Sociology of Knowledge & Religious Ideology vis-à-vis Homosexuality

[thesaint258]

First, let me say that what follows is not said with any venom or ill will. I appreciate the discourse, and I understand, completely, where you're coming from.

With that said, I think you're still in the LDS ideology. Your solution to the intersex problem relies on vindication in the afterlife, but does nothing to comfort those people in this life. LDS ideology works well for heterosexual people. It calls sinful all those who fall outside the norm. It cannot account for them, so it makes them an Other without any solution other than a promise of a better time in the eternities. Theologically, to an intersex person, that could (and probably does) feel almost like God does not love you as much as others, because the ordinances are denied to you for something that you 'know' is not a choice.

The consequences of that 'knowledge' in the homosexual Church member are pathological. They 'know' that they are sinful. They 'know' that others will reject them. They 'know' that their sexuality is forbidden. The pathology of these knowledges causes a lifetime of self-loathing and spiritual despair, leading, I would imagine, the vast majority to leave the Church. Current Church ideology presents the situation as welcoming them back, providing they remain chaste, repent, and only engage in heterosexual relations with their spouse.

We still don't know what causes someone to be homosexual. If it's genetic or environmental in the womb, then calling it a sin robs us of our agency.

The ideology currently denies that this is the case. We've seen the ideology change in the past about other things that were once considered immoral. This one, however, does not appear as simple to resolve given the other theological ramifications.

I've gotta go teach.

Don't worry, no offense taken. You might be right that I'm still in the LDS ideology, but I don't see that as a problem since I was responding more to this statement from your original post:

We have a conundrum. If we have agency, if we are children of our Heavenly Father--created in his image, and if we are created with temptations that make us feel flawed for life, how then can a just God expect us to obey all of the commandments and yet find happiness in this life? How does our ideology address the children born with ambiguous genitalia, with both sets of genitalia, and those who have ovaries inside but a penis and no vagina? We're reminded of Packer's famous now-redacted conference question of "Why would a loving God make them that way?" The consequences of this hole in our ideology, this unanswerable question in the face of the prophetic declaration that "gender is eternal," demonstrate an inconsistency, and therefore, we're left with an ideology that doesn't ultimately provide a logical answer to the knowledge that it lacks--and the consequences that stem from that absence of knowledge.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear. My point was that I don't think that there's a hole in LDS ideology. Whether or not people in general find comfort in the answer that things will be worked out in the next life, I can't say. I can say, however, that it provides me some comfort. It also provides some comfort to a friend of mine who divorced an abusive husband but remains sealed to him because of the Church's rules.

[jlwalden]

I am an active bisexual mormon. The way I see it is that God either made me the way I am or he created the situations and environmental factors that made me this way. I have known I was attracted to women since I was ten. I did not do anything wrong as a child and I do not believe the masturbation myth that it causes homosexual feelings as I did not do that as a child. I guess I just think that I will compromise with God in a way that makes my life liveable and as for the next life, well, if it is anything like going to church as the other members of my ward say, then it would pretty much be hell to me anyway.

[hopfrog]

My transvestite instincts began when I was five, and my first sexual reaction was to a boy -- I didn't understand what was going on in my pants whenever I was around him, just that it felt kinda good. I had to learn that was I was feeling was queer sexuality, and I learned that from oppression, from being a sissy and being tormented as a child by other kids and adults who mocked my effeminate nature. Then I had to learn to try and hide my natural feelings until I came out in my mid-twenties. I once had a guy in high school gym come up to me with a look of disgust on his face and say, "I know what you are," and I knew he meant that I was a sissy, but I was completely ignorant about what it meant to be gay. The only queers I knew were the chicken hawks who approached me in parks and at beaches, and I found them wretchedly perverse. If that was being gay, I didn't want to be it.

I was a virgin for almost a year after I came out, disliking physical contact with anyone. I celebrated being queer by wearing makeup and being the total queen, much of which was learned behavior that, but then when I got into punk everything became more extreme and exhibitionism was the goal. I wasn't happy unless society was nauseated by my existence. I became the total punk queer rebel.

I never planned on returning to church activity. I never wanted to regain my testimony. But after three visits with local missionaries I took their challenge and after they left I got on my knees and prayed, and that which I believe is God manifested himself like a flipping tidal wave. To deny that experience would make me a gutless hypocrite. To deny the overwhelming sense of truth I experience when reading the Book of Mormon would be senseless. Punk rock taught me the truth of Oscar Wilde's dictum: "Whatever is realized is right." I've grown weary of wanting answers to questions like "Why am I queer, did God make me this way, will I be gay for all Eternity?" I'll find out, or I won't. There is an eternal life once I cross the veil, or there isn't. In this life, I embrace everything I am. I cannot explain my Nature because I don't understand. I am that I am. Selah.

