Today, in the context of sexual orientation and human rights controversies, the Church issued the following statements:
… We join our voice with others in unreserved condemnation of acts of cruelty or attempts to belittle or mock any group or individual that is different – whether those differences arise from race, religion, mental challenges, social status, sexual orientation or for any other reason. …
God’s universal fatherhood and love charges each of us with an innate and reverent acknowledgement of our shared human dignity. We are to love one another. We are to treat each other with respect as brothers and sisters and fellow children of God, no matter how much we may differ from one another. …
My job as an LDS blogger is NOT to make official pronouncements for the Latter-day Saints. I am merely one voice among millions. My background, however, is a little unique, even if not by a lot.
I have taught a college course about the psychological & biological science of sexual orientation. I have been a colleague and friend to many professors and scientists in the gay/lesbian/bisexual (GLB) community for many decades. Further, I have been a member of several LDS wards with members (in good standing with the Church) who were relatively open about their same-sex orientation. Of such individuals, I have seldom met a more impressive group.
The LDS concept of agency indicates that individuals must ultimately determine for themselves how they ought to behave. The human genetic endowment + choice insures the staying power of diversity. Thus, we had better learn to get along with others who are different from ourselves.
All people sin, but the LDS obligation to others never changes. Our obligation to individuals is to love and forgive. Love and forgiveness is NOT exemplified by derogatory comments, insults, condemnations, declarations of superiority, stigmatizing, marginalizing, bashing, or EVEN repudiating.
Consequently, I sometimes get upset at the hate-filled speech that is sometimes found in the Bloggernacle.
Consider the following: Just as a parent of a homosexual child loves that child, so does our Father-in-Heaven, even infinitely more so. Unconditional love overwhelms any thought of hate.
Homosexual people, like all people, make good citizens, good parents, good friends, and faithful companions. To those who think otherwise, then I suggest an antidote: dispense with the stereotypes and interact with the GLB community. Love them; forgive them; and make them a full part of humanity.
The process of change is most effectively provoked by the positive components of the gospel, not by misled condemnations. As faith builds, repentance naturally follows on its own without coercion or oppression. Individuals can only make responsible choices when given a deeper understanding of potential blessings (an enhancement of well-being) that are currently being missed. Individuals cannot be forced to change; they must decide on their own.
Practices that lead to the long-term suffering of individuals are immoral. Prejudice, hatred, and discrimination have NO place.
To those wanting academic documentation for some of my claims, I recommend the following articles as a starting place:
Crowl, A., Ahn, S., & Baker, J. (2008). A meta-analysis of developmental outcomes for children of same-sex and heterosexual parents. Journal of GLBT Family Studies, 4, 385-407.
Patterson, C. J. (1992). Children of lesbian and gay parents. Child Development, 63, 1025–1042.
Stacey, J., & Biblarz, T. J. (2001). (How) Does sexual orientation of parents matter? American Sociological Review, 65, 159–183.
Tasker, F., & Patterson, C. J. (2007). Research on gay and lesbian parenting: Retrospect and prospect. Journal of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Family Issues, 3, 9–34.
Post Script" Individuals wishing to use this blog forum to bash the Church, LDS authorities, or members of the GLB community need to go elsewhere to vent. However, civil discussion is welcome.
Copyright © 2010 S.Faux (Email: foxgoku54 [at] gmail [d0t] c0m; URL: http://mormoninsights.blogspot.com). Readers may distribute this post for noncommercial purposes provided such distributing is of the entire post, including author's copyright and contact information. All other rights reserved.
Please feel free to give my blog site a "Blogged.com" rating and review by clicking here.
Support Mormon Insights by making a COMMENT.
32 comments:
I have a friend who I know lives with same sex attraction and yet has been remarkably faithful to this church. (Even was the Elder's quorum president of his ward.)
I take my hat off to such people. To struggle profoundly with what the Church so openly teaches against and to yet remain so faithful that local church leadership want you to serve in the highest capacity a single brother can serve is quite a statement.
Unlike me, people like this have really sacrificed every fiber of their being for this work.
Joseph:
As usual, you have the superior ability to identify essential issues.
If I don't post this anonymously, you'll delete it without even reading it. You may delete it anyway, but I'm going to try, again, to make this clear in the hope that some Mormon will actually listen.
Here is the problem: Interfering with the lives of gay people to the degree with which the church did on Proposition 8 is cruelty. Without the church's directive to its followers to donate tens of millions of dollars and untold man hours, Prop 8 would never have passed. Yes, I truly believe that. I know it.
As for "unreserved condemnation" and "attempts to belittle or mock": Where do you think the money came from to fund the most hateful, lie-filled attacks on us in the form of pro-Prop 8 TV ads, mailers, press releases, rallies (where we were called everything from child molesters to Nazis), and much more, right down to a last-minute Google "ad bomb"?
