The talk of this past General Conference has been, of course, the talk by President Boyd K. Packer. I am not going to rehash it here. It has been done a thousand times now on the Internet and in the media. 
I will say that as I was listening to it; I knew it was going to be a firestorm.
My post asks a very simple question:
What exactly do you want the LDS Church to do about “the Gay issue?”
I am sorry to phrase it in that way, but I can’t think of any other way to ask the question. Given that the following is probably never going to happen:
1. The Church will never recognize homosexuality on the same level as heterosexuality. Even if it is conclusively proven to be completely biological in nature.
2. The Church will never recognize Same Sex Marriage. They may, at some point, stop fighting governmental recognition and legalization
3. The Church will never recognize gay sexual relations, either in or out of a marriage relationship. Nor will they do this for heterosexual sexual relations outside of marriage.
4. The Church will not apologize for words spoken or the treatment of Gays in the past.
It is clear to me the tenor of the conversation has changed dramatically recently in the last few years. The Church has softened its speech on homosexuality (as has much of the world), while maintaining its doctrinal position. Probably not enough for some folks, but, if you look at it objectively, it is significant. President Packer’s talk notwithstanding, of course.
So, what should the Church do?
Wheat & Tares 
I would like them not to get involved in the politics of it. I would like them to apologize for past treatment of gays (I know you say they won’t, but they should.) Jensen’s apology alone helped many to feel better about things. I would like its members not to ostracize other members who think it is none of their business if a person is gay or not. I think for now they need to not even bring the issue up for years and years. It is too polarizing and cause for many hurt feelings.
Jeff, I see two possibilities. First I think it is possible that the Church could follow Mike Quinn’s suggestions to stop seeing homosexuality as a super-sin and instead treat homoesuxality as a case of breaking the law of chastity. Fornication can be fornication without any concern for what gender the other partner is.
Second, I also see the potential for change on the marriage issue. It is possible that Married homosexuals could be permitted some level of activity within the Church. I suspect that the Church will eventually get to the point where they will want to encourage fidelity of all kinds rather than only those that hetero-normative.
Jeff,
There are two aspects to this debate. One aspect relates to what the church should do regarding the legality within whatever country. Should the church push its morality upon those who have not agreed to that morality?
The other aspect relates to theology. In a secular state, particularly one that provides religious freedom our church should be able to be as discriminatory and hateful as it wants, without apology.
The church has no reason to recognize homosexuality, nor recognize same sex marriage, nor recognize gay sexual relations, nor apologize for its treatment of gays in the past. Of course, proclaiming to follow Jesus Christ, church leaders, church members, and the church itself, have to follow the love of Christ toward all men. That includes gays. Church leadership needs to be careful about what positions it takes on the cause of homosexuality, because frankly, God has not been clear on that point. This church has been good at accepting scientific knowledge over established religious/cultural beliefs.
I don’t think you can so unequivocally say what the Church will *never* do. (Especially #4, considering Marlin Jensen’s compassion at a certain stake meeting…) I certainly hope apologies are forthcoming.
However, what I would like the most is for the Church to withdraw from trying to legislate what others consider marriage. We should have discovered the folly of that during Prohibition. In February 1933 Utah became the thirty-sixth and deciding state to approve the Twenty-first Amendment abolishing prohibition through repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment. I think it has been shown that we can maintain and preach religious standards without trying to legally enforce our standards on others. I’m especially disappointed because for so many years a statement was read over the pulpit that the Church would remain politically neutral, and that members were to vote their consciences. Why did they change their stance on this for gay marriage?
Also, as Kristine so beautifully put it in her post at BCC, it’s so important to be sensitive to this issue!! Boyd K. Packer was ever so callous to choose to even skate close to this issue at this Conference. It was terrible timing, and with his history of the remarks he has made in the past on homosexuality, it is no wonder that things blew up like they did.
I do applaud the steps the Church seems to be making in revising their public policy on the causes of same-gender attraction. I hope this will continue, since I feel that many members haven’t got the message yet.
It’s clear to me that “an entity” called “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,” which will not be the unified corporate structure that we see today, but will be an institution recognized by many Mormons (though not all), will in the near future perform temple ordinances with same-sex couples in the temples that will be under its control.
What I want the church to do is of little importance.
BiV.
“I don’t think you can so unequivocally say what the Church will *never* do.”
Precisely, why I used the weasel word, “probably.” If they can surprise BR McConkie, they can certainly surprise me! I just do not expect it. Folks have been clamoring for the Church to apologize for this and that for any number of years, but it has not. Not sure why this case would be any different.
Not sure, BIV, you can fairly make that claim. Discussing as aspect of sexual morality that is highly unpopular in pop culture per se, does not make one callous . . .
No Guy, but to do it immediately following several well-publicized suicides by young gay men, and hurt feelings over the issue of prop 8 was ill advised. As evidenced by how his words were taken. These same things have been said before, at different times and by different leaders, without the same effect.
Re Jeff-
It’s a good question. I certainly don’t have answers. I actually think that some of those things probably will happen. Specifically, I think the church will revise its stance on gays and allow them full fellowship – even marriage in the temple. Probably not in BKP’s lifetime, but perhaps in mine. It’s pretty clear from history (at least to me) that the church does “get with the times” so to speak – albeit 20 years after the rest of society. I don’t mean that as a put-down – I think it’s important to have some people push against and be slow to change.
Frankly, I personally don’t believe God cares nearly as much about sex as we think he does. I know that’s unpopular in this venue. I see our obsession with it as cultural and pharisaical.
So what should the church do? Nothing. I don’t expect them to behave any differently than they have in the past. I don’t think that’s necessarily a good thing though. However, it violates my code of ethics to modify things without a clear explanation. I know they gave an explanation but it felt like about 1/4 the real story. We deserve to know why those particular changes were made (and it would be the honorable thing to do IMHO). The reason I feel it’s important is because it has power to shape our culture for the better.
Re Guy
I think it’s a completely fair claim BiV. In the same time period when we are all grieving over the loss of 4 young gay men to suicide it was EXTRAORDINARILY insensitive and rude EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE! Context, context, context!!
I would never say never…. a lot of people said that pre 1979.
Just sayin.
Given Mormon prophets’ previous convictions that polygamy is a eternal principle that would never be taken from the earth, I don’t think we can call the shots on what they will/won’t change in the future.
The timing of Pres. Packers talk was unfortunate. At the two ends of the spectrum, either 1) he was completely unaware that National Coming Out Day is Oct. 11th of each year, and of the gay suicide “epidemic” that was dominating the media, or 2) he was being purposefully callous. I suppose its also possible that #2 was the case, but I thought that was why they had a PR department?
Short term: Like Laura, I would like to see the Church stay out of the political arena when it comes to same-sex marriage debates. It is one thing to expect a standard of behavior among your own church members. It is quite another to actively work to maintain that standard on non-Mormons.
Long term: I would like the Church to place hetero- and homosexual relationships on equal footing with respect to the law of chastity. I do NOT expect the Church to ever perform homosexual temple sealings, but I can envision a future where homosexual civil marriages are seen similar to heterosexual civil marriages.
I would like to see same-sex couples be comfortable holding hands in Sacrament meeting or kissing.
I would like there not to be a double-standard in how the law of chastity is stricter for gay singles than for straight singles.
I am appalled that you have gone so far as to contend that all homosexual tendencies are “biological in nature.” To pretend that a person has an innate tendency due to hard wiring is just not true of many homosexuals. It might be true in a very very small amount.
My mission president used to say the road to hell was paved with good excuses. I used to be immoral so I should know up close and personal. I must be gay also since I once had an episode as a ten year old child. Somewhere in my family made up of adulterers and fornicators I once must have had a gay ancestor.
I had a friend that was homosexual who had no history of homosexuality in his family. I actually asked him that question. Did you have a gay relative? He didn’t think so. To make an argument that after thousands of years of heterosexual hereditary he all of a sudden was homosexual is sheer idiocy. It is insulting even for him.
He was an honest guy. I respect honesty not hypocrisy. He told me that he was “a bad boy.” That he liked being a bad boy and that he had fun being a bad boy. He liked doing what he did and he liked doing it with a lot of different men. This was a multi-degree man who was a brilliant writer and more intelligent than the pseudo-intellectuals that hang out here. You people must be drinking postum.
He would tell me of some of his exploits which you Mormons would censure me if I shared here. You would get all incensed if your spouse fornicated with another man or woman but it is all right because it is innate. We shouldn’t hold them morally accountable. Jesus would love them and not be judgmental. No unclean thing can enter in to the kingdom of heaven.
My friend’s description was no different than those of any other immoral person I encountered in my life. I have known many having grown up in Las Vegas. We should even be able to frequent prostitutes since in the Bible a few of the Old Testament prophets did so.