[wuapinmon]

Given the article shared yesterday, I suppose we could lay this same analysis over what "knowledge" that masturbation is a sin vs. "knowledge" that masturbation is not a sin does to our Church culture.

If one "knows" that masturbation is a sin and avoids it, then the Spirit draws near.

If one "knows" that masturbation is a sin and still commits it, then the Spirit departs, contrition is required, and self-loathing over the inability to resist a very powerful urge can set in.

If one "knows" that masturbation is not a sin and avoids it, one can marvel at one's self-control in the face of sexual urges.

If one "knows" that masturbation is not a sin and commits it, one gets pleasure and goes on with one's day or night.

There are consequences to each of these knowledges.

[Paperback Writer]

Given the article shared yesterday, I suppose we could lay this same analysis over what "knowledge" that masturbation is a sin vs. "knowledge" that masturbation is not a sin does to our Church culture.

If one "knows" that masturbation is a sin and avoids it, then the Spirit draws near.

If one "knows" that masturbation is a sin and still commits it, then the Spirit departs, contrition is required, and self-loathing over the inability to resist a very powerful urge can set in.

If one "knows" that masturbation is not a sin and avoids it, one can marvel at one's self-control in the face of sexual urges.

If one "knows" that masturbation is not a sin and commits it, one gets pleasure and goes on with one's day or night.

There are consequences to each of these knowledges.

Ah, but here's the kicker: If one "knows" that masturbation is not a sin and commits it, does the Spirit reside or depart? I don't know the answer as I still have good eyesight

But I think it's an interesting question. For instance, if one is taught that not washing one's hands before a meal is a sin does the spirit leave when one eats a meal with unwashed hands? It might if one is made to feel guilty enough. Or more correctly, one might feel unworthy of the spirit so its affects are negated even though it may still reside.

[wuapinmon]

Ah, but here's the kicker: If one "knows" that masturbation is not a sin and commits it, does the Spirit reside or depart? I don't know the answer as I still have good eyesight

Well, that's unknowable. Does it leave when people have sex? Trent Reznor "knows" that it doesn't. What about married people? Is sex a spiritual experience?

But I think it's an interesting question. For instance, if one is taught that not washing one's hands before a meal is a sin does the spirit leave when one eats a meal with unwashed hands? It might if one is made to feel guilty enough. Or more correctly, one might feel unworthy of the spirit so its affects are negated even though it may still reside.

A keen insight. Unworthy feelings that drag us down I believe are at the heart of what the recent article about masturbation not being a sin is trying to address.

[Paperback Writer]

A keen insight. Unworthy feelings that drag us down I believe are at the heart of what the recent article about masturbation not being a sin is trying to address.

It reminds me of an experience on my mission. We were meeting weekly with a Methodist pastor. Not really teaching, more like ecumenical relations. We set ground rules where we agreed not to Bible bash. We would teach a point of doctrine from an LDS perspective and he would teach a point of doctrine from an evangelical perspective. One week he apologized for being unprepared and decided to show us an evangelical TV program that was just starting on a cabel channel. This was the early 1980s when the evangelical media and political movement seemed to be getting started since I was not aware of it pre-mission. Anyway, the speaker was James Dobson (I don't think he was as well known then) and he was speaking on family matters and teen sexuality. Dobson point blank stated that he didn't think masturbation was a sin for adolescents. And the weird part was that I felt that confirmed through the Spirit. Granted, it was confusing to me but I was probably more in tune then than I've ever been. The pastor apologized becasue he didn't expect the sermon to be that detailed. But I was left thinking LDS should hear something similar in GC but probably never would.

[taekwondave]

I'd hoped that this thread would've sparked more conversation.

I like what you wrote in this thread. I'm a little unfamiliar with some of your verbiage. Perhaps you're getting that from the book you were reading, but I feel totally in over my head on this one. I think I get all that you're saying, but I wouldn't really know where to start in response.

But anything that suggests that church is a little off on this issue is okay by me

[wuapinmon]

I like what you wrote in this thread. I'm a little unfamiliar with some of your verbiage. Perhaps you're getting that from the book you were reading, but I feel totally in over my head on this one. I think I get all that you're saying, but I wouldn't really know where to start in response.

But anything that suggests that church is a little off on this issue is okay by me

There's some jargon, but if you think about or look up each word, you can understand what I wrote. In any response, start with your initial impression, and then see what comes. I don't want to suggest that the Church is a little off. There's a gaping hole in the theology right now that is largely ignored because things that rub up against it are infrequent. However, statistically, with every year, more and more of these people are born into/baptized into our church, and at some point, there will need to be an attempt to address the intersex/ambiguous genitalia membership's spiritual needs as sexual beings.

