to obey the Law of Chastity?¢Ç¨Äùas it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s understood and taught in the Church?¢Ç¨Äùregarding sexual expression outside heterosexual marriage until I have the opportunity to marry, whether that happens on this side of the veil or the other. And my understanding is that heterosexual marriage isn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t discouraged as long as it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s entered in good faith, with realistic expectations, and not as some form of ?¢Ç¨?ìtool?¢Ç¨¬ù to resolve issues of same-sex attraction.
A lot of people poo-poo therapy, but therapy has been really helpful for me, and marriage in the not-so-distant future now feels like much more of potential reality to me than it did even a few years ago. So, perhaps the Church does hold out that therapy can help individuals find success in marriage, I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know. But I do personally feel like I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ve benefited greatly from it, and expect that I will continue to do so.
As for Kevinf?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s anecdotes, I know several men in similar situations?¢Ç¨Äùincluding one who has served in a couple bishoprics (while openly acknowledging that he experiences same-sex attractions) and another who served as Stake Young Men?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s president when it was well-known he had lived an openly gay life for some years and even been ?¢Ç¨?ìmarried?¢Ç¨¬ù to a guy for a few of those years. Neither of those men are currently married (heterosexually, I mean?¢Ç¨¬¶ or homosexually for that matter.
. I suspect we?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ll hear more of those stories in the future.
April 18th, 2007 at 12:48 PM
Nick,
Okay, I grant that (#34). But even so, that experience could just as easily be evidence of significant psycho-emotional factors as biological ones.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:11 PM
Nick, I certainly didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t mean to imply that you simply didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t want it or weren?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t trying hard enough. So, I apologize if it came across that way. I think there are a lot of factors that would contribute to a ?¢Ç¨?ìsuccessful?¢Ç¨¬ù mixed-orientation marriage, and I certainly don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t want to oversimplify it or dilute it down to a simplistic measure of desire.
Concerning your other statement, I think you?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re reading into my words by implying my statement regarding men married heterosexually and dealing healthily with their issues as condemnation of your or of your choice as ?¢Ç¨?ìunhealthy.?¢Ç¨¬ù I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know you or your situation. What I was saying, however, is that if men do want to marry heterosexually, there are healthy and unhealthy ways of doing so. For example, I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think the white-knuckle or ?¢Ç¨?ìdon?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t talk about it and it will go away?¢Ç¨¬ù approaches are realistic or healthy. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think impure motives (ie, I just want to be ?¢Ç¨Àústraight?¢Ç¨Ñ¢, so I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m going get married in order to make these feelings go away) are helpful, either. Your own allusion to those who are married and have adulterous relationships on the side is another example.
And note, I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m not ascribing any of these examples or others to your situation. I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m not judging you or your choice. I am speaking *generally* that one cannot dismiss marriage for men with same-sex feelings out-of-hand simply because it didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t work out in their own situation any more than heterosexuals can do the same simply because their marriages didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t work. The simple fact is that every one of us?¢Ç¨Äùheterosexual or homosexual?¢Ç¨Äùhas a package of challenges or issues that we are going to take into a marriage, and we need to approach that decision as honestly, as knowledgeably, and as prepared as we possibly can. And then we give it a go. No marriage is approached without its risks or challenges. We are no exception. We just have a unique issue that is going to play out differently, depending on our individual temperaments and circumstances.
You?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re right, your decision?¢Ç¨Äùjust as any of ours are?¢Ç¨Äùis a personal one, and each of us need to recognize that we are going to be held strictly accountable for decisions. If you feel that your decision is in harmony with the Lord?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s will for you at this place in your life, who am I to judge that? I never intended to do so, and I apologize, again, if it came across that way.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:16 PM
Steve M. is correct to be “skeptical of the ’success stories’ about gay Mormons enjoying healthy heterosexual marriages. As has already been pointed out, such examples involve newlyweds, for the most part. And for every such marriage that does ’succeed,’ there are dozens more that fail.”
I am the straight ex-spouse of one such failed marriage.
My gay ex-husband followed the new recommended procedure. He had five years of “reparative therapy” from a licensed LDS therapist before we ever met. His story was written up as an anonymous case study in the literature as someone whose homosexual feelings were significantly reduced by the therapy and who began to have heterosexual feelings as well.
I met him at an LDS church dance. We danced and talked the night away. The next time I saw him was at an Institute class. After class, he took me aside and told me he was gay. Then he asked me on our first date. So, I knew from day one. He never, ever deceived me.
He was not using our dates, engagement, or eventual marriage as a means toward a “cure.” He had already achieved a reduced level of homosexual feelings from the therapy, and didn’t feel a need to completely eradicate the feelings, just maintain what the therapy had done for him and continue to resist temptation. He didn’t expect marriage to further reduce his remaining homosexual feelings.
We met a lot of LDS people during the year and a half we were married. We talked of our marriage in glowingly positive yet realistic-sounding terms. They were so proud of us…we were like pioneers! We were proving by our very lives that the blessings of temple marriage are available to all God’s children who were willing to do the necessary work to overcome their trials! We wanted so much for it to work out, and worked hard in counseling. We really believed we were going to be a success story. We used every ounce of positive thinking we could muster. We received numerous priesthood blessings that promised us that this problem would be resolved if we were faithful…and you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone more faithful than us at that time.
We were genuinely in love with each other, but we were completely unprepared for how hard it was to be in a mixed-orientation marriage. It was a lot more complicated than just living on a less-frequent sex schedule. It’s one thing when, for example, a straight man has a post-partum wife who can’t have sex at all for a while. It’s quite another thing when your spouse is struggling with a near-constant sexual attraction to a significant number of people, but is not sexually attracted to you to any significant degree, and never will be.
When our challenges started to become overwhelming, we turned to the two mixed-orientation couples who had encouraged us to get married and assured us that their marriages were successful though not without challenges. But suddenly they revealed that they had withheld a great deal of information from us. One couple revealed that their children were conceived by artificial insemination because they couldn’t ever have the kind of sex that would result in children. (They let others believe, as they had initially led us to believe, that the children were the results of natural heterosexual urges that had resulted from successful therapy.) Another couple revealed that the husband had had repeated incidents with homosexual sex outside of marriage that the wife had forgiven and forgiven until trust was gone and they were basically staying together for their (adopted) kids. This was held in confidence between them and their bishop, even while the husband became a sort of unofficial spokesman and success story exemplar for their 10-year-plus mixed-orientation marriage.
You have no idea what is going on in other people’s marriages. You have no idea what their motives are for wanting to be “success stories.” You have no idea how many people like my ex-husband and I have tried the mixed-orientation experiment and been unsuccessful. After all, his case study story is still out there encouraging others to believe in reparative therapy. All those LDS people we met while married are probably still spreading our then-successful-so-far story to their friends and friends-of-friends, blissfully unaware of the ending.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Rob,
Have you ever even tried to understand what it means to be gay? While I’m not gay, once I actually opened my mind and began learning from homosexuals and trying to understand what it’s like to be in their shoes, I realized that much of what I had been taught was totally erroneous. I suggest you do the same.
I would suggest doing a bit of research. Many of your claims are not only sweeping generalizations, but are downright wrong and innaccurate. All your comments have demonstrated is ignorance and an unopen mind.
I can’t ask you to change your mind, but I think it would be worth your while to make sure that you aren’t supporting your opinions with inaccurate and erroneous claims.
April 18th, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Thanks for your explanation, Tito. I’d say we are in almost complete agreement.
April 18th, 2007 at 3:48 PM
i’ve been married now for a decade in a straight marriage. I only recently accepted that I am gay. It was something I fought against my whole life. Now I accept that it is a part of me but I continue on my way down the path that I chose. I love my wife, my children and I am faithful to my testimony. I’m not leaving any of them regardless of statistics or whatever.
I also know of others in gay/straight marriages of much much longer. Each with there own struggles but still going strong. We are out there watching and learning with everyone else.
Like Tito has stated before, though I hope that every gay lds person stays faithful, I will still love them regardless.
My hats off to the younger generation of faithful LDS gay men/women who will not be bound by false dogmas of “its best to be in the closet”. As one who still has one foot in the closet – it has been nothing but heart ache and pain. But I now finally get to see the full blessings and joy that comes with not only understanding myself but with living the gospel and not feeling split.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:54 PM
Thank you for sharing your stories, Beijing and loyalist.
It is becoming apparent that one of the reasons the Church might not be actively publicizing and promoting/supporting those on the Third and Fourth Path is that the success rate isn’t very reliable, to put it mildly. I’m not trying to be indelicate, but it may be too big of a PR risk. Each time a Ben Christensen fails it’s further proof that the program isn’t working.
Switching gears, it’s tough to generalize about those on the Third Path. Obviously, the hetero-homosexual spectrum allows for much nuance inbetween hetero and homosexuality. Those in the middle clearly have an advantage should they choose the Third Path. I read, for example, on “-L-’s” blog that he is a “Kinsey 6.” Is one’s “rating” generally known in the gay community? Just curious.
By the way, Tito, I like what you said in #41: “But I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think Paths Three and Four are really that different. My goal is not to be celibate. My goal is simply to obey the Law of Chastity?¢Ç¨Äùas it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s understood and taught in the Church?¢Ç¨Äùregarding sexual expression outside heterosexual marriage until I have the opportunity to marry, whether that happens on this side of the veil or the other.” As I mentioned before, my Third and Fourth Path labels are clunky and I’m using them to facilitate discussion. You’ve better defined the heart of the issue. Well said.
April 18th, 2007 at 4:56 PM
I’m glad to see both Bejing and loyalist describe their own situations here. The simple truth is that there is a full spectrum of situations, with a full spectrum of success.
I tend to believe the Kinsey Scale really is a useful tool. Everybody falls along a continuum, and how far you are toward either end of that continuum has a great deal to do with how likely you are to find happiness in a given situation.
April 19th, 2007 at 9:31 PM
Rob said “Scientific studies have also shown that Gay people can and do change if they desire it just as unfaithful spouses have been shown to change according to their desire also.”
Would that changing one’s sexual orientation were as simple as an unfaithful spouse changing his or her behavior.
There is only *one* scientific study which claims that *some* gay people can change their sexual orientation, the highly criticized 2001 Robert Spitzer study. As a result of his findings Robert Spitzer became convinced that some people can change their sexuality, but that it is “quite rare.”
There are several short videos related to the study, for those interested:
Interview with Robert Spitzer, Throckmorton’s short edit
Interview with Robert Spitzer, Throckmorton’s long edit
The Spitzer Study of Ex-Gays: Flaws and Abuse – PART 1
The Spitzer Study of Ex-Gays: Flaws and Abuse – PART 2
Spitzer complains about the misuse of his study
April 20th, 2007 at 9:22 AM
There is a HUGE body of evidence that proves that changes in sexuality occurs all over nature. Fish, lizards are routinely observed switching genders.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/InNews/sexchange2004.html
http://evolutiondiary.com/2006/12/21/virgin-birth-of-the-reptile-kind-komodo-dragon-reproduce-without-mating/
Unfortunately this is frequently associated with pollution, which will open a whole new mess off commentary
April 21st, 2007 at 6:03 PM
Gay former LDS here.