Without Mormon money -- and door-to-door canvassing, and phonebanking, and sign distribution, and endless posts on Mormon blogs that all said the same things (mostly blatant lies lifted from the "Six Consequences" propaganda) -- Prop 8 would not have stood a chance, and our rights (civil rights) would be intact.
That is not "love." It is not "respect." It is not "reverent acknowledgment of our shared human dignity."
We non-Mormon LGBTs do not otherwise care what Mormons believe, or what you practice, as long as you do not impose your religion on us. Proposition 8, and every other anti-gay campaign in which the Mormon church has been involved, does exactly that.
Believe me: If the Mormon church had refrained from involving itself in secular politics -- to "amingle religious influence with civil government" (D&C 134:9) -- the only gays causing you any problems today would be those within your own church.
I saw an AP news article today headlined "LDS Church condemns bullying of gay community," and another titled "Mormon church says cruelty toward gays is wrong."
Until the church understands that what it has done to us -- and not just in California, but since 1998 -- is bullying and cruelty, there will be no agreement to stay out of one another's business. Ever.
It didn't have to be this way. Gay people did not suddenly decide to wage war on a church that had no bearing on our lives -- the Mormon church decided to wage war on us.
What are we supposed to do? Jump over the net, shake hands, offer a cheery "Good game!" and forget all about it? That's not going to happen, and no number of non-apologies from the church is going to change that.
It didn't have to be this way. It really didn't.
I am curious where you stand on the topic of same-sex "marriage"?
Anonymous (statement directly above):
Thanks for your honest statement. Obviously, I do not agree with all your conclusions, but I went out of my way to get your comment to stay posted.
You indicate that forgiveness cannot be part of your behavioral repertoire. As for me, such behavior will be necessary for progress.
Alicia:
I think how one stands on the issue of marriage is irrelevant to my post. All Latter-day Saints have a strong obligation to treat people, regardless of sexual orientation, with IMMENSE respect.
Several decades ago, a physician colleague of mine at Harvard Medical School allowed a gay couple to live in the upstairs of her Boston condo because no one else would allow the couple to rent. My colleague, a female, had experienced some of the sting of discrimination in a Midwest medical school as a med-student, and she was determined to do her small part to end such behavior. I am glad we have made some social & legal progress on this issue, making such acts of compassion less necessary.
While I am still curious as to your personal opinion on the issue of same-sex "marriage", I understand that what you choose to disclose or share is completely up to you.
Thank you for your blog, I find it quite interesting.
Alicia:
Personal views aside, I will make a political forecast. Except for a few states in the west, I suspect that same-sex marriage will be legalized nationwide within the next 25 years. While some will see great harm in this outcome, I think the nation will keep on ticking -- if other issues do not kill us first.
Naturally, I could be wrong.
Your description of the nation "ticking" along puts me in mind of a certain type of explosive device. Sometimes I do feel that we're sitting on a time bomb.
Alicia:
No, I am just an old fellow. I am thinking of the old Timex watches that take a licking and keep on ticking. The United States is a robust nation.
I don't often agree with Glenn Beck, but I agree with him here: O’REILLY: Do you believe — do you believe that gay marriage is a threat to the country in any way?
BECK: A threat to the country?
O’REILLY: Yeah, it going to harm the country?
BECK: No, I don’t. Will the gays come and get us?
O’REILLY: OK. Is it going to harm the country in any way?
BECK: I believe — I believe what Thomas Jefferson said. If it neither breaks my leg nor picks my pocket, what difference is it to me?
O’REILLY: OK, so you don’t. That’s interesting. Because I don’t think a lot of people understand that about you.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2010/08/12/glenn-beck-sees-no-harm-in-gay-marriage/
DavidH:
Thanks for posting those Beck quotes. I had forgotten he had said those things.
SFaux,
I agree with your assertion that gay people deserve the same respect as anyone else, however I will respectfully oppose the normalization of the homosexual lifestyle to my dying days. "Why?" some may ask. "What are they doing to hurt you?" others will say. My answer is that this nation has a responsibility to be an ensign of righteousness to the nations of the earth. When this country accepts homosexuality as 'just another lifestyle' and accepts gay marriage on par with heterosexual marriage, THEN is this nation ripened for destruction. If anyone thinks otherwise, I suggest they pick up and read their BofM more often.
DaveC:
Thanks for responding. I am going to respond in an academic style.
Imagine if someone said, "I am opposed to the heterosexual lifestyle." Is there such a thing? Would that person be opposed to men and women making babies out of wedlock, or getting married and then getting divorced, or committing adultery, or would it be a stance against prostitution. There are just so many possibilities, and maybe NONE of them really apply.