Beale’s is full of crap he can not prove scientifically anything other than occasionally there are a tiny percentage of animals that are innately gay. What did he do empirically ask their ancestors? Did he track them over decades like some biologist do. Not all homosexuality is innate. So your conclusiveness needs to be amended. Antedotally it appears sometimes it is obvious that someone is gay.
It is a choice. I asked many of my gay librarian friends is this something you were born with. Do you think your gay because you were born that way. If you believe I didn’t ask them to their faces then you don’t know me very well. I only heard once they didn’t know.
It is insulting for you to treat them like they are gay because they can’t help themselves. I think bisexuals much be a confused bunch of gays. We need to accept them too. Why have any moral constraints?
If God was a God of justice and mercy He would have put three pairs of people in the Garden of Eden: Adam and Eve, Adam and Adam, and Eve and Eve. I guess we should argue that we were just not evolved well enough to accept when there were only a traditional pair of a man and woman that God dropped the ball. He probably knew that Adam and Eve couldn’t handle any other family unit.
Most Mormon gays must be stupid to allow people like BIV and Beale to tell highly educated people they are gay cause they were born that way. It is like saying the Devil made me do it. You apparently believe in foreordination that God wanted them this way.
Otherwise why did he allow the Jews for thousands of years to impose such a moral code on them. Even in polygamy there is a man and women not a man and men nor a woman and women. Why was the practice of being a eunuch mentioned in the Bible?
You can’t possibly believe that homosexual practices didn’t exist since the early days of man. I mean any student of the time of Jesus will tell you if you read sex crimes in history that the Romans were about as debaucherious as you can imagine. Roman emperors swang all ways multiple women, multiple men, little boys, and little girls.
The Romans and other cultures were pretty open. There were no Christians to put a guilt trip on them. Even in a time of open relations why weren’t gay marriages accepted. I guess they didn’t have scientific evidence of thousands of years like the pundits of today. I am descended from them.
Why would God allow the Apostle Paul to speak out against the practice? He surely knew one day there would be enlightened people that would correct the inequality in family structure. Why was there not one peep about it for the last several thousand years.
I have worked with many homosexuals and most are pretty outspoken in my profession. I was in San Francisco during the gay pride parade among several gay librarians at an annual conference. Condoms were bouncing off my head as I walked down the street. Of course they were cheap and said “Made in China.” My gay librarian friends told me that have an activist agenda to tear down the traditional family so they could better practice how they liked. When I talk to my friend he didn’t at all want to be monogamous. He liked being a bad bad boy.
I watched the R-rated movie Milk. Harvey Milk epitomizes what Packer faced when the gays mobilized on Temple Square. He faced the wrath of incensed people. You are to be commended for your activist stand. Just remember there is a price to be paid for that stand. I hope you can pay it.
Boyd K. Packer has nothing to apologize for nor was he callous in my opinion. You are treading on dangerous ground to believe that you can use coercion to force the church to change a position that has been consistently practiced throughout biblical and modern day history. Ezra Taft Benson would say that you are on the downward road to destruction. Raising awareness is a double-edged sword.
Most of you whine about the Church being honest and one of the leaders are you want to shout him down. How kind is it to sustain a man in the temple then call him an old man that doesn’t know what he is talking about. The First Presidency didn’t make him remove it completely only to soften it. It is a mistake to see that as anywhere close to an apology that ain’t goin to happen in my lifetime or your children’s lifetime.
It is kinder to be truthful which is that the Church will “probably” never change its position. You see I used the PC word here. You think BiV would defend her own family’s past behavior now that she is so enlightened. Their behavior is as innate as the ones you are defending. Prophets are never popular in their own country as the scripture says nor among their own people.
Oh I forgot to answer the question. They don’t need to do anything different they have done for the past 180 years.
Honestly, I think #’s 1-3 are likely to change. Maybe not anytime soon, and I know it would be a huge change, but we certainly have changed in major ways in the past.
I don’t know WHAT I want the church to do. All I know is how things are right now is NOT right, or good.
#12: Dr B.
Of all the people I have known in my life who have ultimately “come out”, it wasn’t surprising for ANY OF THEM. For some, the tendency was there even if they wouldn’t admit it to themselves. So to say “It is a choice” or that it might be inborn in a “very very small amount” is absolutely contrary to my experience. The people I know who are gay recognized their “difference” even when they were young, and even while they were trying to conform to societal expectations. Given all of the issues that a gay person faces in the world today (times 1000 in the LDS Church), I don’t know why anyone would “choose” to be gay as you imply.
#12: All I can say is Yikes.
As far as what the Church will/should do, I think the best predictor of the future is the past. The Church has essentially always followed societal trends, although with a time delay.
– Polygamy was taught as an eternal principle, necessary for our eternal salvation. The Proc #1 makes it clear it was changed because of societal pressures, and polygamy will now keep you OUT of the Church and temple
– The Church fought WofW & prohibition, etc. It now accepts that some people are going to drink and has even contributed to a more normalization of Utah’s liquor laws recently.
– The Church fought ERA and all that that implied for women’s rights, etc. But after the struggles with that in the 1970’s, women were allowed to actually do things like say prayers in sacrament meeting, etc.
– The Church’s stance on blacks and the priesthood was taught as doctrinal by MANY leaders from BY down through McConkie. There were scriptural quotes to back them up, etc. But after the era of civil rights, etc., as McConkie later stated, they realized they were wrong.
So, historical precedent suggests that the Church will do the same thing with regards to SSM, once/if it is legalized in the United States. In my opinion, for what little it’s worth, the Church should separate the “civil” aspect of marriage from the “eternal” aspect of marriage.
– If someone is celibate while single, and faithful after a legal civil marriage, that person should be able to be a faithful LDS member.
– Sealing in the temple should be a separate and special episode. To be honest, this would have a tremendously POSITIVE impact on the majority of the Church. Weddings would no longer divide families at a supposed time of celebration. Let a couple get civilly married in a happy, inclusive event. Let the couple go at a later time (a few hours, days or weeks) to be sealed so they can really focus on the meaning of that, without all of the hoopla.
– Realistically, I think this is where the Church will ultimately draw the line, as I don’t ever see temple sealing for a homosexual couple, but never say never.
– Any sin (ie. fornication / adultery) should be treated the same regardless of the mix
I would like the church to stand firm on the doctrines and not speculate on the reasons why people don’t believe in said doctrines.
#9 jmb275: “Frankly, I personally don’t believe God cares nearly as much about sex as we think he does. I know that’s unpopular in this venue. I see our obsession with it as cultural and pharisaical.”
I agree. What God does care about is our eternal progression. The doctrine is that can only happen in a heterosexual relationship sealed by the proper priesthood authority and the holy spirit of promise. End of story. That’s the standard. Now we’re all at different points in reaching that standard (married in the temple, not married in the temple, single, gay, good marriage, bad marriage, divorced, etc., etc.) and we should all be treated equally and encouraging equally to reach that standard.
The gays don’t feel equal in the Mormon church. How about a divorced single man in his 40s or older? How about the never married woman in her 30s or older?
We’re really good as a church to point to the standard. Let’s keep pointing, but reach out our other hand to anyone and everyone in fellowship and service without prejudice to raise another. Remember, the reason we have to point to the standard is because nobody has reached it yet.
Jeff,
Your analysis and list is accurate. The church will, and should, hold firm on their stand. They have nothing to apologize for, I don’t know why that question has even been raised.
Although I agree that the church will likely never apologize, since it never apologizes for anything, I think 1 – 3 are simply assumptions. One could have written a list of “nevers” in 1968 about blacks and the priesthood and sounded just as plausible.
It took “plead[ing] long and earnestly… many hours… supplicating the Lord for divine guidance” before blacks could receive the priesthood. But it would never have happened if Mormons hadn’t dropped their assumptions about what would “never” happen and began thinking about what “could” happen.
So here’s what I hope the church (leaders and members) will start doing. Stop making assumptions about the “nevers.” Start considering the “coulds.” Consider the possibility that gay sex is just sex, that gay relationships are just relationships, and that gay marriage is just marriage. Consider the possibility that gay people are just people. And think and pray about what that “could” mean.
Jeff — Speaking just for me, I’d like to see a wider sharing of the concepts in the response to the HRT’s petition over pulpits and in 5th Sunday meetings across the Church. Some GC talks from people with a first name of President would also be good (although people named Elder could do quite nicely as well).
I’d also like to see a little softening in a couple of your points. That is, I’d like to see accountability for what the Church has done in failed efforts to cure homosexual tendencies.
And I’d like to see some kind of accommodation of committed same-sex couples for participation in the Church. Perhaps something as simple as they get to attend meetings at the level of someone disfellowshipped, or someone excommunicated, as appropriate based on their behavior. People DFed and EXed attend meetings without being hassled about it, so that’s a good baseline. But anything above that that would encourage monogamy within that relationship would seem a good idea to me. I know lots of LGBT folks and activists wouldn’t care for seeing SSMs treated as second-class to OSMs, but I agree with your points 1, 2 and 3 enough to think that second-class is as good as it’s going to get. I’m not even sure it can be that good.