It amazes me that people still cling to the belief that homosexuality is chosen. As a gay man, I don’t recall ever making such a choice. In fact, had I ever been given the choice to be either gay or straight, I would have certainly chosen to be straight. Be heterosexual would have possibly saved me from self-esteem issues, given me the oppportunity to have my own family, and avoided ‘hiding out’ through much of my life; living a lie.
Nick’s responses to heterosexual intimacy are not shared by all gay men and may not even be typical but there are gay men who tell of similar reactions.
What many people do is forget the deep emotional components involved. That ’something special’ that is involved in all romantic relationships. If those componants are absent in a gay/straight marriage how can the marriage be fulfilling?
I miss the not be a father or husband but the decision not to ‘take the chance’ may have saved myself and any potential spouse and children from deep heartache.
April 22nd, 2007 at 3:20 PM
Rilke,
I agree with you. In citing my experience with physical intimacy, I was not pretending to speak for all gay men, by any means. In context, I was pointing out that this was an indicator to me of the biological involvement at hand.
By all means, the more important element IS the emotional intimacy. I managed to stay married to a woman for 18 years, despite intense sexual frustration. It was only when the EMOTIONAL need became so obvious and intense, that I finally found the courage to come out of the closet.
April 24th, 2007 at 1:06 PM
[...] few days ago Matt Thurston created a blog here on Sunstone called the Fourth Path: Gay, Mormon, Celibate. Matt lays out the four paths for gays in Mormondom, as he sees it, and the Third path is [...]
April 25th, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Many apologies for being gone from the discussion until the discussion is essentially over. But…
Regarding Matt in #16: From the several blogs of young gay LDS people, I would say there is quite a bit of variability in which “path” people feel is in their future. And, their assessment of which path changes frequently. It’s a fickle bunch. As are the folks who choose path 3 and then get divorced.
j/k
And regarding Nick in #26: Nick, I just don’t see how you can say without some sophist acrobatics that the church is still implicitly encouraging gay men to marry. I read the same Oaks interview you quote and I get the clear impression that chastity is the rule in the church, and marriage is an ultimate goal that may be achieved in this life and may not be.
April 25th, 2007 at 3:44 PM
Oops… I wish I could go back and erase that last comment and try again. “Sophist” was a poor word choice, and seems to reflect disdain for Nick’s view. That wasn’t my intent, I just disagree.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:51 AM
-L- #55:
Funny, but I just don’t see how *you* can say without some acrobatics that the church does *not* implicitly encourage gay men to marry women. In the same Oaks “interview,” he lays out criteria which should be met so that a gay man can marry a woman. He does so in a manner that conveys a strong subtext, that if a gay man doesn’t work his way “up” to these criteria, he is FAILING. He speaks of reptentance, and self-control—things that are very much a part of LDS teaching. Any latter-day saint who isn’t repenting and exercising self-control is falling short, right?
I’m not saying it’s entirely intentional, -L-. In fact, I very much doubt that it is, when as you note, the official word no longer supports marriage as a “cure” for homosexuality. Still, the underlying expectation is there for every LDS person to repent, exercise self-control, etc. I don’t see how a young gay LDS man could escape feelings of inadequacy, if he chose to be single and celibate.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:17 PM
I think there is an assumption that eventually all faithful folks will have the opportunity to marry and enjoy all the blessings associated with that. But for some (including groups other than gays), this won’t be possible in this life. So, I can see how you’d sense that subtext, but I disagree with the implications of inadequacy. Such feelings would be based on a misunderstanding of the church’s doctrine, not the church’s mixed message.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:36 PM
Actually, -L-, I think you miss my point entirely. I also think it’s uncharitable to sccuse the person who feels such things, rather than acknowledge the realities that give rise to such feelings.
April 26th, 2007 at 3:41 PM
It’s not an accusation, Nick, just an observation. And I think it’s uncharitable for you to call me uncharitable. So neener. The “realities” you perceive I think aren’t realities at all, merely your own perceptions. That’s my point, no blame intended.
April 27th, 2007 at 7:41 AM
The fact remains, -L-, there is only one path acknowledged as “success” in the LDS church. That path is heterosexual marriage and childrearing. Platitudes such as “oh, you’ll marry in the resurrection, when you’re not missing both legs and one arm” don’t change this fact.
Since you wish to speak of “understanding doctrine,” I would point out that such “after this life” promises are only extended to those who didn’t have the opportunity in mortality. In the case of homosexuality, Oaks has laid out his view that there IS an opportunity—-through repentance, self-control, and desire to marry and have children. The man who doesn’t “take this opportunity” will not, according to LDS doctrine, have it offered to him in the afterlife.
Remember that for Oaks, there is no such thing as homosexuality. For Oaks, there are only “homosexual feelings,” and feelings are to be “controlled.” I don’t see the slightest hint in Oaks’ mock interview that lifetime celibacy is seen as a “success story” for gay LDS men.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:08 AM
It’s not a platitude, Nick, it’s a compassionate concession that is highly relevant and that you apparently feel you have to minimize so you can feel justified in being outraged that there are no concessions. As Tito has said elsewhere, the church focuses on the law of chastity as success, not lifetime celibacy. For some it’s the same thing and constitutes not having “the opportunity in mortality.” That’s the way I’ve always seen it anyway without trying really hard not to see it otherwise.
I realize I won’t convince you, I just wondered if you had anything interesting to support your assertion that there is this implicit expectation of marriage despite the explicit advice against it as therapy. You having said nothing persuasive, that’s all I wanted to know.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:25 AM
I agree with both of you. -L- is representing the idealistic position and Nick is representing the realistic postion. -L-’s position represents the official policy/doctrine; Nick’s position represents the inner hopes/expectations/prejudices of many, if not most, Mormons, be they lay members or leaders.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:30 PM
-L-
I’m not sure what “concessions” you think I have asked for, let alone am “outraged” about. Feel free, however, to classify me as an “outraged” rabble-rouser, if that makes it easier for you to remain within your wilfully-ignorant comfort zone.
For you to say the church focuses on “chastity as success, not lifetime celibacy,” fails to admit the established fact that “chastity” IS “lifetime celibacy” for gay LDS men who are wise enough not to marry. Of course, you can glibly blather on about how these men will be able to marry in the afterlife if they prove “faithful,” but such a claim flies in the face of LDS doctrine. Alma clearly taught that whatever feelings and attitudes a person holds at death will rise with him in the resurrection. Regardless of the false doctrine taught by Hickman, there is absolutely no revelatory foundation upon which to claim that homosexuals will suddenly find themselves heterosexual after death.
Matt gets it. There is an official, ideal stance. There is also a widespread cultural, attitudinal stance.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:18 PM
Good point, Nick.
Mormon doctrine has from its infancy taught that our basic character and mind does not change at death.
Add to this another key Mormon doctrine: God did NOT create the mind/spirit of the individual. As Joseph Smith clearly taught in the Doctrine & Covenants, iintelligence (meaning the individual mind) was not created–”nor indeed can it be.”
In his King Follett Discourse, Joseph taught regarding the mind of the individual “there was no creation about…the very idea lessens man in my estimation….God never had the power to create it [the mind of the individual] because God could not create himself….”
So if the mind of the individual was not created by God, if it is “co-equal with God” (Joseph’s own words) and without beginning or end, whence comes the doctrine that God can change the mind of the homosexual in the next life if that homosexual is celibate and faithful to the Church until death?
God can not change that which He never had the power to create and which is, by its nature, an eternal free agent with the power within itself to learn to become a God itself.
Neo-Mormonism (the evangelical, Christian fundamentalist doctrines that the LDS Church and her apologists have adopted over the past 30 years) is at odds with traditional Mormon doctrine.
I can think of no other area of currernt debate in which the short comings of Neo-Mormonism are more evident (and more out of touch with reality, reason and the findings of science and medicine) than that regarding the nature of human homosexuality.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:45 PM
I don’t actually accept that “intelligence” in mormon doctrine is strictly synonymous with “the individual mind.” And your overreliance on that idea seems to completely overlook the strong neurological and psychosocial influences on what it means to be an individual.
If I have an extra Y chromosome, I’m incredibly more likely to end up incarcerated. If I’m sexually abused as a child, I’m incredibly more likely to have sexual issues in my adulthood (that might include abuse). To say that my sexual problems or my penchant for commiting serious crime are just a part of my “eternal individual mind” and co-equal with God seems ridiculous and ignores overwhelmingly strong evidence to the contrary.
I don’t know exaclty how this applies to the debate about homosexuality. I don’t think anyone has grounds to claim either that it is eternal or not. Nor do I think it should matter. It is very clear that–for whatever biological or psychosocial reasons–many people are homosexual. to marginalize them and exclude them from spirituality is a travesty.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:00 PM
MAC
Are you actually suggesting that because some animals naturally change gender through their lifespan that homosexuals should likewise be able to “decide” to change their orientation.
Lordy I hope I’m misunderstanding you, because that would be emberassingly naive and uninformed.
Sexuality, even gender, is a great deal more “grey” than we commonly like to admit. It doesn’t actually mean much to say that I’m “male” or “female” or that I’m either hetero- or homosexual. These are more like points on a blurry continuum than actual categories. And you sure as hell aren’t going to clear anything up by looking at the rest of God’s creation—–where sex is so crazily varied and bizarre that it makes you realize we humans have taken it far to seriously. And it should go without saying that there is enough homosexual activity among other advanced species (dolphins, apes, etc.) to question any sense of “natural” law against it.
If anything, nature shows that different sexual behaviors (e.g. fidelity and promiscuity) suit different species evolutionarily based on several important survival factors–and that our overemphasis on complete heterosexual fidelity is more a product of how we got here evolutionarily than any divine credo given to Adam.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:05 AM
Nick, are you always so insulting to people who disagree with you, or have I done something particularly egregious? I don’t consider being outraged to be a bad thing, and you seemed put out by the mixed message you believe comes from the church. If I’ve pegged you wrong, you can certainly clarify without being snarky and rude.
I don’t think Oaks said that marriage IS possible for everyone in this life, but that it may be possible for some gays. I find that reassurance to be very nice, I take his many qualifiers to be a deliberate effort to avoid your exact conclusion–that this applies in any way to all gays. I’m telling you what I’ve noticed and how I interpret the message–is this being “willfully ignorant”?
Further, I don’t read Alma’s reference to feelings and attitudes persisting in the afterlife as applicable to all sexual feelings or therefore to be as cut and dry as you feel your right to authoritatively claim (and a right to label Hickman as preaching “false doctrine!”). The exact spiritual, mental, and physical divisions of sexuality are explained nowhere in science or religion and it’s unreasonable to make strong claims about them. I read Alma as referring to some subset of the spiritual and mental feelings of sexuality persisting after this life. I believe many of the mental and physical aspects will be changed with the resurrection, and I’m not aware of why this is inconsistent with church doctrine.