[wuapinmon]

So, many of my facebook friends, and some family members, all LDS, are really reacting negatively to this story about the transgendered man (who feels s/he is a woman) who uses a women's locker room at Evergreen State Univ in Washington.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...g-himself.html

S/he is pre-operative and displays male genitalia. The locker room is used by children as young as six due to swim team practice at a pool on campus. Parents have complained that this biological man has been exposing 'himself' to their children by changing in the locker room. Washington state law prevents discrimination due to gender identity. As I've expressed earlier in this thread, this is a complex question with no simple solution.

On the one hand, I'm not sure that a six year old should see an adult penis on display, even if in an innocuous setting like a locker room. Yet, my son and I change together in the locker room at the YMCA and he's fine. There is zero indication that this person is even remotely exposing themself (donuthole, I'm using that pronoun purposefully) for any kind of sexual gratification. From the transgendered people I've known, and in academia that has been more than I can remember, they are almost always shy and wear an excess of clothing (even in sweltering New Orleans) due to crazily negative body image issues (maybe OhioBlue could speak to that idea a little more).

I don't see this as being an exhibitionism issue. Is it more like people seeing someone breastfeeding for the first time and feeling uncomfortable at the revealing of what is customarily not revealed? Or is there something completely different about seeing the reproductive organs, even if not being used? I'm going to assume that s/he was not erect when these incidents occurred. That's a different conversation, especially at his age. Sure, we could ask him to change somewhere more private, but that's against state law. We allow female reporters into male locker rooms after games. Do we need a third locker room for cases such as this? Many locations have handicapped locker rooms so that the disabled don't become a spectacle. We also might have to consider that s/he might feel genuine shame at exposing themself in front of men if s/he considers themself to be a woman.

As people feel more and more comfortable about outing themselves as transgendered, this will become more commonplace. It seems that the concerns of parents are not unfounded, but perhaps also stem from a feeling of fear of the unknown. I'm not going to be thrilled about a grown man changing in front of Marley, but a transgendered grown man who feels that s/he is a woman is a different creature from a heterosexual grown man in a girls locker room.

[wuapinmon]

People have called this situation "inappropriate." While that's a subjective word, I think we can all agree that most people don't want naked adults in the room with naked children, regardless of their gender or sex. If it's inappropriate or not, I can't say, but I can say that I feel like it's not appropriate to be naked around children (even your own for the most part). But, this is a college locker room, and in my mind, the college student has more right to be there than the swim team kids. The YMCA here in Hartsville, SC has Girls and Boys locker rooms in addition to Men and Women rooms. I like that. It keeps the kids from stealing shit, and inappropriate situations, even the whisper of impropriety, can be more easily avoided. Children are forbidden from the adult locker rooms.

Anyway, I think the fearful reaction to this is wrong. A kinder gentler response to everyone's concerns is the adult thing to do, not rail against political correctness. Pray you never have someone in your family who suffers from something like this because it is an awful existence in our culture.

This takes us back, again, to the question of human dignity for the intersexed. The most logical reaction might be to simply ask the (wo)man if she'll change in a stall, or as those of us who read the damned article know, they just put up a privacy screen so that those who didn't feel comfortable changing in front of others could do so, since I'm guessing that there aren't stalls. Human dignity is respected and people's privacy is respected. This isn't a case of the (wo)man bringing this to the press; it's the indignant parents.

Finally, I read where someone called this 'horrific." I've seen 'horrific' in my lifetime. That use of the word doesn't really pass muster. Penn State's locker room was horrific. This, this is just a flaccid penis, hardly worthy of an adjective.

The intersex population is vast, lots of comely people with both sets of genitals. How does one marry someone only to find out on the wedding night that you might cross swords with your wife's penis? Ahhhh, life's rich pageant.

[wuapinmon]

Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome results in someone being born an XY male, but who has a vagina, and develops pubic hair, breasts (capable of breastfeeding), and a fully-functioning clitoris. They often only discover their condition in their late teens to early 20's because they do not ever menstruate and get checked out, or because their undescended testicles cause an inguinal hernia and require surgery.

These people are raised as women, feel like they are women (with rare exceptions), but biologically, they are phenotypically-female males.

So, assume one is LDS. Do we ordain them to the priesthood due to the Proclamation on the Family and make them marry a woman? Do we allow them to marry a man? How do we square that with the idea that we have of how they will resurrect?

There are any other number of equally odd sexual disorders involving chromosomal sex differing from phenotypic sex. Until our ideology and theology can square these people with the Gospel, then questions about transgendered people, homosexual behavior, and transsexualism will remain unanswered because these are physiological issues beyond the control of anyone and about which there can be no argument that it's a choice.

[wuapinmon]

I guess my argument is so overwhelming that no one can contradict my ideas.

[DrumNFeather]

I guess my argument is so overwhelming that no one can contradict my ideas.

I just figured you were enjoying having the conversation with yourself...

[Jeff Lebowski]

I guess my argument is so overwhelming that no one can contradict my ideas.

Either that or nobody cares.