Most of the change doesn’t need to take place in the Institutional Church, though. It needs to happen among the members. There are so many Mormons who feel justified in mistreating gays because they’re “unnatural,” etc. If we could bring them up to the level of the Otterson statement, that would be huge. Immensely huge.
In reality, the church will probably change when they start seeing a problem keeping up membership as a result of it, and then they’ll claim it was revelation from God (maybe it will be).
I don’t think that most members expect the church to change their stance on homosexuality, but a change in their attitude towards their fellow human beings might be nice. Why can’t we do something in the entire church like what the stake in Oakland did? A little compassion and understanding would go a long way.
Dr B,
You’re conflating “biological in nature” with “genetic in nature.” Those aren’t the same thing. BYU professor Bill Bradshaw has written about the biological origins of homosexuality.
16 — Yeah. Twice.
18 — Excellent point. Singles run into a number of the same problems. The Church is not very good with them, program-wise. If we can improve the programs there, especially for YSAs, we can reduce the number of divorces, and cut back on the number of people making multiple entries into the Singles program.
Well, the church is going to do what the church is going to do. If I were calling the shots, which clearly I am not, I’d consider both the external and internal focus.
Externally, I’d align with other anti-discrimination groups to make the stand church’s stand crystal clear to members, investigators and the community at large that the church is against all discrimination, bullying, and hate crimes, and that the church affirms partner benefits for homosexual couples.
Within the membership, there are a few very thorny areas to resolve:
1 – what should faithful parents of believing gay children do in practical terms? how can the community support and embrace them? As it stands, parents of gay sons & daughters are often forced to choose between the church & supporting their child. That is not a tenable position in a church that revolves around eternal families.
2 – is it really realistic to expect lifelong celibacy with no hope of companionship from all gay members? what hope and support can we give to gay Mormon teens who are filled with self-loathing and loneliness? Given the fact that we believe in eternal unions, this becomes an even more unbearable stance for those who are cut off forever from the type of familial joy that is taught every week.
And I agree wholeheartedly that the church needs to quit treating homosexual relations outside of marriage as worse than any other sexual relations outside of marriage. Holding hands and kissing are not sins. We need to destigmatize homosexuality if we want believing gay members to feel welcome in our congregations. Otherwise, we as members drive them out.
This issue for me boils down to the very basics: repentance.
Last night,I simultaneously listened to and read Elder Packers address. I think most people in, as well as out of the church, would conclude the main point of Elder Packer’s address was NOT on homosexuality.
He specifically mentioned pornography and then broaden his remarks from pornography to those who feel they’re hard wired to sin and therefore can’t help themselves (some heterosexual and homosexuals believe this way about an array of sin, not just sexual).
If it is true that we are hardwired for sin then agency doesn’t exist, repentance wouldn’t be possible and the whole plan of salvation without affect. Not so!, says Elder Packer
Those who are apostle-phobic heard what they wanted to hear.
Dr.B,
What kind of a doctor are you? Your bedside manner must be a real doozy….Any compassion mixed in with that ice water coursing through your veins? Holy Crap!
Mike S:
Do you sniff glue or something? I have known some pretty proud gay people who yes chose to be gay. What kind of a statement is no one would choose to be gay. That is demeaning in my opinion to a gay person. It is just plain illogical for me to believe anyone of any kind would allow someone to attribute my gayness if I were gay to biology. If I were gay I would tell you quit sniffing glue. My gay librarian friends would would resent you trying to pin gayness on biological factors. This is more complex than such a simplistic claim.
From where I sit, here’s what the Church could do to improve things:
1- Get out of politics. Period. Involvement in anti-gay politics is divisive and detracts from the Church’s stated mission. (This also includes dropping its behind-the-scenes funding for the National Organization for Marriage, whose activities are vigorously opposed by many moderate and progressive LDS people.)
2- Soften the rhetoric. There’s no need to divide LDS famiies over this issue. I know so many families that have been split apart by this. A recent study showed that hardline, rejecting behaviors by parents increase the chance that a gay teenager will attempt suicide by eight times. No change of doctrine is needed, only a change of language and emphasis.
3- Quit excommunicating people for getting married. No real doctrinal change is needed for this; civil marriage already has a well-defined role in LDS theology. It defines a time-only status where sexual fidelity and commitment of mutual support are encouraged. It is *already* a second class status in LDS thinking.
4- Let time pass. There’s no reason to worry about doctrinal changes now. If they come, they will come. If they don’t, then they don’t.
In other words, the focus today should be on cleaning up the mess of Prop 8, reducing the harm to gay LDS youth, healing the rift in families and finding some role, even if limited, for committed same-sex couples who may want to participate in the Church.
Dr. B
Your post is too long, your points are rambling and unsupported and your tone is uncivil. Feeding time is over.
Dear Dr. B:
I am gay. I don’t have to resort to silly uninformed conjecture. And after much prayer, fasting, and a level of personal torment regarding a choice I never made that you may never experience, I think your “sniffing glue” thing is offensive and just plain wrong.
(I do agree, though, as to the complexity of the issue.)
I think it would be nice if the church put out the position that government shouldn’t be involved in marriage. The private sector should perform marriages but the government has no reason to be licensing marriage. Who is the government to tell me who I can marry? The church should also push to be the ones that perform divorces and split the property up, etc. The only role of the government in all this is to make sure contracts are adhered to. Nothing more.
From my reading of the scriptures it doesn’t make any sense how homosexuality could be part of the gospel of Christ, besides repentance. Of course, I question how plural marriage could be too, granted there’s more scriptural examples of righteous plural marriage than homosexuality. That’s the role of religions, to give a moral compass to the people.
The church should get out of the political side of it and there should be a compromise between the two sides by taking marriage out of the equation.
That would mean all unions are civil with the same rights and considerations and would be performed by the state initially. After that if you want to be married by a church the church would choose to follow through based on beliefs and traditions.
While I am not a huge fan of some of the statements made by the church on this subject I have much more contempt for the angry mobs that show up at the temple to harass the blue hairs that work there. Someday the Tongans and Samoans are going to open a can and it will not be pretty.
SLK:
I am sorry I offended you for my sniffling glue statement. Apparently you not want to be gay. Do you think all other gays don’t want to be gay? Your experience is not held by every gay I am perfectly willing to conduct an online poll if you want so it won’t be silly conjecture.
For myself, I’m with Honorary Mormon C.S. Lewis on this one: The “sins of the flesh” are the “least worst” of sins. Enmity and domination are the truly Satanic sins.
However, while I do believe we could probably lay off the extensive emphasis placed on the morals of sexuality (which probably does give the impression that non-marital sex is The Sin Next To Murder, and does make people “obsessive” about it), I suspect that as long as the Church discusses sexual morality at all, it will be accused of Pharasaical “obsession” with sexuality — rather than simply a response to widespread societal arguments against the Church’s understanding of authentic sexuality.
In other words, it’s not “obsession” merely to decline to do a full el foldo on the sexuality issue.
I’m with Aaron R — Same-sex activity outside marriage should not be treated as a “super sin” different from other violations of the law of chastity. The only possible difference, is that there is a strong movement to declare same-sex attraction an “identity,” which may (in the cases where a person’s attractions could go either way, which is probably more widespread than anyone on either side wants to admit) incline a person towards persistence in sexual arrangements that (I agree with Jeff) the Church is unlikely ever to regard as morally ideal.
I mean, my impression is that of the (absolute boatloads of) LDS youth who get heterosexually frisky prior to marriage, the majority probably settle down to staid middle-class married-with-kids life, with the youthful indiscretions serving as basically a warm-up for the main event. The dynamics with same-sex activity may not work quite the same way.
I think it’s a little dangerous for the church leadership to be repeatedly declaring that homosexuality is a choice, rather than an innate biological characteristic. Making claims like that only opens them up to having their prophetic mantle doubted when what they said is proven wrong.
I find it interesting that a BYU professor gave a presentation on the biological basis for homosexuality AT BYU two weeks before Brother Packer was standing in front of an international audience saying that our Heavenly Father would not make people homosexuals.
Sorry, that looks bad. Plain and simple.
As to answer the question, I wish the church would just get out of the gay marriage wrangling all together. I also wish they would quit with the talks that specifically address homosexuality. All they need to do is say bear their testimony to the Proclamation on the Family. Or to reaffirm what it says. That makes their stance on the issue plain without ratcheting up the resentment and anger.
Nothing new to add, just my vote of support on a few opinions.
1) Tone down the talk – Okay we get it, the Prophet thinks homosexuality is bad.