Matt, while I recognize that Nick is talking about, “hopes/expectations/prejudices of many, if not most, Mormons,” but I’m not persuaded we’re talking about most Mormons. That’s what I asked for examples for. The notion sounds more plausible to me as we talk about it, but I still wonder whether most Mormons see things as I have (without acrobatics, mind you), or how Nick does.
April 28th, 2007 at 8:06 AM
#67 “Lordy I hope I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m misunderstanding you, because that would be emberassingly naive and uninformed.”
The idea that sexual orientation is completely immutable throughout life is indeed called into question by counter examples from across the biological spectrum. I think this is highly relevant and deserves respectful consideration, not scorn.
April 28th, 2007 at 9:14 AM
HA! You are wrong! Anyone who thinks that asexual reproduction by a komodo dragon somehow means that a homosexual can willfully change his orientation is so laughably naive that they totally, completely deserve my scorn.
Did you have other “counter examples from across the biological spectrum” that outweigh his ridiculous examples, or were you just bluffing? If you do have some, I’d be interested to hear them and how you construe them to support an idea of reversing orientation.
As I already stated, gender and sexuality are not cut-and-dry. Nature shows over and over that sex is as varied and bizarre in nature as anyone could possibly imagine (for a great read, check out “Dr. Tatiana’s Sex Advice to All Creation). Case in point: several species change from one gender to another through natural development…but to somehow draw a social conclusion about that and use it as ammunition to marginalize homosexuals………….IGNORANT. And, again, deserving of all the scorn I have time to dish out.
April 28th, 2007 at 9:18 AM
If there is any social conclusion we can draw from the variations of sex in nature—and I seriously doubt that there is—it’s that we take sex way to seriously and have built up a strict moral code based on our evolutionary heritage and have tried to act like it is eternally binding.
But masturbation, incest, sex changing, cross-dressing, etc., etc., etc. are all norms in nature.
And that’s based on “examples from across the biological spectrum.” : )
April 28th, 2007 at 9:58 AM
I’m not going to create a bibliography for this discussion, so you can call it a “bluff” if you like. But I am aware that there are examples from nature above and beyond those mentioned by MAC that show that sexual orientation, phenotype, and behaviors change over time. Whether this fact suggests that humans may find circumstances that can accomplish the same thing would be an interesting discussion, and is indeed currently discussed scientifically. Whether a person can “choose” orientation by deliberately fostering said circumstances does not directly extend from these observations of nature (especially when it is oversimplified as you have done), but the possibility is a relevant and interesting one that I think about on occasion.
If you want to heap scorn on this, well, I guess that’s consistent with the overall unnecessarily unfriendly tone I’ve noticed here. But I haven’t seen anyone marginalizing homosexuals here. And, being a homosexual, hopefully you’ll agree that that’s not my intent. And I’ll apologize in advance for being caught up in the contentiousness with the tone of my previous comments. I think I’ll try to tread more carefully in the future.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:46 AM
L,
I don’t mean to be as punchy as I come off. I’m a nice guy deep down, just stuck in the body of an A-hole. And I have a special weakness for bad arguments. Just disregard my tone and understand that I’m smiling when I dish it out (and happily take it back when I get caught with my own bad arguments).
This is something I’m working on.
Now back to the discussion:
You’ve accused me of oversimplifying, which really surprises me. I believe I was responding to an oversimplification rather than starting one.
You’ve declined to “create a bibliography” which usually means that you’re not aware of one. If there is a meaningful discussion on how a komodo dragon’s asexual egg-laying relates to human’s choosing to stop being homosexuals, I’d certainly be interested in reading it.
I do think that homosexuals are marginalized societaly and in the church….do you disagree with that? It’s an enormously complex issue that i don’t pretend to fully understand. Same could be said for sexual orientation itself. But what I do know is that it’s not good enough to say “Hey, clown fish can change from a boy to a girl, so I don’t want to hear any whining from you about how hard it is to be gay.” That’s repulsive to me and demonstrates a real ignorance of the same biology that it refers to.
April 28th, 2007 at 11:19 AM
“HA! You are wrong! Anyone who thinks that asexual reproduction by a komodo dragon somehow means that a homosexual can willfully change his orientation is so laughably naive that they totally, completely deserve my scorn.”
Dude, I was being snarky.
April 28th, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Or at least at least saying so is easier than just admitting that your argument sucked.
April 28th, 2007 at 6:47 PM
I hope I can navigate the waters here, although they seem a little murky at times. The discussion at least in part is dealing with the question of mutability and sexual orientation. I think it is important to remember that there are probably 3 or 4 times as many bisexuals as homosexuals, if we use the HH Scale and call 6s homosexuals and 1,2,3,4,5s bisexuals. (That at least has some validity, but we can revisit this assumption if anyone wants to) The evidence for this is strong and from several sources.
It seems very obvious, then, that the largest group of those dealing with homosexual attraction–the bisexuals—actually have some choice. They can choose to focus on their heterosexual or their homosexual attractions. The ones, of course, who can do that most easily are the 3s. They are exactly in the middle.
I believe this explains a great deal of what some call “change” or mutability in sexual orientation. Yes, change occurs. A person who is bisexual can change back and forth. Unfortunately, those who are 6s do NOT have that luxery. Even the 5s are probably challenged to function heterosexually because they have so little heterosexual interest compared to the homosexual. So this explains why the 6s or 5.5s like Nick who try marriage have such a rough go of it.
Would this provide some kind middle ground …where Nick and Rick and -L- and others could all find some agreement?
April 28th, 2007 at 7:04 PM
“I believe this explains a great deal of what some call ?¢Ç¨?ìchange?¢Ç¨¬ù or mutability in sexual orientation. Yes, change occurs. A person who is bisexual can change back and forth.”
Ron, are you saying that significant changes in “attractions” occur or are you referring to a bisexual’s ability to function sexually in either direction?
April 28th, 2007 at 7:16 PM
“Would this provide some kind middle ground ?¢Ç¨¬¶where Nick and Rick and -L- and others could all find some agreement?”
Yes, I think so. But I had the same question that Steven B. offered.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:15 PM
Steven B and Rick
I am referring to a bisexual’s ability to function sexually in either direction.
On the surface it may look like “change” but actually the fundamental orientation has not changed. A 3 has the ability to focus in either direction. 4s and 2s do also, but not quite as equally.
I like Elder Wickman’s term for it in the statement last August. He said…
“There?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s no denial that one?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person…”
“Core characteristic” sums it up pretty well. It is at the core, at the center of who we are. I don’t think it changes much. Therapists I have talked to at LDS Family Services stress that the brain is pretty fixed once we are in our late teens…20s.
April 28th, 2007 at 10:29 PM
And this is sort of what I worry about. That “success” stories of bisexuals who can function sexually and emotionally in either homosexual or heterosexual relationships give an impression to general mormondom that homosexuality really is a “choice” and that people need to get over it.
April 29th, 2007 at 1:41 AM
As noted in my earlier post, a homosexual 6 is very different from a bisexual 3. You can’t lump them together. Period. But worry you should, because “general mormondom” has been doing exactly what you predicted they would. And in my opinion they have been doing it for a long time.
April 29th, 2007 at 2:42 AM
Rick,
What the LDS Church now teaches is not necessarily what Joseph Smith taught. (which is why I am a Reform Mormon and not an LDS Mormon.)(
In his King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith did specifically say that he was talking about the mind of man; he equated it with intelligence and with the spiriit of man…say ingthat the intelligence of man “is a spirit from everlasting to everlasting,” and that “there was no creation about it.” Also, that “God never had the power to create [the mind of man.]”
My point was the same as Joseph’s: the mind/intelligence/spirit is an uncreated entity within the natural universe; it is what it is and cannot change its nature.
April 29th, 2007 at 9:13 AM
Rob,
What I actually meant (and didn’t articulate well) is that I either disagree with your understanding of Joseph Smith meant or…if you’re right about J.S.’s intending meaning….I disagree with Joseph Smith. : )
I don’t think there’s much current LDS doctrine on “intelligence” to agree or disagree with since basically no one ever talks about it. But I also don’t think that there’s any reason to feel married to the idea that it’s a complete “self” that’s largely immutable. As I said, I think that strongly contradicts obvious data.
I’d actually be interested in talking with you quite a bit more about this in a month or two. I’ve started a major study about the doctrine of intelligence with a good friend….but won’t be able to really look at it until at least June.
==Rick
April 29th, 2007 at 7:00 PM
I just read through all of these interesting and thought-provoking posts (and boy are my eyes tired), and wanted to add my two cents. Full disclosure ?¢Ç¨Äú I am an active member of the Church and consider myself Mormon. My political and social beliefs are fairly conservative, though I respect the fact that others believe differently, and I think that people can disagree in good faith. I try to take people as individuals rather than as representatives of groups. In my adult life, I have had a number of gay and lesbian friends, including two of my closest friends in college who came out after I first met them, but other than a brief period of wondering if my large number of gay friends meant that I was gay too (and quickly rejecting that idea), I have not experienced same-sex attraction or a gay lifestyle directly. I am a married, heterosexual woman in a happy and fulfilling relationship with my husband. We have three children together. This is my only marriage and we were both virgins on our wedding night. My views come from my interpretation of the scriptures and LDS doctrine as it seems to be currently expressed. I have read a few of my own thoughts here and elsewhere, but a few other issues seem not to have been addressed. I would appreciate knowing what others think and if I am off base.
It seems to me that ?¢Ç¨?ìhomosexuality?¢Ç¨¬ù is not and cannot be endorsed by the Church for one reason alone: that same-sex relationships by their very nature cannot become celestial. I was taught, and I think Church doctrine is that our purpose in this life (in which I include the spirit world before our resurrection) is to prove ourselves worthy and capable of becoming like our Father and Mother in Heaven, accepting the Atonement of Christ to make up for what we cannot do. If we do this, we will receive ?¢Ç¨?ìall that the Father hath?¢Ç¨¬ù and become Gods, as He and She are. By becoming Gods, we will have eternal increase (indeed, I think this is the definition of ?¢Ç¨?ìGod?¢Ç¨¬ù), or spirit children. Eternal increase can only come to a union of opposites, male and female. A man or woman alone cannot have children, nor can two men or two women. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know what the logistics of eternal sexuality are, but it seems clear that somehow, there must be both a man and a woman together to receive exaltation by this definition. Our marriage relationships on Earth (and, I believe, in the spirit world, where we still have contact with each other until our resurrections) are crude and immature approximations of what this celestial relationship will be like, but they are a sort of practice for the real thing. Relationships that do not meet even this approximation are therefore sin. By the way, this also includes heterosexual marriages in which there is abuse, adultery, mistreatment, dishonesty, etc. If this is an accurate representation of Church doctrine, it is clear why the Church, whose mission is to ?¢Ç¨?ìperfect the saints?¢Ç¨¬ù in preparation for exaltation, cannot legitimize or countenance same-sex relationships.