I have the same problem with the phrase "homosexual lifestyle." It implies that the GLB community all live the same way and have the same problems. They do not.
I also struggle with your opposition to the term "normalizing." You are NOT suggesting, I assume, putting homosexuality back into the DSM!!
As a Latter-day Saint I accept the Church's standards on sexual practice. I am against promiscuity, etc. However, I am also against labeling people under categories that make them targets for cruelty or that diminish their capacity to be productive citizens.
The LDS and the GLB can learn from one another, but there needs to be a two way conversation based in mutual respect for individual agency.
"If anyone thinks otherwise, I suggest they pick up and read their BofM more often."
In all respect, where does the BofM even mention homosexuality or state that failure to stigmatize homosexuality leads to catastrophic consequences?
My thoughts on this topic are quite liberal and not exactly in harmony with church teachings. I'll leave it at that.
Well, Stan, we still love ya and still need ya... in the platonic sense, of course.
So, you're saying, with happy happy talk, that gays can change if they really really clap loud, uh wish hard? Sigh. You're part of the problem, in spite of your sweet talk.
Anonymous:
You are putting words in my mouth that I do NOT believe. Sexual orientation (of any type) is extremely resistant to change. Such is the lesson of science.
So, no, I do NOT think someone can start going to Church and change their sexual attractions.
But, yes, I am saying that the Church is a spiritual hospital wherein people can improve their lives. If that makes me part of the problem, then so be it.
SFaux,
Thanks for allowing us to share opinions on this topic.
Methinks that the response you've given is a classical intellectualized a sinful lifestyle, homosexuality (a lifestyle characterized by homosexual acts). In my hummble opinion, intellectualization gives way to rationalization and eventually acceptance of sin.
I don't think that homosexuality should be reinserted into the DSM, but at the same time I don't think that the APA should be actively promoting the homosexual lifestyle like they are currently doing. A few years ago the APA adopted a resolution stating that it was unethical for psychologists to teach or do research that puts homosexuality in an unfavorable light. (I have a copy of the resolution and will provide it to any skeptics out there). This means that as a psychologist I am supposed to let the APA decide this moral issue for me. Hogwash. No government, federal judge, academician, or professional organization should ever try to dictate what is morally acceptable. The voice of the people should decide, and when they choose wickedness, then are they ripening in destruction.
DavidH,
Homosexual acts are a sin, the same way other sexual relations outside of marriage are a sin. The BofM teaches that the people of this nation should serve God. When the greater part stop serving God and accept sinful sexual acts as being fine, okay, or just another lifestyle, then they are turning their backs to God and hastening the day of their destruction.
(supporting scriptures available upon request ;)
DaveC:
If intellectualization is the proactive search for the truth, then count me in. I am happy to be lumped in with the intellectuals.
Actually, I think Jesus was trying to teach us that we are ALL sinners and ALL belong to the same category. Thus, everyone could point fingers at everyone else and make accusations of egregious behavior. But, if we did so, how would that be forward progress? We need to point the fingers at ourselves.
The cure for sin comes by self-recognition. We attend the hospital called Church to learn positive principles for improving our lives. I fail to see the utility in carving out rather arbitrary social boundaries and then tattooing the selected inhabitants with big letters to indicate the class of their sins. Yes, I think of Hester Prynne when some speak their ills of the GLB community. Yet, all of us deserve scarlet letters.
Consequently, our Church should be an inviting place of reverence for all individuals, wherein one can contemplate, repent, revise, and employ. Labeling is counter to that process.
DaveC, just know I appreciate you, as I know you seek the truth just as much as I do, if not more so. In such seeking, civil debate is useful.
Homosexuality is something we all come in contact with (whether it be us, a family member, a friend, a coworker or an acquaintance). People believe what they want. I do not see any harm in a religion stating their beliefs. Everyone may not agree with the belief but that is ok. It is simply what the church believes and we all have a choice whether or not we want to believe. It really comes down to us each having an individual belief. In America there is the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion. After all, several men and women died to give us these rights. We need to exercise them freely but also remember to respect on another.
I think it would be helpful to have more clarity on what exactly is meant by gender being an eternal characteristic. Is this referring to gender identity, or to gender attraction, or to both?
Is same sex attraction an eternal characteristic or not? If it is, then we are mistaken in our beliefs. If it is not, then the reasons for not pursuing such a relationship ought to be framed in terms of what will happen to it when we die and the SSA no longer holds.
Just a few more thoughts, in case the conversation continues.
Matthew:
The compassion we should give to others in this life should NOT depend upon our speculations about the eternities.
"I think of Hester Prynne when some speak their ills of the GLB community. Yet, all of us deserve scarlet letters."