2) Try hard to objectively understand it – As one of the few Religious institutions with access and control over a major university, unbiased studies should be promoted and encouraged.
3) Politely preach whatever they want, but stay of political action.
I think church leadership should take theology more seriously. This entire snafu with Br. Packer finds its genesis in leadership’s refusal to be publicly self critical of each other. Perhaps the official changes to Br. Packer’s sermon were entirely self-motivated but it is equally likely that those changes were initiated by others in the leadership– we may never know and that is a problem. There’s value in knowing where theological ground is most firm and public arguments among leaders signal to membership where terra firma can be found. Without those public debates membership is left assuming that everything said or written by church leadership is the Divine Will of God– a proposition that our own history does not bear out– which can have tragic personal results when the winds of adversity begin to blow and it’s discovered that what we thought was solid ground proves to be quicksand. The absence of public debate also forces membership to take sides on issues that may ultimately bear little, if any, Eternal impact. I know inside my own family that the Priesthood ban generated much animosity among brothers, sisters, cousins, aunts, and uncles during the ’60s & ’70s. We know now that there was significant disagreement among the leadership over that issue. Had those disagreements been made public contemporaneously it’s quite possible that the ban would have been lifted earlier but it’s certain that a lot of the animosity exchanged among my family members over the issue would have disappeared. I’d like to add more but I’m tapping this out on an iPhone so producing this was rather cumbersome. I’ll check back in later and try to elaborate and clarify.
#28: “Dr” B
In a post with reasonable people postulating various opinions, the best you could come up with is that I sniff glue? Seriously?
It’s not even worth my time to enter a “discussion” with you.
p.s. And yes, I actually am a doctor.
I have great sympathy for the position that the LDS church and gay members of the LDS church find themselves in. LDS theology is simply entangled in gender in ways that no other Christian denomination can be, it seems.
If you believe the purpose of existence is some form of spiritual procreation that requires male and female entities heterosexually committed to each other throughout eternity, you can’t easily end up anywhere but where you are and be faithful.
We in the CofChrist took a different theological path in the pre-1844 period, and it’s still hard for us to address without the very real possibility of schism.
I might hazard a recommendation on what our church should do, but I won’t hazard one for what your church should do.
Dan: “… our church should be able to be as discriminatory and hateful as it wants…”
I know that when I’m church-hopping, discriminatory and hateful are at the top of the list of attributes in a church that I’m searching for.
#12 – This was funny.
I have no idea what the church will do, no advice as to what the church should do. What I think is of little importance. That said, I will personally treat anyone I know who is gay the same way I treat anyone else. If I can’t do that, I do not think I would be much of a Christian.
#12 – By the way, Mr. B., what is the significance of being a “gay librarian”?
I can see the younger generation being far less willing to entertain talks like Packer’s as they come into adulthood. We are evolving, although a bit slowly in the church due the fact that in addition to being a patriarchy (and a conservative one), we are also a geriocracy.
What I want, and what I see as realistic are two different things.
It seems realistic to expect our church to simply back off of all of this fear-based doctrine around sexuality and “purity”. It seems realistic to expect the leaders to focus their energy on GC talks and Ensign articles and manuals which uphold Christian principles such as love and acceptance.
A shift in awareness from fear-based teachings about the world (cue that danger music) and the evil one, to lasering in on serving others, feeding the poor, strengthening our families, educating those who don’t have equal opportunities, creating peace in the world – seems like a reasonable thing for a Christian church to focus on.
Seems like we’ve lost our way a bit as a church, and I’ve personally lost patience.
I find Dr. B’s comments unfortunate, because I think there are a lot of errors from a naive understanding of certain things.
As was mentioned earlier, “biological in nature” doesn’t necessarily mean “genetic,” but even still, I feel like there is a misunderstanding of genetics and gene expression.
For example, Dr. B writes:
This has a regrettably naive understanding of genetics and genetic expression. For example, the first thing to note is that if homosexuality is a recessive trait, then we certainly could understand that it could be carried throughout the generations without expressing.
A second thing to note are penetrance factors — how often the genes are expressed. For example, we know that Huntington’s Disease has a genetic basis, *but* even when identical twins inherit an affected gene, the disease routinely expresses differently in both because of epigenetic factors.
Finally, a thing to note is that the expression of homosexuality — if it has any sort of genetic basis — cannot be directly ascertained at a historical basis. For example, in the past, we could certainly recognize that many people who were homosexual would instead try to “pass” as straight, entering into straight marriages or not entering into relationships. So just because you can’t “recall” any gay people in the family doesn’t mean they aren’t there. Consider today that every gay person doesn’t readily come out.
I don’t know where Dr. B is trying to come from, but I think he is confusing certain things. I don’t know whether he is referring to the orientation or to actions, so I don’t know what he is so verbosely opposing.
I don’t know if he is REALLY trying to say that it is a choice to be attracted to one gender vs. the other, but I guess my question would be: when did he choose to start being attracted to women? How does he make the “decision” every day to continue being attracted? How does he make the decision not to be attracted to men, or if he also is (I don’t know), when did he make that decision? How do you make that decision?
What most people would recognize (not just a minority as Dr. B seems to think) is that one doesn’t *choose* who one is attracted to. One never “decided” to like the opposite sex or the same sex.
If Dr. B is talking about *actions*, then I think he is attacking a strawman. No one is saying that actions are not chosen. HOWEVER, what people are saying is that, given one orientation over another, certain actions are more understandable.
I guess it’s very common to try to argue that there has never been any legally sanctioned gay relationship (or gay marriages), but again, this seems a bit naive, consider we know that many civilizations had gay marriages because only later were laws developed to ban these marriages.
I mean, I guess it’s not so unexpected that someone would think this way, but it’s unfortunate, because many of Dr. B’s comments just aren’t really up to date with what we know.
Jared,
“apostle-phobic”
Hey you can’t do that, that is stealing ideas from the left. 🙂 They just need to come up the term universal-phobic and they can cover everything.
To the Church: stick to your guns and don’t back down.
I really like #29. I’d like to see those things happen.
I also think the “wish list” at the end of the David Eccles Hardy letter is pretty reasonable:
“I wish that someone in authority would have the compassion and the courage simply to own up publicly to the fact that this is a difficult issue about which we just don’t have many answers.
I wish someone in authority would publicly urge the members to withhold their judgment and condemnation, accept those like my son into their midst, and have true compassion and love for those who through no choice of their own will deal with the issue of homosexuality all of their lives.
I wish someone in authority would publicly assure the members that by withholding their judgment and condemnation and showing acceptance and real love, they won’t get leprosy, nor will their children be at risk – that the divine concept of Family will not be compromised or weakened, but that real families with real issues will in fact be strengthened.
I wish that someone in authority would recognize that To The One was an effort twenty years ago by a very good man to address a difficult issue in the context of the time in which it was written, and pull it from circulation.”
#26 Clarification of my comment–
I’m NOT acquainted with the difficulties same-sex-attraction brings to those–never entered my mind, so I can’t say about the origins. However, I do know a great deal about repentance.
If it turns out it is true that some people are born that way then so be it, if not, so be it. It doesn’t really matter, because either way, they have agency and can choose their path. When taught the gospel and a testimony is acquired then they can repent of their sin, if any, and carry their cross (2 Nephi 9:18).
As a church, we need to teach the gospel of repentance.
#49 – Jared, it’s actually a pretty significant point, because if homosexual attraction is either chosen or is the result of sinful behavior, then those who experience such attraction have need of repentance for the very existence of those attractions. Currently the church’s position, which is becoming more firm, it appears to me, is that individuals who experience same-sex attraction have NO need to repent for having such feelings, only for any actions they may have taken with respect to such feelings. This is a critical distinction within mormon culture and doctrine. In my opinion, its importance is even greater on a social level than a doctrinal one. If people choose to be gay or feel those feelings as a result of sinful behavior, as the good doctor would have us believe, then church members are justified in considering people with such attractions as deviant and perverted, or, even worse, willfully wicked and sinful. It is easy to justify treating such a person differently. This way of thinking poses a major hurdle in getting members of the church to accept and treat homosexuals with equality.
Repentance is an individual thing. We all should be more familiar with the proclamation (3 Nephi chapter 3, not the Family Proclamation) to understand that we receive physical protection as a group, and spiritual protection (repentance) as an individual. To try and tell others to repent is only effective in a support group relationship, not a cop to thief relationship.
“never recognize Same Sex Marriage. They may, at some point, stop fighting governmental recognition and legalization”
Church has already stopped that fight. Recently argentina debated SSM legislation and the church there didn’t even join the anti-SSM coalition. It only told members to go read the proclamation on the family.