Now, for the tricky and more controversial part. It is also clear that some people, for some reason, experience feelings of same-sex attraction that make it difficult or impossible to make a pre-celestial marriage. What does this mean for their eternal salvation and for their lives on Earth? It seems to me, and I think that someone mentioned this above (I didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t note the number of the post), that we are subject to various difficulties because we live in a telestial world, including but not limited to mental and physical handicaps, illness, living in abusive or dysfunctional situations, poverty, etc. I believe that same-sex attraction is a result of this telestial condition. I do not believe that God ?¢Ç¨?ìcreated?¢Ç¨¬ù it, any more than I believe He created cystic fibrosis or schizophrenia. Our bodies are made to function in certain ways. For most people, these functions occur without a hitch. For others, there are glitches. I know some people are going to be upset that I am ?¢Ç¨?ìequating?¢Ç¨¬ù same-sex attraction with horrible diseases, but I can see no other explanation for why it exists. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s simply a side-effect of our telestial existence. I do not think that Amulek?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s statement about the same spirit possessing one?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s body after resurrection as before (Alma 34:34) applies here, since in my conception, same-sex attraction is not ?¢Ç¨?ìspiritual?¢Ç¨¬ù any more than mental or physical disease. Indeed, Alma tells us that when we are resurrected, ?¢Ç¨?ìall things are restored to their proper order, every thing to its natural frame?¢Ç¨¬¶corruption (physical, mental, sexual) raised to incorruption?¢Ç¨¬ù (Alma 41:4).
As it pertains to same-sex attraction, which I believe is not intended to be part of our eternal condition, this doctrine of resurrection leads me to believe that whatever it is that causes same-sex attraction will be removed when our bodies are perfected. In the spirit world, because we do not have bodies, I think that sexual desire, per se, will not exist, though obviously people will be drawn to each other. Joseph Smith and many other Church leaders have taught that no one will be denied a blessing to which they are otherwise entitled, and that in the Millennium, proxy sealings for those who died without marriage and children will be performed. In my mind, this means that there will be an opportunity for those who did not marry in this life but who are entitled to the blessing of marriage through their faith and obedience to seek a companion free from the burden of the issues that prevented them before. (I realize that this conception does not address those who did not successfully marry because of issues of emotional trauma or abuse ?¢Ç¨Äú I can only assume that they will be healed as well in some way. I haven?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t worked this out yet.)
I read the Oaks/Hickman ?¢Ç¨?ìinterview?¢Ç¨¬ù and Elder Oaks?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ article in the Ensign on same-sex attraction some years ago (2001?) with great interest. I believe that the Church, as an institution, is trying to be more inclusive and to recognize the contributions of all members. The hierarchy is also trying to communicate the idea that we must love and care for all people, regardless of their situations in life, and that we are not justified in rejecting, marginalizing, or especially mistreating anyone. However, the Church and its members cannot risk ?¢Ç¨?ìadministering that which is sacred to those to whom it had been forbidden because of unworthiness.?¢Ç¨¬ù It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s a very fine and difficult line, and many people cross it either from ignorance, prejudice, desire to offend, or other unrighteous motives. I did not get the impression from either the article or the interview that members of the hierarchy consider anything less than ?¢Ç¨?ìself-control unto marriage?¢Ç¨¬ù to be a failure of the will or character flaw.
I think that where the institutional and popular Church have failed is in promoting the uniquely Western idea that everyone is entitled to a romantic relationship that is the greatest (or even only) source of emotional fulfillment and happiness in one?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s life. I believe that although this may be to some degree true, it is not always feasible, yet this fact is glossed over. It annoys me to no end when General Authorities or Sacrament Meeting speakers go on and on about how marriage and parenthood are the greatest of life?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s joys etc. or when the Ensign publishes an article, as it did in the March 2006 issue, profiling someone who has married in spite of difficulties and knowing that the marriage is subject to unusual stress from the very beginning. It gives the impression that those who are not married are somehow missing out. I think Carol Lynn Pearson, in the most recent issue of Sunstone, summed up this attitude in her statement that falling in love is one of life?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s most remarkable experiences and needs to be honored no matter who it is that is doing it. Just because falling in love is good does not mean that people can fall in love at any time, with anyone, in any circumstance, and expect it to be sanctioned simply because it is love. Now, I am happily married, and my marriage relationship has indeed brought me a great deal of joy, but it is not my sole source of enjoyment and fulfillment in life, nor do I define myself by it.
The Church does a slightly better job of combating the (in my view) unfortunate tendency in our culture to identify ourselves by aspects of our personalities or experiences. I am sexually attracted to men, specifically my husband, but that is not who I am. It is merely a part of me. My membership in the Church, role as a mother, job as an editor, and so forth, are other parts. I find it hard to comprehend my sexual attraction to men being so important, so vital to my personality, that I could not conceive of myself without it. The Fourth Way described in this blog and its attending comments seems to be a reasonable, if lonely approach to living a life as a person rather than as a gay man or lesbian. I wish the Church would emphasize and explain more that not everyone will have an opportunity to marry in this life, but that it is worth the sacrifice to give up a worldly relationship (this advice goes for a lot of heterosexuals too). I believe that the Lord will judge those who opted not to make that sacrifice much less harshly than we in the Church have judged them, but I also believe that blessings will not be given to those who are not entitled to them. I suspect, based on what Jesus said about those who gratify themselves in this life, that he will say to those who enter into unsanctioned relationships that they have their reward.
This has been a very long post, and I hope I haven?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t put anyone to sleep. I have been wrestling with these thoughts for some time, and appreciate the opportunity to express them. I hope that others will comment from their knowledge, experience and perspective and help me continue to refine my understanding of this topic.
April 29th, 2007 at 9:57 PM
Villate
What I find interesting about this whole long, detailed view of the afterlife that you have in your head is that it all is based on this nice tidy premise. The premise is that marriage can only be defined in this restricted way—
You said,
“Eternal increase can only come to a union of opposites, male and female. A man or woman alone cannot have children, nor can two men or two women. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know what the logistics of eternal sexuality are, but it seems clear that somehow, there must be both a man and a woman together to receive exaltation by this definition.”
I personally consider the idea that eternal increase is only about having baby after baby after baby, is a horrible, restricted, stifling view of the eternity. Creation is not just about children. To be eternally creative I hope will mean being creative in all kinds of ways. Maybe some persons would prefer to write beautiful symphonies, paint beautiful paintings, scult beautiful sculptures, write wonderful plays and wonderful books, create wonderful dances, etc etc etc. Maybe everyone won’t have to be eternally occupied in having babies and raising them. I have had wonderful children and enjoyed raising them, but life is much richer and fuller than just this one creative pursuit.
If you want to create this very narrow view of the next life around our Mormon tradition saying that it only works with a “male and female baby machine process” then you can have that view, I guess. I prefer to believe our LDS view of eternity is much grander and richer and more wonderful and that those with ALL kinds of creative gifts will have a place there. Two men and two women working together as well as a man and a woman are needed. Men and women have and will create many wonderful, beautiful things as they work together in various ways and combinations. I can see them all having a place in eternity.
Besides that, two women, a mother and a grandmother have raised many children. Two of our Church presidents were raised by widowed mothers (Joseph F. Smith and Heber J Grant, I believe). I suspect two men have also raised great kids, though I don’t know any examples right off. That process of women ONLY being involved, has produced very fine prophets. So, I don’t think even the tight little box you want to make around raising children can stand careful examination (oh, I think you are saying, you ABSOLUTELY have to have a father and a mother). It doesn’t HAVE to be done by a man and a woman.
Finally, it just amazes me that we belong to a church that radically redefined marriage for fifty years, and now you want to build up this view of eternity that completely ignores that whole history. The truth is that when you began to look at your premise about marriage and eternity, Mormons, of all people, should resist the idea that eternal increase can only be built upon this nice tidy idea of “oh it can only be this one way.” Marriage in our LDS tradition has been defined in several ways.
If we take away your premise that eternity can only be organized in this very restricted way (one man and one woman making babies), I believe all the rest of your argument in which you see gay people who don’t marry and have children as flawed and that they have to be fixed in the next life, as an idea that has no foundation and it falls down in a big messy pile once that foundation is gone.
April 30th, 2007 at 8:09 AM
Villate #84:
As a gay man who had his name removed from the records of the LDS church over a year ago, I’ll admit it’s difficult for me to see church doctrine as a final answer to complex questions of biology and social science. At the same time, I’ve been in that boat, and I think I understand where you are coming from. Most importantly, I realize you’re trying to make sense of a challenging topic, working from the perspective which you embrace.
Though you’ve been delicate in saying it, by your own admission you’ve equated homosexuality with a “handicap,” a “mental illness,” or some other “defect.” This seems to be the evolving positon of the LDS church, as evidenced by the Oaks/Wickman mock interview. What I find striking about such an argument is that it is never taken to its logical end.
For example, I have a dear friend who’s daughter is mentally handicapped. Rosemary (not her real name) is 42 years old, single, and still lives with her mother. She will likely continue to do so until the end of her life, which due to a physical condition may not be much longer. I have interacted with Rosemary, and do not find her to be “profoundly” challenged. She is quite bright in many ways, and my impression is that her challenges are in fairly narrow mental function areas. Now, it was one thing for Rosemary to be baptized at 8 years old. You should have seen, however, the turmoil that Rosemary had to go through, in order to satisfy her own desire to receive her endowment. She read all the Standard Works through more than once, and had repeated meetings with her bishop and stake president, in order to convince them that she was “accountable enough” to be allowed to make those covenants. In Rosemary’s case, her church leaders clearly did not see her as fully accountable for any alleged “sins.” They repeatedly told her she didn’t “need” an endowment, because she wasn’t accountable. After a couple years of constantly wearying the bishop and stake president, she finally received her endowment, and until her health prevented her, she served as a volunteer in the temple laundry for several years.
So here’s the interesting comparison. Some LDS, including general authorities, would like to say that as a gay man, I have a mental or biological “defect,” which is no fault of mine, which may prevent me from being able to marry, etc. However, unlike a person who genuinely has a mental or physical defect, these leaders do NOT extend to me a different expectation as to accountability. They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to call me handicapped, but unlike those with other behavioral-related “handicaps,” they want ME to hold to their full standard of accountability.