Hester ultimately triumph's because she willingly bears the scarlet letter as a symbol of her folly. In the end, it is she that is "true" (as Hawthorne pleads for his readers to be) because she doesn't conceal or white-wash the truth about herself.
This is apt counsel for every christian. It is also good counsel for gay activists -- those who cannot rest until science vindicates their orientation by establishing it upon a Darwinian premise.
That said, I certainly understand the intense need to trump cultural stigma with science. Would that such a need were rendered moot by a more charitable inclusion of our GLBT friends.
Jack
Jack:
I hope we Latter-day Saints truly believe our scriptures, such as: "...and he [the Lord] inviteth them all [the children of men] to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him" (2 Ne. 26:33). But, I worry instead that we violate the advice of Alma to his son: "Do not say: O God, I thank thee that we are better than our brethren; but rather say: O Lord, forgive my unworthiness, and remember my brethren in mercy" (Alma 38:14).
Didn't king Benjamin try to remind us that we are all beggars (Mosiah 4:19)?
Of the LDS, "it is required to forgive all men," and if we do not, then we have committed "the greater sin" (D&C 64:9-10).
So, imagine those of the GLB community who would want to come to Church but are frightened away by the language they read on the internet. To what extent will the sin be upon our heads?
S. Faux,
Did you read *all* of my comment? I am all for inclusion -- not exclusion. I am all for *everyone* being willing to bear their own "scarlet letter" -- and let mine be the biggest and brightest of all. And let it be attached to my head as well as my heart -- in an environment where none need fear rejection.
And just to further clarify, though I am not convinced that homosexual attraction is in-born (that attraction which goes beyond playful curiosity, I should say), I *do* believe that many who self identify as homosexual will not be able to get beyond that identity in this life time. Indeed, so powerful is their perceived sexual orientation that they may very well have some legitimacy in wondering why there should even be a need to get beyond it.
That said, I agree that it is the duty of every christian to strive to be inclusive and accepting even to the point where our hearts, like Enoch's, swell wide as eternity. But oh, how I wish that some of our GLBT brothers and sisters could understand that some of that swelling is the anguish of having to oppose them at the voting booth.
Jack
Jack:
I very much appreciate your comments. Thanks!
"The compassion we should give to others in this life should NOT depend upon our speculations about the eternities."
I totally and absolutely agree with this. I was musing from a purely theological standpoint about the difficulties that Mormon doctrine (if I may use the term) has with homosexuality.
Please forgive me if it seemed I was implying any kind of escape-clause from extending compassion and love to every one of God's children, as that was very much not my intent. Apologies for expressing myself poorly. :)
Matthew:
No need to apologize. I thank you for helping me think through these issues.
I've had many and still have Gay friends. Years ago, before I joined the church, I accepted them for what they believed. It is confusing though when one of those close friends decides to woo you a bit. Broke my heart at the time, but that's long past.
In the process of making sense out of all these same-sex, opposite sex attractions concepts, I've come to some personal conclusions. I really think we can make that choice at anytime in our lives. When we make it real young ie in the formative years, it is pretty difficult to see it as a choice when we grow into maturity. It can be dangerous to allow labels of gay orientations when children are in their formative years. I don't think labels should be given of being effeminate or masculine too quickly. Societies give different importance to what is masculine or what is feminine. I think we're all a mixture of both.
I'm thinking there is really no problem if same sex marriages are performed in churches which support that or by the Justice of Peace. As long as these marriages are not forced on churches which do not support same-sex marriage. I think this is the whole issue of not wanting the constitution to have an amendment of some sort supporting same-sex marriage. It may lead to dictating to churches how to practice their beliefs.
Whether science "proves" that same-sex attraction is inherited or not, people's faiths will remain the same. I hope our country never forces a person to change their faith. I do not support violence on either sides in this issue. I pray we can come to an understanding of each others' beliefs and faiths. I can understand someone else's beliefs without having to believe what that person believes. I would hope I am allowed to live my life as I choose.
I'm kind of late in posting this comment, but I think that it is somewhat hypocritical to be so worried about marriage now that cohabitation is almost a norm, and, in case they still get married, there's always a no-fault divorce.
Someone called today's lifestyle "omnigamy" and I can't but chuckle...
And, on the other hand, as far as I know, the Lord has not given us a new law of chastity, so the Church has an obligation, and definitely the right to exhort its members to take a stand.
"Anonymous #1" talks about the tens of millions of dollars that funded the worst kind of ads. How about the millions of dollars that paid for the anti-mormon ads (I'm less prone to exaggeration so let's leave the "tens" out of it)? The "No" side had their opportunity and supporters. Who knows how it would have gone without any public campaigning?
Post a Comment