But what should the church do about homosexuality? For me, keep teaching its doctrine in clear terms and not deviate from that line. If its a sin…well its a sin not a policy subject to change one day like the priesthood ban for blacks did. Also quit saying that we ‘lovingly’ accept our gay brothers because they aren’t accepted at all. If you’re in a gay relationship in our church, you are both excommunicated AND ostracized, there is no middle ground in a typical LDS ward or stake, so we may as well just say so and not mislead any 20 year old who thinks he can be openly homosexual and survive as a Mormon. You simply can’t.
I did not read any of the comments in response to this post, but I will say as a former member of the church and a gay person the only thing that most gay member and ex-members want from the church is for the spotlight to be removed. Most of us don’t really expect the church to apologize or retract their words. Most of us at this juncture don’t really care if the church ever recognizes gay marriage, we just want church to chill out and let the issue rest for awhile. Why do they keep talking about it? Why do they keep fighting against it? They are hurting many of their own members by continually bringing it up.
We’ve heard this all before though: polygamy, blacks in the priesthood – everyone from the prophet down swore that they’d never change. And then they did. College athletics teams refused to play against BYU, and the US Government threatened them in both cases. I have a feeling that once LGBT people are protected by law in the US that the LDS church will be forced in some way to change their ways.
Carla,
The comparison between blacks and the priesthood and polygamy; and same sex marriage are apples and oranges. The first two were largely administrative decisions; while same sex marriage is a moral issue. The Lord and his church will not, and should not, compromise on such moral activities. Homosexual activity is immoral and the churches stand should be, and will be, firm. Thank goodness.
Will, what planet are you from? The black issue was policy but was and still is believed by some to be doctrine. Polygamy is doctrine but was and still is believed by some to be policy. My parents grew up in the 50s and give witness to the strong feelings some Mormons, including leaders, had on inter-racial marriage. It’s ignorant for you to boldly say gay marriage is a moral issue when it is clearly a civil right.
Mitch,
Sex between two men; or, between two women is immoral now matter what title you put to it — marriage, civil union, cohabitation, whatever. This is why the Lord and his church will remain firm. It will not change. Not now, not a billion years ago, not a trillion years from now.
There’s always the Community of Christ. They’re miles ahead of the LDS church in terms of casting off old superstitions, though, in fairness to the LDS church, the Community of Christ had a lot fewer to cast off in the first place; e.g., non of their proclaimed successors ever taught the Adam-God theory.
Well, I was unavailable most of the day yesterday and not able to respond. But let me a few things. I really like what Aaron R. #2, MoHoHawaii #29 and especially #53 Kiley had to say and I hope some of that happens. Especially, the spotlight. The church doesn’t have to change its position very much to change the intensity of the situation.
Dr. B. I can’t figure out where you are coming from at all. Not nice.
It’s been a pretty civil dialogue.
One final thing. I think what most people heard from Pres. Packer’s talk is what they wanted to hear out of it. Good or bad.
Jeff old buddy. I was drumming up business for your post. There is nothing like a little controversy to get things rolling. I just don’t happen to agree with a lot of the liberal comments. Every one is entitled to their opinion. I guess instead of glue I could have used smell the coffee ground naw. As to civility it is all right for you and your commenters to knock an apostle but it is not all right for me to question some of the assertions made. You have a skewed sense of civility. Active LDS raise their hands and promise to not speak ill. You can always debate an issue without personal attacks. If you can do I can do it. Otherwise you are a bunch of psdeo-intellectual hypocritical snobs pushing a one-sided agenda.
I worked in universities for most of my adult life this is just a case of a bunch of people sitting around the faculty dining room and saying what they think.
To be honest I don’t think one way or another about this topic. It just ticks me off you slam Elder Packer and you act like this discussion will change the LDS Church’s stance when we know it won’t. These kind of posts are more fun than a barrel of monkeys to me.
#55 – Will, if you believe polygamy was an administrative decision, I think you need to read up on the history of your church. It was a doctrine, and a foundational doctrine at that, of the early Salt Lake church. I’ve never heard anyone try to cast polygamy as a policy and not a doctrine.
Brjones,
I think polygamy is an odd practice. I don’t get it. I realize it was practiced in the Old Testament. I realize the Old Testament is largely God’s dealings with a polygamist family, or the house of Israel. The Book of Mormon I believe provides the most clarity on the practice as noted in Jacob 2: 27-31 where the Lord says he will dictate when this practice is allowed and when it is not allowed. In other words, he will be the administrator of the practice; thus, an administrative issue.
60 – I fail to see any instance in this post or thread where E. Packer is being “slammed,” least of all by Jeff. As far as I can see, the only insults have been levied by you towards others (sniffing glue). You are entitled to your opinions, but if they fail to persuade others, that’s up to you to work out.
#62 – I understand what you’re saying, Will. I think, though, that using the term “administrative” or “policy” in the context of this discussion, gives the impression that it wasn’t something that was commanded by god, but was just a church policy, as many believe the blacks and the priesthood issue was. Even if god has reserved to himself the right to administer polygamy when and where he chooses, as far as human beings are concerned, if it has been commanded by god it is a doctrinal issue, I think. I understand how you don’t see the manifesto as a capitulation to social pressure, but I think you have to concede that its practice was commanded by divine edict, according to the church, and as such it is comparable to homosexuality much more than blacks and the priesthood.
What do I want the church to do? I want the church to stop pretending that it knows details about the hereafter, such as the place of gender and sex. The current theology and policies are based on a lot of assumptions about which we really don’t have certain knowledge. When Pres Hinkley denied that we teach the couplet “as God once was man may become, etc” was it just PR, or was it that we really don’t know? If we do not teach the concept of a Mother in Heaven, is that also just so much PR or is it that we really don’t know?
The idea that transgendered individuals not be given temple recommends or Priesthood is likewise concerned with trying to insure in mortality what we believe to exist in Eternity. Yet what do we really know about Eternity?
I would like the church to become as inclusive as possible and let God sort the messy things out later, if need be.
I would like to hear our church president say, “I don’t know that we teach it….”
Or to say it another way, LDS objection to SSM does not come from Leviticus, but from the concept of a neat, perfect gender binary that we suppose exists in the eternities. And so we are losing nearly all of our gay membership and gaining a reputation as the homophobic church. All based on an idea of God and the hereafter that we can’t really substantiate from our scriptural canon and refuse to teach officially.
Is it worth it?
What exactly do people think this means?
Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.
“What exactly do people think this means?
Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.”
One more thing that I want the church to do. Stop saying “We’re not anti-gay, we’re just pro-family.”
As if gay people are a threat to the family.
Steven B:
The church is insinuating that gay activism is a threat to the family.
#60, Dr. B
Whoa there, partner. I didn’t slam Pres. Packer, nor would I. All I said if is that i knew the talk would create a firestorm. mainly because many, with their own agenda, would misconstrue what we was saying. And that indeed happened.
“The church is insinuating that gay activism is a threat to the family.”
No Jon, there is nothing in that statement about activism. Gay or otherwise.
You know, this whole idea that gay people or gay civil rights, or even the notion that homosexuality be normalized, is a threat to The Family gets my blood boiling and at the same time makes me very sad. To think that this whole Prop 8 campaign, the millions of dollars expended, families divided, negative PR backlash–was all based on the false assumption that equality for gay people will bring about the disintegration of the family.
Gays are not a threat to the family. Gays come from families, many which are good LDS families with loving parents. Gays and lesbians take these family values and form families, adopt children and raise families. They advocate for marriage recognition so that their families may have the same rights, responsibilities, protections and societal respect and support as the rest of society. If that is not pro-family, I don’t know what is.
What do I want the church to do? I want the church to recognize that discouraging gay people from forming relationships and families, and forbidding them from wrapping those families in marital unions, is itself profoundly and fundamentally anti-family.
Absolutely not. Homosexual copulation is not good for the body or soul and will ultimately lead to nowhere.
What’s wrong with defending traditional marriage?
http://www.sourcenewspapers.com/articles/2010/09/25/opinion/doc4c9d119a55a11974457036.txt
Jon please stay on topic.
Steven B. #66
I agree with you that the modern LDS views of gays does come from the metaphysical interpretation of the experiences of the early Restoration that you have described. I don’t think that the church can simply say “we don’t know” because the same binary view is inhenent in most of the teachings of the church about salvation, earthly morality, and spending time every day.
From the metaphysics, everything logically flows. So I think one has an obligation to either affirm, reject, or actively seek to reinterpret the metaphysics.
It is certainly POSSIBLE to construct a different interpretation of the Restoration experiences, because other Restoration factions always have.
These kinds of questions are why I write my wierd science posts.
@Will
1. No blacks in the priesthood was considered set-in-stone DOCTRINE, not just a practice. And yet it changed.
2. Interracial marriage was also considered a moral issue, and it too changed.
3. Polygamy was not just a practice; it was seen as an eternal principle that was absolutely necessary for exaltation (see Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 269; Millenial Star Vol. 5 p. 15; Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20, p. 28; Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, p. 166;Historical Record, Vol. 6, p. 166 … there are countless references)
The comparison fits: the LDS church changed eternal principles that were previously taught by prophets and apostles as absolutely unchangeable and True doctrines, and in the case of polygamy, that it wouldn’t even be Mormonism without it.