Now, I’m a big boy, and I make my own decisions. I do think, however, that if LDS leaders want to push this “handicapped” theory, they need to be consistent, and also expect a different kind or level of accountability. If they don’t, then it reflects on their sincerity in making the argument in the first place.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:36 AM
Rob, I think it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s interesting that you use the word ?¢Ç¨?ìnarrow?¢Ç¨¬ù in such a negative way. There is nothing inherently wrong with ?¢Ç¨?ìnarrow?¢Ç¨¬ù; in fact, the Lord says that His path is narrow. However, some of your points are well taken. I thought about explaining that I believe there is more to eternal life than simply having babies. At least I hope so, in spite of what my seminary teacher told me. However, the post was just getting longer and longer, and I was despairing of ever being able to quit going on and on. Instead of writing ?¢Ç¨?ìeternal increase, or spirit children,?¢Ç¨¬ù I should have written ?¢Ç¨?ìeternal increase, which includes spirit children.?¢Ç¨¬ù Let me clarify, though, that my view is not as restrictive (not to say ?¢Ç¨?ìnarrow?¢Ç¨¬ù ?جÅ?) as it appears from my previous post, which only dealt with the aspect of eternal life that I thought was germane to the topic of the thread. As in our lives on Earth, which as I mentioned seem to be a sort of practice run for celestial life, there will obviously be more than merely baby machinery. I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m sure you are correct that eternal creativity must mean more than just children and planets, even though the scriptures are ambiguous about exactly what that creativity will entail. I think there has been a great deal of controversy among the General Authorities as well about what it means to be ?¢Ç¨?ìeternally progressing,?¢Ç¨¬ù as well. The fact of the matter is that we just don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know. There are many mansions in the kingdom of heaven, and I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m positive that there will be all sorts of things going on in them.
However, canonized modern revelation (which I understand there are all sorts of problems and controversies with and individuals may or may not accept it) as set out in D&C 132 and elsewhere states that ?¢Ç¨?ìcontinuation of the seeds?¢Ç¨¬ù is the glory of exaltation. I take this to mean that if you do not have continuation of the seeds, you are not exalted, but ?¢Ç¨?ìremain separately and singly, without exaltation, in a saved condition, to all eternity?¢Ç¨¬ù (D&C 132:16-17). Now let me be clear: I am not sure that this is a bad situation to be in. I think that we will be satisfied and even content with the judgment we receive and the mansion to which we are assigned. As Alma says, we will know perfectly our guilt and our righteousness. We have this idea in the Church that if we don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t ?¢Ç¨?ìmake it?¢Ç¨¬ù to exaltation, we?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ve lost the competition or something. I find myself falling into this mindset, and it probably shows in some of my views. A couple of months ago, a Relief Society teacher (who experienced a bad marriage and nasty divorce) stated in her lesson that she thought the Celestial Kingdom would be her in a house in the country with a bunch of dogs. Several women anxiously tried to correct her, but she looked at them as if they were crazy. I first thought to myself, no, that?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s not what the Celestial Kingdom is like at all! Then I thought, well, maybe for her that?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s exactly what it will be. She is certainly trying to do her best to follow Jesus, and He will judge her reward perfectly.
I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m not sure what the last part of your reply is referring to. I assume you mean plural marriage? I didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t say anything about that. I did say that I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know what the logistics of eternal sexuality are. Whether some or all celestial marriages will be plural, I have no idea. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think it matters in this case because plural marriage and same-sex unions are not the same thing at all. By my definition, a plural marriage can still be celestial because there is still a union of male and female creating in that aspect of creation. That is not a redefinition of marriage. An expansion, perhaps. However, a same-sex union cannot, by its very nature, do that. I think your parenthetical remark indicates that you got that I was saying that. I also didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t say anything about widows raising children or gay couples raising children. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know how intelligences or spirit children or whatever are ?¢Ç¨?ìraised.?¢Ç¨¬ù I can only guess that there, as here, many individuals are involved over a very long period of time. If we have a Heavenly Father and Heavenly Mother, I suppose we also have Heavenly Grandparents and Heavenly Aunts and Uncles. I imagine that the doctrine of sealing families to each other means exactly that, come to think of it. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s all academic, though because in this instance, I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m only addressing the idea of what it means to be exalted according to my understanding of Mormon doctrine. The sociality we will enjoy in our resurrected state is interesting to think about, but there hasn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t been a lot of authoritative description of it. Believe me, I wish the Lord would come to President Hinckley in a vision and say, ?¢Ç¨?ìLook, this is what it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s going to be like, and this is why.?¢Ç¨¬ù I even wish He would do that if I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m totally wrong and He could correct me! But he hasn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t, I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know why not. It seems there would be a lot less misunderstanding and grief for a lot of people. The basic set-up, though, of male and female creating an eternal family (among many other activities) seems pretty set in stone. Do you have scriptural or other doctrinal evidence otherwise?
April 30th, 2007 at 11:15 AM
Nick ?¢Ç¨Äú Thanks for seeing that I am trying hard to understand this topic and still hold to what I believe. I respect the fact that others may not accept my beliefs, and if they don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t, that?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s their right. I am simply trying to explain why I believe what I do based on what the scriptures and Church leaders have said. I hope I can disagree without being disagreeable. Anyway, I understand what you said about viewing same-sex attraction as a defect that will eventually be corrected (I hate the word ?¢Ç¨?ìhomosexuality?¢Ç¨¬ù because it is so culturally loaded, that?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s why I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t use it ?¢Ç¨Äú it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s nothing to do with the fact that the General Authorities use it, in case anyone was wondering). That?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s exactly what I meant, only the word ?¢Ç¨?ìdefect?¢Ç¨¬ù is so laden with negative connotation that I feel hesitant to use it. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s like the Old Testament?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s ?¢Ç¨?ìunclean,?¢Ç¨¬ù which didn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t originally mean the same thing as ?¢Ç¨?ìdirty,?¢Ç¨¬ù but which unfortunately came to have that connotation. As you may notice, I put a lot of stock in words and their meanings. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s my business, I guess, as an editor. Back on topic. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t understand what you mean by ?¢Ç¨?ìaccountability.?¢Ç¨¬ù Your example confused me a little. Your friend was perceived by her Church leaders not to be ?¢Ç¨?ìaccountable?¢Ç¨¬ù enough to receive her endowment. She eventually persuaded them that she was in fact accountable and went to the temple. Are you saying that if your ?¢Ç¨?ìhandicap?¢Ç¨¬ù is having same-sex attraction, you should somehow have to persuade your Church leaders that you are released from certain requirements? Do you mean heterosexual marriage? If so, then I agree with you that people with same-sex attraction should not be required or encouraged to marry in this life if they cannot (I imagine that?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s a very large percentage of them). However, they do not get to have a different set of rules because they are different. A person with brain damage or incapacity to understand the concepts of the gospel is in a very different situation from someone who can understand those concepts but feels they do not apply for some reason.
I keep coming back to my hope and belief that things that prevent us from being happy and living as God intended for us to live in this life (yes, I do believe that heterosexual marriage is a part of what God wants and intends for us, though not the only part) will be corrected in the spirit world and that many people will be able to overcome the issues that plagued them here and receive all the blessings they should have. Same-sex attraction is only one of those things. However, people must in this life live as closely as they can to what they know to be right and rely on the Atonement of Christ to make up for the rest. I think many people take the easier way of giving in to whatever their situation may be without letting Christ take their burdens from them. I actually came to this conclusion when my mother, who was mentally ill for most of the last 20 years of her life, left the Church very bitterly and tried to take several of us children with her. By the end of her life, she had destroyed her marriage (and my father) and rejected nearly every belief she had once held in God, among other things. After she died, I thought a lot about her state in the spirit world and came to the conclusion (which I believe was communicated by the Holy Ghost in answer to my prayers) that once she was free of the chemical imbalances and other pains that she suffered because of her physical body, she would be able to see things much more clearly and perhaps understand what she needed to understand and repent of what she needed to repent of. I could go on about this, but that?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s off-topic. As it pertains here, as I mentioned before, I do not believe that the conditions we suffer in the telestial world are necessarily part of the ?¢Ç¨?ìsame spirit that possesses our bodies in that eternal world,?¢Ç¨¬ù though those conditions naturally affect our development. I also believe that our judgment by God will be much kinder than our judgment by our imperfect and often cruel brothers and sisters, and I have to hope that what I can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t figure out here will be explained to me later.
I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t know where that leaves someone like you, Nick. I really don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t. I feel like a jerk saying, ?¢Ç¨?ìToo bad, you just have to suck it up,?¢Ç¨¬ù but I guess that really is what I am saying. I wouldn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t wish your situation on anyone, but it seems you have made your peace with it and with God, which is the most important thing for you. In my ignorant view (meaning that I have not had your experience), the Fourth Path seems to be the best way to handle same-sex attraction, but I have not lived your life. It?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s easy for me to say that I could live without marriage and children when I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m married with children. Easier, probably! I feel like I can sympathize with the General Authorities, who must come across to people as mean and intolerant when they say that the Church cannot countenance gay marriage or accept in full fellowship those who live in same-sex relationships. They?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re really not bigoted homophobes, they?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re just trying to apply the rules they think are correct. I would like to know if I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢ve understood your analogy, though. Please enlighten me.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:23 PM
Villate,
First, let me say it’s a delight to read your posts, whether I agree with you or not. You have quite a talent for communicating how your views differ, without being critical of your audience.
I do have one point for your consideration. Like you, I pay a great deal of attention to connotation, as well as denotation. Much of this, of course, relates to a particular audience. When you use the term, “same-sex attraction,” please know that you are using a term which originated with, and is perpetuated by, the advocates of so-called “reparative therapy,” such as NARTH and Evergreen. The phrase is used by these groups, because they do not wish to acknowledge that there are persons to whom the noun, “homosexual,” applies. It has become the language of choice for certain Christian groups (including many LDS, though not all), who teach that so-called “same-sex attraction” is a defective condition which the person needs to “fix,” primarily through prayer and therapy (and in the case of Evergreen, playing basketball). For these reasons, Villate, the phrase is often irritating to homosexuals, in that it trivializes very personal, very deeply-felt needs and emotions. You can imagine, I’m sure, how you would feel if someone described your love for your husband by saying, “Oh, she suffers from opposite-sex attraction.”
“Same sex attraction” is also a namby-pamby, weak way for a closeted homosexual to describe himself, without having the courage to openly admit, even to himself, that he is GAY. I know. I’ve been there, and I did that.
With a topic which many see as controversial, there are bound to be language difficulties, 99% of which are entirely unintentional. In the Oaks/Hickman mock interview, even stranger language is used. The article is presented as the church position on “same gender attraction,” and uses the curious term, “gender orientation.” In one spot, they clearly equate “sexual orientation” with “gender orientation.” As I’m sure you know, “sex” refers to biological identity, and “gender” to sociological or psychological factors. When these church representatives repeatedly use the term “gender orientation,” they focus (intentionally or not) on societal roles, rather than on biology. The trouble is, in using “gender orientation,” they convey the idea that a gay man is somehow confused about being a “real man,” or worse yet, that gay men want to be women. Despite the stereotypes of an earlier generation, I can assure you that most of my gay friends are quite masculine, as am I. The choice of words used by these men, even in such a carefully-crafted document, unfortunately causes those they allegedly want to reach to bristle.
Use whatever words you like, of course, but just know that many gay men will NOT consider themselves “same-sex attracted,” and certainly not suffering from a “gender orientation.”
Now…you asked about my analogy. After sending it, I realized it probably wouldn’t communicate well. My intention was to poke at this whole idea of homosexuality being a “handicap,” as Hickman presents it in the mock interview. In the case of Rosemary, church leaders assumed she couldn’t be accountable for sin, because they didn’t believe (initially) that she had the mential ability to fully comprehend her choices. Her alleged “handicap” carried with it a set of different, some would say lower, expectations. Some church leaders wish to present homosexuality as a mental “handicap,” much like that of my friend, Rosemary. If this were true, there would be questions as to the culpability of a homosexual person who committed what would otherwise be sins. The very fact that these same leaders expect a homosexual person to adhere to the full LDS concept of chastity simply illustrates that their relatively-new idea of looking at homosexuality as a “handicap” isn’t really taken seriously, even by them. I’ll admit, mine was not a perfect analogy by any means, but I hope that this explanation at least gets my point across better.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:35 PM
Villate
As you say there is a lot we don’t know about eternal life. So what you think is set in stone, I don’t agree with. You define eternal life in a way I do not accept. You define eternal increase in a way I do not accept even though I use the same doctrine and scriptures. Then based on that you conclude gays are damaged goods and have to be fixed in the next life.
I don’t accept the idea that “multiply and replenish the earth” is just about having children. Maybe I’m like your relief society sister who likes dogs and the country. I believe the scriptures have multiple meanings. To me, replenish the earth means with music and art and dance AND children and so forth. Eternal increase (or seeds) may be planting flowers for all I know. Maybe everybody doesn’t have to do exactly the same kind of creative work for eternity.
So, presto. All of a sudden I don’t need to look at gays as damaged goods. They don’t need to be fixed. Sometimes I wonder why we want to put something in stone when we can look at it in several ways just as easily.
In their First Presidency message, the brethren say they “respect individuals who are attracted to those of the same gender.” That suggests to me that we don’t have to view homosexuality as a damaged condition. It is a respected condition.
Certainly, Joseph Smith didn’t think of marriage in just one way. He was married to more than one woman and he was married to women who were married to other men, as I understand it. Once you start making radical changes to marriage, as he did, then it just doesn’t make sense to me to say, oh marriage can only be this ONE way.
I just assume there will be a lot in the next life we don’t understand yet. And I don’t see the stone that you do.
April 30th, 2007 at 2:14 PM
Ron – Sorry I called you “Rob” before. Oops. Anyway, yes, we’ll have to agree to disagree. I can live with that. Maybe we’re both wrong. I remember on my mission tracting into a born-again Christian who railed at us for nearly an hour on his doorstep in the freezing cold about how we were going to Hell, etc. When we were finally able to get a word in edgewise, my companion said, “Well, we could say the same things to you.” I was pretty annoyed with her because that got the guy going again, but when he took another breath, I said something along the lines of “We’ll all find out when we get there, won’t we.” The guy just looked at me and shook his head. We were both certain we were right, but at least it stopped the argument.
One thing I do want to clarify is that I do not consider gays “damaged goods” in the way you imply I do. Thanks for the note on the term same-sex attraction, by the way, Nick. I like it precisely because it identifies a condition rather than a person, but I didn’t realize that some consider it offensive. I don’t like the Evergreen and similar movements because they seem a little too glib and the people in them (I’ve known a few) often seem so desperate to conform that they will clutch at any straw. Kind of like the “rebirth therapy” people who prey on parents of children with autism or attachment disorders who are so desperate to fix their children that they will do anything. Anyway. Everyone has flaws, some more obvious than others. I think I made it clear that I believe that many of the afflictions (of all sorts) we endure here are temporary. A person who is gay or lesbian may have a flaw, in my view, but he or she is not somehow less of a person because of it. No one is justified in abusing or belittling someone for any reason, and I think that is the point of the “respect people who are attracted to people of the same gender,” not that it is ok and we should all be happy to let people do as they will.
In my view, I have not set anything in stone, God has. I’m a pretty live and let live person, actually. However, just because I believe in letting people live their lives as they wish to doesn’t mean that I have to approve of them. My youngest sister lives with her boyfriend. I don’t approve of that and I think she is wrong to do it, but I can still love her and accept her as my sister even though I don’t think she’s right. I think this is a problem many people have – they can’t accept someone’s situation in life, so they reject the person. I think that is an incorrect way to approach people, and I think that Jesus would disapprove of it. Well, I know He would based on His actions and associations as reported in the New Testament. On the other hand, people who want to believe they are right, whether it be about their one true religion or their sexual behavior or the way they like to do their hair, often get defensive when someone disagrees with them, accusing them of being judgmental or intolerant or whatever as if those things are horrible sins (and they have become so in our culture, rightly or wrongly), when the person “judging” is simply expressing a belief or opinion. I believe that my interpretation of the scriptures and comments by Church leaders reflect the will of God in this case. Until President Hinckley has that vision that explains everything and describes it in General Conference, though, we’re stuck on either side of the issue. That’s fine. I just want to know what other people think of my ideas, since I don’t get much chance to discuss this topic with other people. I don’t have many close friends here that I feel comfortable discussing doctrinal matters with, and my husband and I have gone around and around about it and feel pretty much the same, so he’s no help there. I just want to know if my arguments are consistent, whether others agree or not. There’s nothing worse in writing than a specious argument!
April 30th, 2007 at 4:32 PM
Nick,
I’m in complete agreement with what you wroe: “…I also don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think that there?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s any reason to feel married to the idea that it?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s a complete ?¢Ç¨?ìself?¢Ç¨¬ù that?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s largely immutable. “
Fact is I can’t find anything in Joseph Smith’s writings to indicate that he ever taught that there was a complete “self” that existed before birth. In the D&C he taught that “the spirit and the body are the soul of man.” To me that means that the soul–the ESSENCE of what it is to be a fully realized human being–comes into being at birth.
In 2005 I wrote a couple of lessons on this for the Reform Mormonism Gospel Doctrine website. (You can access one of these lessons by clicking on my name abobe.) The speculations about our spirits taking part in a heavenly council and voting on issues og Agency, etc., seem to have come about AFTER Joseph’s death. (As did the doctrine that our spirits are sexually begotten by a Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Mother. THAT doctrine was first laid out by Orson Pratt–to whom Brigham Young gave the assignment of finding a theological reason for the practice of polygamy.) Brigham Young and others laid out the story of our spirits being “complete selves” and participating and voting in a pre-mortal council as a theological justification for deny the Priesthood to Negros.
But I can find nothing like this in Jospeh’s teachings. In “The Book of Abraham,” the council is a council of Gods who are delibertaing how to best organize an earth so that eternal intelligences might become humans (”in the iimage of the Gods.”). Nowhere in “Abraham” does it say that these intelligences were fully realized, self-aware personalites; it only indicates that they “will be” made God’s “rulers.”
I recently finished re-reading an excellent book “The Disappearance of God: A Divine Mystery.” The author is Jewish biblical scholar Richard Elliot Friedman. The book is divided into three parts–the last of which deals with modern science and monotheism–particularly the traditional understanding of creation ex nihlo and the Big Bang Theory.
In this section, Friedman lays out a theory about the eternity of matter, the Big Bang and the evolution of some matter from an non-intelligent substance into intelligent beings. Basing his broad theory on science alone, Friedman comes up with a theological theory that bears a striking resemblence to the later tecahings of Joseph Smith. (He even uses the quote from the Book of Job “where were you when the foundations of the earth were laid”–a quote used by LDS Mormons as a proof-text for the pre-existence of spirits.)
This book makes a very interesting read, so I highly recommend it. Below is the info on it. You can order it through Barnes and Noble.
“The Disappearance of God: A Divine Mystery”
by Richard Elliott Elliott Friedman
ISBN: 0316294349
The reason I brought up this issue to begin with was to make a point: Joseph taught that the mind/psprit/intelligence of the individual is eternal and uncreated. Therefore one’s basic nature is set and cannot be altered–because, according to the new Mormon Paradigm that Joseph was presenting–God, being the same type of being as man, was unable to create himself–or alter himself.
As a gay Mormon, this doctrine changed the way I thought of myself.
If the basic elements that make up my being are uncreated and eternal (MEANING, if they are all NATURAL), then I cannot change them–and neither can God. Intelligent human beings–heterosexual and homosexual–are completely natural; they are not CREATURES (meaning,CREATED beings.) Their nature is part of the natural universe–which as a system, has no beginning and no end. In the Mormon Paradigm, it is Nature that is supreme–not any single intelligent being, including God.
Nature can not be changed by man or God. Anyone–gay or straight–who honestly ponders their own sexual orientation and puts aside any religious or political agenda, will realize that they NEVER made a choice regarding their orientation; it simply is an aspect of their nature that they can either embrace or attempt to deny.
April 30th, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Villate (#84) said: “It seems to me that ?¢Ç¨?ìhomosexuality?¢Ç¨¬ù is not and cannot be endorsed by the Church for one reason alone: that same-sex relationships by their very nature cannot become celestial.”
I haven’t had time to read all of the responses to Villate’s e-mails, so I’m probably parroting something that has already been said…
It’s pretty simple… the danger with your reasoning is that the track record of religion (LDS or otherwise) with respect to defining what is and what is not right/true/holy/pure/moral/whatever is nowhere close to perfect. The church’s 100+ year mistake with regards to denying Blacks priesthood alone should give any Latter-day Saint pause. It is one thing to exercise faith in an unprovable tenet that only affects yourself, but quite another if it affects other people, especially if it is a class of people based on race, nationality, religion, sex, or sexual preference.
April 30th, 2007 at 6:22 PM
Villete
I sense that you don’t mean to offend anyone, but I am amazed by some of the things you write.
You say,
“No one is justified in abusing or belittling someone for any reason, and I think that is the point of the ?¢Ç¨?ìrespect people who are attracted to people of the same gender,?¢Ç¨¬ù not that it is ok and we should all be happy to let people do as they will.”
Our First Presidency is asking you to respect gay people, and you seem to think it is wrong to abuse or belittle someone. But you immediately imply that when someone is attracted to the same gender, it is NOT ok. And you imply that the attraction means they are going to “do as they will” like your sister who is living with her boyfriend, it seems you are saying Wow……attraction does not imply anything more than feelings. It is OK. It can be respected. It doesn’t mean anyone is doing anything. I would interpret what you say here as abusive, even if you don’t mean to be.
Then you say
In my view, I have not set anything in stone, God has.
I wonder what is it God has said that makes you so sure? Did Jesus say anything that makes you feel this way???
Then you said..
“….same-sex relationships by their very nature cannot become celestial.?¢Ç¨¬ù
OK, I have a relative who was a 2nd wife in polygamy. Her story was written up in a Church magazine. Polygamous wives were sometimes very, very close to each other. My relative was weeping when the 1st wife died. And the 1st wife said, “Don’t cry… we’ll be together soon again.” My relative was said to be “proud of the dying first wife’s love” right along with her love for her husband. But you seem to imply there is no “celestial relationship” between these two women. Here is yet another example of why I don’t really agree with your rather limited view of the next life. Nor do I believe anything you can find in the scriptures says there cannot be love and a “relationship” between these two women in the celestial kingdom. They are together in a marriage relationship after all. They have children of the same husband. Polygamy may be quirky that way, but I am really glad they could love each other when they might have felt otherwise.
But I really need to back off, because I sense you don’t mean any harm and we seem to be talking past each other.