When under pressure from the US government and society at large, the LDS church has consistently wavered in doctrines they held to be absolutely true. I think they will again.
@Jon Miranda #72 – No, it’s not. No credible medical, scientific, or psychological body says that gay sex is unhealthy or immoral. Everyone agrees that there’s nothing wrong or harmful about it.
Carla, #77,
The only one you are correct on is Polygamy. That one was a Doctrine of the Church and remains to this day, even though the practice is suspended.
The Priesthood restrict was not Doctrinal even though it might have been treated that way. it was not. It was a policy and a practice and it changed.
Interracial marriage was not a moral issue and I would ask for proof that it was. it was considered a major challenge in a relationship and advised against, the same as educational and economic differences.
The real question is why gays care? If an organization isn’t going to make you welcome, why insist on it doing so? Are blacks going to start petitioning the Ku Klux Klan to soften their views of race so they can become members?
For the foreseeable future, the LDS church isn’t going to accept gays; get over it.
(The LDS church doesn’t accept even legal polygamy, yet that’s doctrinal.)
That said, the church has nothing good to say about families who have homosexual members. They are so intent on attacking the boogy man, that they’ve forgotten the adage to hate the sin and love the sinner. (Sending mixed and unintended messages happened in the late 80s, early 90s with out-of-wedlock births–the church ended up making videos and commercials which basically said “kids suck and ruin your life”.)
Carla:
Disagree completely.
Everyone agrees that there’s nothing wrong or harmful about it.
Addiction to gay sex is deadly and harms you spiritually and physically. Of course the world view is that is doesn’t but the prophets, scriptures, and common sense tells you that it is.
Joe has it right. I found some interesting reading on homosexuality.
Lies and truth about homosexuality. It appears to be protestant but is very close to the LDS leadership view on the gay issue.
http://www.porn-free.org/homosexual_truth_lies.htm#15
Blacks don’t have a testimony of their own or indoctrination drummed into them from childhood that the KKK is the truth
Many gays do have testimonies, so it becomes an agonizing experience of conflict between what they experience about the church teachings and what they experience about themselves.
When that tension becomes unbearable, it’s best, perhaps, to know of other ways of looking at Restoration teachings that can lessen the tension and, hopefully, lead to greater truth as well.
ADDICTION TO GAY SEX: DEADLY.
Yes, addiction is destructive and can be deadly, as can bullying. For gay people, both are worsened and precipitated by religious teachings that conflict with their lived and inner experience.
If we are asking what we want the church to do, I would ask that church leaders re-examine the church’s position on human sexuality and gender. Medical and social science has come a long way in the past 30 years on the topic.
If church members and leaders can accommodate modern scientific understandings concerning creation and evolution, I believe they can adjust their word view to a modern understanding of human sexuality. There is no reason in the 21st century that the LDS church should continue to condemn and exclude gays, lesbians and transgendered members.
LGBT people were effectively written out of the Plan of Salvation (now, Plan of Happiness) when the doctrines of the church developed, simply because they were not understood by early church leaders.
76: I thought I’d just post the quotes from the JoD referenced up in post 76.
Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, p. 269:
(Remarks by President Brigham Young, in the Bowery, in G.S.L. City, August
19, 1866)
It is the word of the Lord, and I wish to say to you, and all the world,
that if you desire with all your hearts to obtain the blessings which
Abraham obtained, you will be polygamists at lest in your faith, or you
will come short of enjoying the salvation and the glory which Abraham has
obtained. This is as true as that God lives. You who wish that there
were no such thing in existence, if you have in your hearts to say: “We
will pass along in the Church without obeying or submitting to it in our
faith or believing this order, because, for aught that we know, this
community may be broken up yet, and we may have lucrative offices offered
to us; we will not, therefore, be polygamists lest we should fail in
obtaining some earthly honor, character and office, etc,” — the man that
has that in his heart, and will continue to persist in pursuing that
policy, will come short of dwelling in the presence of the Father and the
Son, in celestial glory. The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of
God, are those who enter into polygamy. Others attain unto a glory and
may even be permitted to come into the presence of the Father and the Son;
but they cannot reign as kings in glory, because they had blessings
offered unto them, and they refused to accept them.
Journal of Discourses, Vol. 20, p. 28:
(Delivered in the Tabernacle, Salt Lake City, Sunday morning, July 7,
1878.)
Some people have supposed that the doctrine of plural marriage was a sort
of superfluity, or non-essential, to the salvation or exaltation of
mankind. In other words, some of the Saints have said, and believe, that
a man with one wife, sealed to him by the authority of the Priesthood for
time and eternity, will receive an exaltation as great and glorious, if he
is faithful, as he possibly could with more than one. I want here to
enter my solemn protest against this idea, for I know it is false. There
is no blesssing promised except upon conditions, and no blessing can be
obtained by mankind except by faithful compliance with the conditions, or
law, upon which the same is promised. The marriage of one woman to a man
for time and eternity by the sealing power, according to the will of God,
is a fulfillment of the celestial law of marriage in part — and is good
so far as it goes-and so far as a man abides these conditions of the law,
he will receive his reward therefor, and this reward, or blessing, he
could not obtain on any other grounds or conditions. But this is only the
beginning of the law, not the whole of it. Therefore, whoever has
imagined that he could obtain the fullness of the blessings pertaining to
this celestial law, by complying with only a portion of its conditions,
has deceived himself. He cannot do it.
Journal of Discourses, Vol. 16, p. 166;
This doctrine of baptism for the dead is a great doctrine, one of the
most glorious doctrines that was ever revealed to the human family; and
there are light, power, glory, honor and immortality in it. After this
doctrine was received, Joseph received a revelation on celestial marriage.
You will recollect, brethren and sisters, that it was in July, 1843, that
he received this revelation concerning celestial marriage. This doctrine
was explained and many received it as far as they could understand it.
Some apostatized on account of it; but others did not, and received it in
their faith. This, also, is a great and noble doctrine. I have not time to
give you many items upon the subject, but there are a few hints that I can
throw in here that perhaps may be interesting. As far as this pertains to
our natural lives here, there are some who say it is very hard. They say,
“This is rather a hard business; I don’t like my husband to take a
plurality of wives in the flesh.” Just a few words upon this. We would
believe this doctrine entirely different from what it is presented to us,
if we could do so. If we could make every man upon the earth get him a
wife, live righteously and serve God, we would not be under the necessity,
perhaps, of taking more than one wife. But they will not do this; the
people of God, therefore, have been commanded to take more wives. The
women are entitled to salvation if they live according to the word that is
given to them; and if their husbands are good men, and they are obedient
to them, they are entitled to certain blessings, and they will have the
privilege of receiving certain blessings that they cannot receive unless
they are sealed to men who will be exalted. Now, where a man in this
Church says, “I don’t want but one wife, I will live my religion with
one,” he will perhaps be saved in the celestial kingdom; but when he gets
there he will not find himself in possession of any wife at all. He has
had a talent that he has hid up. He will come forward and say, “Here is
that which thou gavest me, I have not wasted it, and here is the one
talent,” and he will not enjoy it, but it will be taken and given to those
who have improved the talents they received, and he will find himself
without any wife, and he will remain single for ever and ever. But if the
woman is determined not to enter into a plural marriage, that woman when
she comes forth will have the privilege of living in single blessedness
through all eternity. Well, that is very good, a very nice place to be a
minister to the wants of others. I recollect a sister conversing with
Joseph Smith on this subject. She told him:”Now, don’t talk to me; when I
get into the celestial kingdom, if I ever do get there, I shall request
the privilege of being a ministering angel; that is the labor that I wish
to perform. I don’t want any companion in that world; and if the Lord will
make me a ministering angel, it is all I want.” Joseph said, “Sister, you
talk very foolishly, you do not know what you will want.” He then said to
me: “Here, brother Brigham, you seal this lady to me.” I sealed her to
him. This was my own sister according to the flesh. Now, sisters, do not
say, “I do not want a husband when I get up in the resurrection.” You do
not know what you will want. I tell this so that you can get the idea. If
in the resurrection you really want to be single and alone, and live so
forever and ever, and be made servants, while others receive the highest
order of intelligence and are bringing worlds into existence, you can have
the privilege. They who will be exalted cannot perform all the labor, they
must have servants and you can be servants to them.
Forgot to include that the second quote above comes from Elder Joseph F. Smith, the third one from Brigham Young.
LGBT people were effectively written out of the Plan of Salvation (now, Plan of Happiness) when the doctrines of the church developed, simply because they were not understood by early church leaders.