All the best to you.
April 30th, 2007 at 9:17 PM
Villate
By the way, I completely accept the authority of the prophet to determine the Church position on gay marriage. I simply have been discussing my thoughts about things like the next life, creativity, and whether gay people should be “respected” as they are or whether they have to be “fixed” in the next life.
April 30th, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Hi again Ron ?¢Ç¨Äú
You?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re right, I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t mean any harm. I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m not even trying to convince anyone, I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m just trying to express my views and explain why I hold them. As I mentioned before, I don’t have a lot of opportunity to discuss matters like this, so I sometimes wonder if my reasoning makes sense to anyone but me. I understand that others may not agree with my premises, which is fine, but I hope that my arguments hold up, even if you or someone else disagree with my conclusion or the premises themselves. I did want to clear up a couple of things, however.
You wrote, ?¢Ç¨?ìOur First Presidency is asking you to respect gay people, and you seem to think it is wrong to abuse or belittle someone. But you immediately imply that when someone is attracted to the same gender, it is NOT ok. And you imply that the attraction means they are going to ?¢Ç¨?ìdo as they will?¢Ç¨¬ù like your sister who is living with her boyfriend, it seems you are saying Wow?¢Ç¨¬¶?¢Ç¨¬¶attraction does not imply anything more than feelings. It is OK. It can be respected. It doesn?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t mean anyone is doing anything. I would interpret what you say here as abusive, even if you don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t mean to be.?¢Ç¨¬ù
I think I made it clear that same-sex attraction is not the norm and not intended to be normalized in God?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s eyes, and I think I was clear about my reasons for believing this way, which you may or may not agree with. I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t think that attraction necessarily leads to action. I think Wentworth Miller is very attractive, but I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t spend all day dreaming about him or write him letters or send him naked pictures of myself. If someone does act on desires that are inappropriate (engages in sex with a person of the same sex or someone of the opposite sex to whom she is not married, or sends naked pictures of herself to celebrities), I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t understand what is abusive about thinking that this is wrong or even telling the person that they are wrong. You think I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m wrong to believe as I do, but I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t consider that abusive. You think I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m wrong. If you started calling me names or flaming me or something, that would be abusive.
You also wrote, ?¢Ç¨?ìI wonder what is it God has said that makes you so sure? Did Jesus say anything that makes you feel this way????¢Ç¨¬ù
The Mosaic Law and Pauline condemnations of homosexual actions are somewhat problematic for me because of issues I have with the translation and compilation of the Bible, so although I agree with the Biblical declarations of same-sex sex as immoral, I prefer to rely on modern revelation. Church leaders have in many, many instances clearly stated that homosexual sexual expression is against the law of chastity. Their reasons and explanations have varied somewhat, but the prohibition is always the same. I believe that they are inspired of God in this matter and most others, particularly when they go so far as to put out a declaration and practically canonize it, something which was never done with ?¢Ç¨?ìdoctrines?¢Ç¨¬ù such as Blacks not holding the priesthood or Jesus being married. That?¢Ç¨Ñ¢s why I say that God Himself made this rule, not me. Not even the General Authorities. Jesus did not make many comments on sexual behavior in the canonized scriptures (though I imagine He made plenty that weren?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t recorded). He made a few in the Doctrine and Covenants, but those pertained to adultery, so I guess we really have no direct words from Him.
And last, about your plurally married relatives: ?¢Ç¨?ìBut you seem to imply there is no ?¢Ç¨?ìcelestial relationship?¢Ç¨¬ù between these two women. Here is yet another example of why I don?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t really agree with your rather limited view of the next life. Nor do I believe anything you can find in the scriptures says there cannot be love and a ?¢Ç¨?ìrelationship?¢Ç¨¬ù between these two women in the celestial kingdom. They are together in a marriage relationship after all.?¢Ç¨¬ù
You?¢Ç¨Ñ¢re right, there is a relationship, and that will continue eternally, like the relationships between all sealed family members and, I believe, between friends. However, these women are not in a lesbian relationship. They are both married to a man. Two women ?¢Ç¨?ìmarried?¢Ç¨¬ù to each other cannot have a celestial marriage relationship with each other by my definition. Correct me if I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m wrong about this, but I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m pretty sure that women in polygynous relationships were not sealed to each other, only to their husbands. Other wives sometimes took part in ?¢Ç¨?ìchoosing?¢Ç¨¬ù a plural wife and of course they often lived together and formed close friendships, but these friendships were not marriages to each other. Do you see the distinction I am making?
I appreciate your ability to disagree without being disagreeable and hope that I have the same ability.
May 1st, 2007 at 9:49 AM
Villate (#84) said: ?¢Ç¨?ìIt seems to me that ?¢Ç¨?ìhomosexuality?¢Ç¨¬ù is not and cannot be endorsed by the Church for one reason alone: that same-sex relationships by their very nature cannot become celestial.?¢Ç¨¬ù
If one reads what is actually written in D&C 132, the jist of the entire revelation is not (as the LDS Church teaches) that monogamous marriage is essential for Celestial Glory, but that polygamy is being commanded as essential for celestial glory.
The current LDS theology is that to become Gods humans must be eternally married so that they can sexually beget the spirits of humans to live on the future earths that they will organized.
But as has been pointed out by several LDS scholars and writers, Joseph Smith himself never taught such a doctrine. According to Joseph, the spirit/mind/intelligence is uncreatedm eternal, without beginning or end, and co-equal with God.
The doctrine of eternally married husbands and wives sexually begetting spiritual children was originally put forth by Orson Pratt as a justification for the LDS Church’s 1852 command to all of its members to practice plural marriage.
Perhaps procreation is not the purpose of marriage. In the scriptures, marriage is instituted to solve the problem of an individual’s (Adam’s) lonlieness. In earlier LDS endowments, the following dialogue took place:
ELOHEIM: Is it good that man be alone?
JEHOVAH: It is not good that man be alone, for we are not alone.
Also according to the traditional Mormon account of Eden, Adam and Eve were married while they were stil by their nature unable to have sex, let alone bear children. (see II Nephi 2)
So if companionship is the first purpose of marriage, why shouldn’t homosexual unions be allowed.
I wrote about a Mormon approach to humans sexuality at the Reform Mormon Gospel Doctrine Class website. You can link on to that particular essay by clicking on to my name above.
May 1st, 2007 at 7:57 PM
Villate
Does it occur to you that you simply dismiss, as if it had no importance, the fact that these two women love each other and care deeply for each other.
You said…
“Correct me if I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m wrong about this, but I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m pretty sure that women in polygynous relationships were not sealed to each other, only to their husbands. Other wives sometimes took part in ?¢Ç¨?ìchoosing?¢Ç¨¬ù a plural wife and of course they often lived together and formed close friendships, but these friendships were not marriages to each other. Do you see the distinction I am making?”
OK. I’m correcting you. SMILE
What is sealing, after all, except a formal process which only matters if there is, in fact, a deep connection manifest in real life. In other words, you said, same sex relationships BY THEIR VERY NATURE CANNOT BE CELESTIAL. But when I show you a same sex relationship which is obviously celestial you dismiss it on the basis that the love between these two women doesn’t matter–at least in your way of thinking. Don’t you realize that outward ceremonies are not nearly as important as a heartfelt connection?
I see the distinction you are making , Villate, and I think you are focusing on the trivial and ignoring what is important.
SAME SEX RELATIONSHIPS CAN BE CELESTIAL. And these two women will have one.
May 3rd, 2007 at 7:45 PM
[...] of the opposite sex, and if you can’t do that honestly, then your choice has to be to live a celibate life. That is a very difficult choice for the parents, for the young man, the young woman, for [...]
May 6th, 2007 at 9:22 PM
I was out of town most of last week, and it seems the blog commentators have moved on to the PBS special, which I haven’t seen yet in its entirety, but I don’t want you to think I’m dodging your comment. OK Ron – let’s replace the word “relationship” with the word “union” or “marriage.” I did not dismiss the relationship between these two women as unimportant. I specifically said that it would exist, as would other friendships (which are not sealed) and relationships between relatives, siblings, and so forth (which are sealed). I just got back from visiting one of my very best friends who lives in another state – I imagine that should we awake on resurrection day as celestial beings, our relationship will continue and be “celestial” as well, and better than it can be here on Earth because it will be coupled with celestial glory, as Joseph Smith said. However, this relationship is not a marriage. Your relative and her sister-wife will continue to enjoy a relationship that will be deep and meaningful, but that relationship is not the same thing as a marriage between the two of them. They are united in marriage to a man, the same man in this case, not to each other. Their relationship as sister-wives or whatever you’d like to call them IS NOT A MARRIAGE BETWEEN TWO WOMEN. Their relationship with each other may be just as fulfilling and important as their relationship with their husband, maybe more, but it is a different type of relationship from a marriage. I’m taking a legalistic view of this, I suppose, which you obviously don’t share. One of my friends once told me that he didn’t believe he needed to marry his girlfriend in the temple because, in his opinion, they would be together in the afterlife no matter what because they loved each other. I, however, believe (and I think this is Church doctrine) that just loving each other is not enough, though of course it is important. My friend and his girlfriend will still have a relationship in the afterlife, but it will not be a marriage. The ordinance of sealing, done by proper authority in a temple, must be performed, and then the people involved (whether monogamously or plurally married – I know what D&C 132 is about) must live up to their covenants and Christ’s atonement must be in effect through their repentance and His mercy in order for them to receive the blessings promised in the sealing ordinance. But the sealing has to be performed. And it has to involve a male and a female, and I’ve given my reasons for believing that above. That’s why it’s so important to marry in the temple and identify our ancestors and do their work and blah blah temple work. God’s kingdom, according to the scriptures, is one of order. And record books, evidently. That order means that there has to be some authoritative and actual ritual performed for a relationship – sorry, a marriage – to be recognized as such in the afterlife. I don’t consider this trivial at all. As I mentioned before, I consider that God Himself (Themselves?) set it up this way, not the Church, and that’s one of the reasons for proxy temple ordinances and for the time between death and resurrection. You may disagree with that, but I think I’ve laid out my reasons for believing as I do. Before you get on my case about people in bad sealed marriages or whatever, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ANYONE WILL BE SEALED TO ANYONE HE OR SHE DOES NOT WANT TO BE SEALED TO. I don’t know exactly how all that will be worked out, but I have faith that God will not force people to be together simply because they were both righteous and there’s no one else. And, since I can’t say it often enough, there is more to a celestial marriage than just hanging out together and making spirit babies. I also do not believe that being sealed in the temple automatically gets an individual to the celestial kingdom, so don’t assume that, either.
Anyway, it’s bugging me that I don’t seem to be expressing myself clearly, since you seem to misunderstand or misconstrue my explanations. I hope this clears the air. Now back to “The Mormons.”
May 8th, 2007 at 10:06 AM
Because it hasn’t been a passionate issue for me, I haven’t been following this particular thread until I read Villate’s latest comment (#100). That prompted me to start looking at the comments that came before. They all seem to originate with Joseph Smith, whether his part of the D&C or his private teachings, such as the King Follett Discourse.
BUT, what if Joseph incorrectly interpreted his visionary experiences?! Suppose, for example, that when he traumatically separated from his body, his spirit encountered a reality–a Light–that differed surprisingly from what he expected? This is my assertion. I further assert that Joseph chose not to enter this Light in fear of having messed up. So, he chose to stick around and attach himself to another human being in order to fix things before daring to go into the Light.
As is often the case with spirits who have suffered a violent death, his spirit did attach itself to other human beings. He became what some current psychologists call an “earth bound spirit” (EB). He had an agenda to try to fix what he had misconstrued. That first other human being was Brigham Young. [Consider the strange experience of some witnesses reporting Brigham taking on the visage--the mantle--of Joseph at a critical time after the martyrdom and the ensuing confusion of succession.]
If you can even imagine such a possibility, what would be its implications? Certainly the very first would be a significantly different understanding of nature of God, celestial realms, manifest reality and us as human beings. The legalistic debate over the purpose of gender, marriage, gays, relationship, union, etc. would become irrelevant. Mormon (including LDS) theology would have to be over-hauled. All scriptures and related doctrines would need to be re-examined. Etc.
Rob, what would you imagine an author or playwright could do with that scenario? Do you think we or your students could collaborate on creating a modern Mormon fantasy?
May 8th, 2007 at 3:03 PM
“He became what some current psychologists call an ?¢Ç¨?ìearth bound spirit?¢Ç¨¬ù (EB). ”
We must be reading differen psychologists.
The problem with your whole supposition is that it’s a “just so story.” You make certain claims that can’t possibly be scrutinized and then try to draw some conclusion from it. I personally don’t feel comfortable having my views of homosexuality in the church swayed by that sort of argument.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:23 PM
Rick,
Thanks for taking my comments seriously. I’m pleased to inform you that my “whole supposition” is far more than a “just so story.”
For openers, I suggest you read my 2006 Salt Lake Sunstone Symposium paper Healing and Annealing, which will probably upset you further. (I would be pleased to send a copy via email if you are interested.) Then I suggest a critical examination of Spirit Releasement Therapy, second edition, Headline Books & Co. (2005) by the late William J. Baldwin, D.D.S., Ph.D. I’m confident your understanding of psychological reality will be severely challenged by both documents.
I met Dr. Baldwin and his wife Judith at the TREAT III Conference in Kansas City to which we’d all been invited in March 1991 by conference founder psychiatrist Rima Laibow, M.D.. The conference was by invitation only, because of the extraordinary and controversial subjects presented and discussed. “TREAT” is an acronym for “Treatment and Research of Experienced Anomalous Trauma.” The seven year conference was designed to address issues arising in Dr. Laibow’s clinical practice and that of others that the psychiatric profession in general had been unable to take seriously up to that time.
At the time of my 2006 Sunstone presentation, I had not yet realized that the first two tapes in the series of six was not with Dr. Cheek, as indicated in my paper, but actually with Dr. Baldwin! I have carefully transcribed those tapes since presenting the paper and have updated it accordingly.
May 8th, 2007 at 8:37 PM
Oops. The paper is called Annealing and Healing. Not the reverse.
May 9th, 2007 at 6:39 AM
“which will probably upset you further”
HA! Certainly not upset by ghost stories. Not since I was a child.
I’d be happy to check out your symposium or anything you’ve written or read. Wondering how any of it could come anywhere close to substantiating the idea that Joseph Smith died, saw a light, chose not to follow it, and became “what psychologists call” and earth-bound spirit.
Nothing wrong with having or believing in a just-so story. I have my own private collection. But there is a problem with acting like they are more substantial than they are.
May 9th, 2007 at 6:39 AM
Plus….what does this have to do with homosexuality?
May 9th, 2007 at 7:01 PM
Rick, you say: “?¢Ç¨¬¶but there is a problem with acting like they are more substantial than they are.”
You are quick to dismiss, but here is what the story has to do with homosexuality:
If my assertion has substance [that Joseph became an EB], regardless of the problem it causes you, the controversy about homosexuality becomes moot. Contrary to current LDS or Mormon doctrine, I further assert that we all have the freedom to choose our gender for whatever lifetime we are in and for whatever experience we choose to have within it. It’s all a part of the process of eternal progression (development, evolution). You don’t need to defend or deny. I’m simply sharing a compelling experience and asking to know those of others. You are always free to write if off, of course. It doesn’t make it less real to the “just-so story” teller. You say you have some of your own. Please give an example.
May 9th, 2007 at 7:13 PM
Thanks for sharing. It doesn’t cause me a problem.
I have lots of my own, but I choose to keep them to myself.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:01 AM
Rick #108,
A propos of my problem that you see so clearly as well as the tough you seem to want to be on the wrestling mat, I’m confident there’s a nursing story in you that can bless us, your blog friends. Is there not a tender, vulnerable place within that gay-aware, sensitive tendency within you that you seem fearful of revealing? How could you even consider a nursing career otherwise? And, BTW, why be silent about your own “just-so” stories? I once had a gay mentor who complained about my “unfailing exhibitionist” behavior. It’s true that I often play the fool and am seen as crazy by some, such as Clifton Jolley, my brother–and (obviously) you! That’s the risk of living a transparent life. It makes life more interesting and real.
May 11th, 2007 at 10:45 PM
1. Not sure why you keep bringing up wrestling. Really bizarre. Sure not on my mind right now. Why is it that this keeps surfacing in your remarks to me?
2. No idea why you brought up nursing, either. Was it meant to be underhanded? Like a “male nurse” barb or something? Can’t really read you on this.
3. A sensitive tendency that I’m “fearful of revealing”. Huh? Where do you get this stuff?
Now that we’re through all that, let’s get back to the original objection. You have every right to believe any quirky thing you want about the details of gender identity or about the details of Joseph Smith’s death. But since those claims are unsubstantiated, why do you expect them to make a difference in this conversation? It’s like me saying, “Hey guys, this whole conversation about homosexuality is moot because I happen to believe that we’re actually in a holographic simulation and the programer that wrote the program is an asexual Martian.” Now, if that’s true, maybe it’s consequential. But since I have no way of proving it, it’s not any more persuasive than any other just-so story (e.g. Joseph Smith chose not to go toward the light, we chose our gender before birth, etc.)
As I already stated, I have my own set of unsubstantiated beliefs and insights. They are necessary for all of us. All great inquiry starts with them. But–importantly–it doesn’t end there.
Some of them I’m quite open about. Others I’ve kept entirely personal and not even shared with my wife. But, most importantly, I scrutinize all of them instead of offering them as unquestionable truths that somehow solve a very thorny argument.
May 11th, 2007 at 11:01 PM
Also, I would certainly be interested in reading your transcript, which is a lot easier for me than listening to the session. Still have my e-mail address?
May 12th, 2007 at 1:08 PM
1. Not sure why you keep bringing up wrestling. Really bizarre. Sure not on my mind right now. Why is it that this keeps surfacing in your remarks to me?
Since I am at times a confessed “crazy” you should not be surprised by “bizarre” stuff on occasion. This reminds me of Fawn Brodie’s famous quote of Joseph Smith’s: “No man knows my history…If I had not experienced what I have, I could not have believed it myself.” I wonder how many others in our Mormon culture feel that way? I know I do.
As for the wrestling thing, I first became aware of you because of your “Godwrestling” paper in the November 2005 Sunstone Magazine. You identified with the Biblical Jacob’s experience which gained him his famous new name: Israel. Since I have my own identification with this “Penuel” event, I believed this told me something important about you, which interested me greatly. It meant you had tenacity and determination and I wanted to test that perception. I’ve not been disappointed in your subsequent responses. Then, before writing #109, I looked up your posted bio and learned you have a long term ambition to wrestle in many (10?) different styles. I assumed that ambition was still alive.
2. No idea why you brought up nursing, either. Was it meant to be underhanded? Like a ?¢Ç¨?ìmale nurse?¢Ç¨¬ù barb or something? Can?¢Ç¨Ñ¢t really read you on this.
By no means was this meant to be an underhanded “barb”. On the contrary it was meant to show an appreciation for what seemed to me a remarkable span of capability and sensitivity. My wife expresses her gratitude for the strength, tenderness and extraordinary sensitivity of a male nurse during a recent emergency hospitalization. Would that there were more such men is this profession!
3. A sensitive tendency that I?¢Ç¨Ñ¢m ?¢Ç¨?ìfearful of revealing?¢Ç¨¬ù. Huh? Where do you get this stuff?
Thank you for dispelling my wonder about your being fearful of revealing your sensitive side. Many in our Mormon culture are certainly fearful in this regard. Was this not one of original concerns for this blog thread?
Regarding your apparent objection to my “quirky” assertions, you say: But since those claims are unsubstantiated, why do you expect them to make a difference in this conversation?
You might make the same objection to young Joseph’s account of his first vision. It is unsubstantiated, since there were no witnesses. The LDS Church has made his verious unsubstantiated accounts its central claim to being the “only true church” these days, is this not so?
But this begs my point. I don’t know what you would accept as a “substantiated” claim, but I have offered a couple of things for your consideration. (I’ll send them to the email address on the website.) I’m just now reminded of a poem I wrote years ago when I lived in Ventura, CA and began wondering about the official Church policy of increasing intimidation of the Mormon intellectual community. A year later I was excommunicated. I called it:
Nineveh Revisited
When pressed for proof in Galilee,
He spoke of Jonah’s journey;
Amid the ruins of Zarahemla
He cited a Lamanite’s cry.
What will he say of Ventura?
That is, when and what does anyone accept as proof of anything?
I’m glad you are willing to read my transcript. You’ve motivated me to update it just now. To give you the bottom line to my original assertion of Joseph as an “EB”, for me that assertion has been resolved as of November last year, when I watched Joseph being escorted into the Light (note capital letter) by the spirit of my late father. Yes, it is a private experience, but I’ve not been bothered by that attachment since.
It was the purpose of my paper to invite others to share any similar or related experiences. That’s why I went out on a limb. No one, except the assigned respondent to the paper, has come forward. Is that because of fear or because my experience is unique? Michael Quinn has assured me that I am NOT unique, which has been comforting. I still wonder how many others of our people are plauged by such attachments.
May 26th, 2008 at 10:18 PM
A reply about Nick Literskis’ column: A married (to the opposite sex) Mormon man who claims to be Gay isn’t really Gay at all, more than likely, these men are Bisexual. Homosexuality and Bisexuality are two different things.A true homosexual man could not possibly ever marry a woman, even out of ardent religious belief and stick with it, let alone for eternity. Not only that, but I don’t think there are a whole lot of women out there who would be willing to tolerate the sexual exploits of a Bisexual husband, with her full knowledge. Something (in the relationship)would have to give sooner or later. Also, the Church would consider marriages such as these to contain an element of well, adultery.
July 11th, 2010 at 12:44 AM
Penny is really pretty on the series Big Bang Theory, she is quite perky too..;;