This is not true per the First Presidency. They have stated that same sex attraction was not present in the pre-existence and will not be present after this life. Members with same sex attraction are asked to keep the commandments just like any member who is not married. If members with SSA keep the commandmentments in this life and do not hearken to the voices of this world, no blessing will be denied them in the life to come.
“If members with SSA keep the commandmentments in this life and do not hearken to the voices of this world, no blessing will be denied them in the life to come.”
Does “not hearkening to the voices of this world” also pertain to the quotes above about polygamy? The quotes I posted would seem to indicate non-polygamists will have lots of blessings denied them in the life to come.
You know what I mean by voices of this world.
Be in the world but not of the world.
If the LDS people give into societal whims, they become like anyone else and will cease to be a peculiar people.
Mark N
Bottom this is probably not an easy thing to deal with. Everybody on this planet has some kind of demon they are wrestling with. May we be a little more kinder and patient than usual.
Jon,
somehow, I suspect there’s a way for LDS people to distinguish themselves from everyone else other than by being rather unpleasant self-righteous prudes.
Hi, Jon. I’m just pointing out that, if the early historical quotes really are correct, then we would all seem to be in a bit of salvational jeopardy not of our choosing.
#84, Steven B,
“LGBT people were effectively written out of the Plan of Salvation (now, Plan of Happiness) when the doctrines of the church developed, simply because they were not understood by early church leaders.”
When exactly was that and where can I read that? Which book of scripture is that in?
Andrew,
“somehow, I suspect there’s a way for LDS people to distinguish themselves from everyone else other than by being rather unpleasant self-righteous prudes.”
Andrew, Really?
Jeff,
do you think the only way for LDS people to be unlike “the world” is to be like Jon Miranda?
Andrew,
Most LDS people are not as strident in their thinking and not that prudish. After all, look at all the kids we have.
And I have not found them to be a cruel and inhuman as they are portrayed.
that’s why I’m addressing Jon in particular, who seems to believe that “If the LDS people give into societal whims, they become like anyone else and will cease to be a peculiar people.”
also, prude doesn’t have to only refer to the heteronormative sense.
Ok, I agree with you on that count.
Next thing you’ll tell me is a prude is a dried plum
you’re raisin’ a really good point on the dried fruit front.
I’m grapeful for that comment.
Now now now. No attacking people.
Everything I have posted is in line with church doctrine.
no attack implied.
unless you dislike being unpleasant, self-righteous, or a prude.
but if that’s the case, then I guess you’re going to have a problem being peculiar…
@Jon Miranda – you can’t “disagree” on facts. It’s not an opinion. It’s a fact. Being gay doesn’t hurt anybody. Gay sex doesn’t hurt anybody. Gay people aren’t addicted to gay sex anymore than I am addicted to straight sex. Gay sex is not an addiction; it’s love.
@ Joe #79 – huge difference. Black people aren’t born and raised in the KKK and indoctrinated that they’re evil for something they can’t help. There are however millions of LGBT kids being raised in the LDS church and indoctrinated to believe that they’re evil for something they can’t change and which, like ethnicity, is not inherently good or evil either.
You’re portraying it like all these gay people are banging on the temple doors to be let into the LDS church, when in reality we’re talking about people who are LDS AND GAY, and who want to maintain their faith and their heritage AND live their SO/GI openly without being treated like the devil incarnate. They’re already part of the organization, they’re not outsiders, so they do have a right to have a say in this matter.
Carla:
You talk about gax sex as though it’s wholesome when gay sex is, by definition, unwholesome.
Carla, #105
“There are however millions of LGBT kids being raised in the LDS church and indoctrinated to believe that they’re evil for something they can’t change and which, like ethnicity, is not inherently good or evil either.’
Millions, really? A few thousand, perhaps. But that is a very gross over exaggeration and does not take into account that there might also be those kids and who do not have an issue with their situation. You are only referring to those who do.
John Miranda- According to the church, gay sex is no more “unholy” than hetero sex between unmarried adults.
Alice,
“According to the church, gay sex is no more “unholy” than hetero sex between unmarried adults.’
Don’t think the Church said this. I think they said the consequences are the same between unmarried people. It is sin. and sin is sin.
Jeff- right, that wasn’t a direct quote, but if people get to use their interpretations of what church leaders have said in discussions like this, I get to use mine.
If the sin is the same, who are we to label one as more unholy than the other.
Carla, I support gay marriage so that gays and lesbians can live in faithful, defined monogamous relationships. Failing enactment of legal marriage, nobody is stopping gays and lesbians from living in long term monogamous relationships.
Second point: my KKK example was HUMOR. I was pointing out the absolute, utter, absurd, inanity of gays and lesbians desiring to be part of an organization that finds their actions reprehensible. But lets be honest, most don’t–they’re just trying to make trouble and you know it.
As I pointed out, the primary failure of the church is not providing guidance and comfort to the parents and siblings of gays and lesbians. A secondary failure is simply handling all sexual issues poorly.
Finally, the unspoken elephant in the corner is that heterosexual are expected to remain celibate until married, so why can’t homosexuals? Ah, but they can’t get married. Many heterosexuals never marry for various reasons–I know several–and they remain celibate. The fact is that most homosexuals have acted on their desires and are no more worthy than heterosexuals who commit fornication.
re 111,
Joe,
What do you mean by this? I’d say that most gays in this situation are in that situation because they were raised in the church, and when everyone else was discovering Something Different (TM) about the opposite sex, these individuals happened to discover something different about the same sex.
This realization does not preclude them from having testimonies and valuing their membership, so I don’t see how you can say that most gays “don’t [desire to be part of an organization that finds their actions reprehensible.]”
Actually, this is often addressed. There are several issues. Heterosexuals always have marriage to look forward as a possibility (consider: would it change your viewpoint if you could reasonably expect the possibility of something in the future…even if you didn’t have that thing now?), where as homosexuals don’t. They are led to believe that their desires for companionship can never and must never be fulfilled.
Secondly, heterosexuals are expected to remain celibate until marriage. But the church certainly does not preclude any and every display of affection. Celibate, unmarried heterosexual couples may still hug, kiss, hold hands, etc., and no one bats an eye.
But not so for gays. They are expected, alternatively, to show no sort of affection whatsoever; it will not be tolerated.
So, the situation is very different here…there’s this double standard. Heterosexuals at every point have options to channel their desires (before marriage, through chaste dating…and of course, marriage itself is the main option to channel those desires in an appropriate way.) Homosexuals at no point have such options.
So, given such a draconian and limiting situation, don’t color me surprised to find out that some people will “act on their desires.” Considering that anything they could possibly do is acting on their desires (and is seen as sinful), it’s not a surprise that people go all-out.
@ Joe – well as you’ve already pointed out, the LDS church handles all sexual issues poorly, so why play by such stupid rules as “just be celibate”? As if that’s easy?! For some people it may be, obviously everybody’s sexuality is unique, but many find the idea of a celibate life (without even the option of dating, hugging, kissing a person you’re attracted to) a living hell.
If the KKK reference was a just a joke, why are you defending its logical premise? Whether or not you find it funny, you obviously also think it’s true. And as I and others have already stated, it’s just not. No, LGBT people who call the LDS church on their homophobic bs are not just trying to cause trouble. They’re trying to be advocates for the countless children who are being brainwashed into believing who they are is evil. They’re trying to let them know they’re not evil, and that they’re not alone, that they don’t have to put up with this bigoted abuse, they can take a stand against their bigoted leaders.
@ Andrew S – ditto.
I’ve been going over the transcript of BKP’s talk. Precisely WHAT could be reasonably construed as being “hateful” or “bigoted”?
It’s a revolting development when one of the higher ups in ANY Church can be vilified for stating what so many of his predecessors have repeatedly stated regarding the PRACTICE of homosexuality. His talk was a call to repentance from immorality. How many of us have needed to heed it!
I keep hearing about how the Church’s stance on homosexuality is driving “gay LDS teens” to kill themselves. Oh puleezz….if ANYONE that has reached young adulthood is of a mind to pull the plug on their precious life, with so much to live for, then it that troubled soul that has the problem, and if he/she takes his own life rather than face his issue(s), then he ALONE bears the responsibility for it. It’s much like the Rutgers freshman that, as Limbaugh would put it, caused himself to “assume room temperature” after his roomate and roomie’s g/f cruelly invaded his privacy and “outed” him. OK, what those two cretins did was worthy of expulsion from the University AND likely will result in charges (well deserved, being gay is no pretext to being a target for bullies)…BUT…this was a MAN…yes, a young, very naive, and foolish young man, but still a MAN. If his reaction to the embarrassment and discomfort of his sexual proclivities being revealed is, rather than fight back and defend himself, to end it all…well, with all due respect to his family who w/o doubt suffer greatly over his loss, the late young Rutgers freshman will have not left this world any lesser.
As “Mr. Wizard” from a well-enjoyed cartoon from my wee years said: “Be vhot you is…not vhot you is not…folks daht are demselves are de happiest lot!”
113 Carla,
I am cautioning you on the use of profanity in our Blog. It is not permitted. I changed your word to an acceptable form of the word you used. Please maintain your cool.
Carla, 115
“They’re trying to be advocates for the countless children who are being brainwashed into believing who they are is evil. They’re trying to let them know they’re not evil, and that they’re not alone, that they don’t have to put up with this bigoted abuse, they can take a stand against their bigoted leaders.”
This is so over the top as to be ridiculous. I am glad you changed “millions” to “countless” but that is still too many.
While there may be people in the church, like everywhere, who are not very compassionate and kind, many are and do not reflect the behavior you claim. The leadership has tried hard to counsel members to be kind and compassionate toward all people with challenges, which is just about all of us.
The fact that you do not see it the same way does not make people evil or bigoted.
Elder Packer raised the question of why God would create anyone other than Hetrosexuals. I think he was infering that God wouldn’t, but as he clearly does, (see the BYU professor of biologys talk), then they, in their homosexual state are God’s children, and who are we to say they can’t live in the way God created them to live because it offends our cultural views?
Then we have the circular argument that they should not be active sexually because they aren’t married (obvious solution encourage them to get married), but no we oppose them getting married.
I think there is a tendency for young people to be questioning and more liberal in their thinking, and that all this talk of saving the “rising generation” while remaining culturally conservative is also circular and self defeating.
In many countries this topic, like the right to an abortion, and the right to health care and education, are no longer political issues, all sides of politics and most sides of religion accept them.
Hopefully, as the Church becomes less Utah centered, and less conservative, we too can accept Gods will and get on with teaching and living the Gospel.
#117, Geoff,
You raise some excellent points about a circular argument. but this stems from the original premise that Homosexuality is not normal, not in-born in any way and totally controllable.
I think that premise has been debunked to some degree. Like anything else, it takes a while for everyone to get the message.
And, in the end, it is always not about what we are, but what we do.
Elder Packer’s reasoning only makes sense if (as I think is probable) he doesn’t accept biological evolution. For myself, I think there’s a lot more randomness in the universe than traditional Christian thinking would have it. From what I see of the way the world operates, God seems to have the universe on a very long leash. “Why would God do that to anyone?” Well, why would he inflict tapeworms on anyone? Things exist, because they can. Genes mutate, and are naturally selected for, or persist by piggybacking on other successful genetic traits.
As for the whole causation/choice issue with homosexuality, I’m with Jeff: In the end, it is always not about what we are, but what we do. Three points:
1. The decision to perform any consensual sexual act is, by definition, a choice.
2. There is no authoritative showing as to people’s sexual preferences. Most likely, sexual preference is (like virtually every other human trait) influenced by a combination of heredity, prenatal environment, and lifetime environmental influence. Of these three, only the last can be influenced by how we choose to structure our lives. How much does that matter? I don’t know. I won’t totally discount the possibility that a person could make contingent choices that increase the chances of his developing a stronger preference for some type of sexuality than another. Again, though, I doubt that we have, at present, any way of quantifying this.
3. Even if it were to be demonstrated that an inclination for a sexual preference were entirely outside a person’s control, that would say nothing about the underlying morality of acting on that preference. I can conceive of all kinds of innate tendencies that a person could fairly be required, as a matter of morality, to suppress.
I’m curious just what the moderators consider to be appropriate, because some of the moderator on Wheat and tares are the same ones who were on Mormon Matters and on a recent post about homosexuality allowed for some pretty coarse language. Now granted the poster was a male, so apparently if one is male its’ okay to be coarse in language, but if one is female it is not. Because I’ve had my comments deleted as well and oh, not only is that sexist, but BS
Please let’s not go here…
The W&T permas (and by extension, the MM permas) are not saying “if one is male it’s ok; if one is female it’s not”.
That’s all I really have to say here.
Thomas re 119
Personally, I’d go so far as believing God has designed reality to maximize possibilities of experience. I think he maximizes complexity to make life richer. That is not always the same as maximizing pleasure. And its not always the same as maximizing the richness of life for a single instance of an individual’s life.
But from that difference in theological world view, I really wonder whether we’re endowing gender with more rigidity to what God wants than he intends.
Are the moral laws to be followed conditioned on what He made us to begin with, so that innate differences show up in different means of righteousness?
When I read this discussion I find myself mentally substituting “left-handed” for “homosexual.” Handedness, like sexual orientation, has a biological basis. It has majority/minority distribution in all human populations. It isn’t very changeable, although social repression can cause some people to modify their behavior. It has over the years been the subject of religious and cultural prejudice.
In fact, the word “sinister” in English comes directly from the Latin word for “left.” Many faith traditions throughout history have seen left-handedness as a sign of Satanic influence. Until the last part of the twentieth century, left-handed school children were routinely punished for using their preferred hand for tasks like writing.
Nowadays, nobody spends time worrying whether genes or the environment in utero cause left-handedness. People wouldn’t take a discussion of parental influence over handedness seriously. Praying for change isn’t the route we advise for left-handed people who want to fit better into society. Instead, we made a *slight* accommodation as a society to include left-handed people: you can now buy left-handed scissors and cutlery. We didn’t “redefine the institution of sewing” by adding left-handed scissors; we just helped some people sew better.
Someday we’ll look back on discussions like this one and wonder what all the fuss was about, as we do today when we stretch our imaginations to think back on a world where being left-handed was Satanic.
re 117 “then they, in their homosexual state are God’s children, and who are we to say they can’t live in the way God created them to live because it offends our cultural views?”
Its actually more about overcoming the ‘natural man’ even if created homosexual. God also made heterosexual men capable and able to spread their seed amongst many women several times a day throughout their entire lifetime but now God orders now a different lifestyle.
And its not about offending our cultural views but about following Gods commandments and guidelines. Its God who first says that homosexual relations are incorrect and sinful.
All Black, are you from NZ?
The inference in your comment about the natural man is that we are asking no more from homosexuals than hetroes.
But we do encourage the hetroes to get married so they can express their affections, desires etc. in a good environment, whereas at present we are seeking to deny that to homosexuals.
“And its not about offending our cultural views but about following Gods commandments and guidelines. Its God who first says that homosexual relations are incorrect and sinful.”
Earlier in the discussion there have been comparisons between the Churchs attitude to homosexual relations and it prior attudes to Negroes and the p’hood, and inter racial marriages. I am not aware of Christ in the new testament condemning homosexuality (and sexual activity of all kinds were very public in his time, (visit Pompei for a sample) so he had the opportunity if it were important to him. That added to the fact that they are created this way, and he doesn’t interfere to prevent it, leads me to believe Christ does not have a problem with any of us living as we were intended, within our respective marriages.
As for those who have expressed disgust and offence with homosexual sex, i’m not aware that hetrosexuals can’t enjoy anything a homosexual can, with their hetrosexual partner.
So yes I believe the Churchs attitude to homosexuality is a result of the conservative culture of the leaders not anything to do with Gods will.
Obviously you are younger than I am to still believe a man can have sex several times a day throughout their lifetime. (irrelavent aside)
You weren’t referring to polygamy with your reference to the ability to spread your seed with multiple partners daily were you?
Otherwise I can’t imagine how you could arrange to have these willing women available.
#123 (MoHoHawaii)…been parting of the “Kauai Electric”, “Kona Gold”, or “Maui Wowee”?? That’s the only excuse I can see for your ridiculous analogy comparing homosexuality to left-handedness. Being a southpaw “all the way” (bat, throw, write), I enormously resent the comparison, especially being one of the last to be forced to write with my right hand in grammar school due to societal prejudice.
Whatever the cause of homosexual inclination (and the more I speculate, the more I get creeped out), it’s a question of ACTIONS (or refraining from same), no different than being “straight”. Geez-Louezz, the havoc I could wreak with available females were I comfortable with breaking marriage, baptism, and priesthood vows. Yet they all far outweigh any self-gratification I could ever reap by carrying on like a rutting bull turned loose in the corral. We ALL face challenges and temptations. Some rely on the Savior and HIS grace to overcome their weaknesses (Ether 12:7). Others give in and soon realize that wickedness truly never is happiness (Alma 41:10) and go through the repentance process. Others kid themselves about the harm they do to their own souls, let alone others they affect, until their conscience is seared like with a hot iron (I Tim 4:2).
Each of us KNOWS in which category we can be placed, like it or not. I say this not in any sense of superiority, but rather knowing that I’m as in need of the Savior as anyone.
Mortality, why joyful in many cases, is also fraught with peril. The evil one is out and about convincing people it is okay to violate the Law of Chastity. This law is universal in nature because look at what happens when you break it. Broken societies, broken marriages, broken people. Homosexuality copulation is unsafe spiritually and physically.