The Daily Universe -- Defending Proposition 8

[The_Tick]

This is a terrible analogy. The problem isn't individual members of the church making homosexuals the butt of jokes; the problem is that the church explicitly teaches that homosexuality is an unnatural abomination, and that homosexuals must therefore repress their sexual urges for life or be damned. Furthermore, no matter what they do short of somehow finding someone of the opposite sex to marry (either through lying to their potential spouse about their orientation, or else finding someone who is just that desperate to be married, who would certainly be a catch), they can never reach the highest degree of glory and enjoy "eternal progression". In either scenario, they are doomed to misery in this life with no hope of reprieve and have very little chance of exaltation in the next.

I don't mean to discount the hatred and prejudice of any individual members, as it seems they have certainly made things even worse, but even without any of that, the church has done plenty to destroy the lives of Mormon homosexuals.

The racist history of the church pales in comparison to its homophobic present. There is simply no hope that the church will be able to update its doctrine on this matter as it so often has on other matters. This doctrine is way too foundational. Imagine how the church would be viewed today if it still practiced polygamy and was still officially racist. That's how the church will be viewed in a few decades because of its homophobia. It may end up even being its downfall.

You lose me here. Membership is optional...no one is being forced to be a member of the Church.

The Church says that acting on homosexual urges is against God's Law and asks them to abstain from it. It doesn't tell them they can't be gay anymore. It tells them they can't act on the urges.

There are many, many, many people that leave the Church because of things they are told they can't do.

The door swings both ways.

And I have mentioned before and will mention again...I have two gay Uncles and we have a few close family friends that are gay. They know our Churches stance and they don't agree with it. They also know that we love them dearly and cherish our time around them. The Church having its stance doesn't make me a hatemonger or a homophobe. I have to choose what I am, and that is a loving and compassionate friend. (And for the record...I firmly believe they were all born this way. Even though 1 of them has 2 children.)

[Moliere]

I'm sorry to keep beating this drum but this topic remains on my mind lately. Here is a quote I heard today that bothers me:

But I believe our greatest shame is going to be reserved for how we have treated our gay brothers and sisters because I don't think there is one black man who ever took his life over how we made him feel in not being able to hold priesthood in our church. Neither I nor any of my women friends have taken our lives over issues that were and are deeply important to us. Being not only marginalized but actively worked against.

However hundreds, and I do mean hundreds, of our best most beautiful LDS gay men, some women but mostly men, have taken their lives because we have made them feel so hopeless and so worthless. And when we get a real bead on that our shame will be enormous.

I have no idea where this quote comes from and although I agree with some of it, the part above I don't agree with. In fact, as I reread that part of the quote I find it strangely ignorant. I think we'll be ashamed of how we treated our gay members especially given the number of suicides among them. However, I'm not sure if that is as big of a shame as the demeaning attitude we've had in respect to women. We've marginalized them to some extent and thankfully that is reversing. This quote seems to marginalize the hopelessness and worthlessness that some women feel in this church even to this day.

But in this line, I do oftentimes wonder if living a whole life as a woman in a somewhat demeaning and abusive atmosphere is worse than a short life as a gay man whose physical feelings are constantly undermined by the church.

[Moliere]

This is a terrible analogy. The problem isn't individual members of the church making homosexuals the butt of jokes; the problem is that the church explicitly teaches that homosexuality is an unnatural abomination, and that homosexuals must therefore repress their sexual urges for life or be damned. Furthermore, no matter what they do short of somehow finding someone of the opposite sex to marry (either through lying to their potential spouse about their orientation, or else finding someone who is just that desperate to be married, who would certainly be a catch), they can never reach the highest degree of glory and enjoy "eternal progression". In either scenario, they are doomed to misery in this life with no hope of reprieve and have very little chance of exaltation in the next.

I realize you are not close to the church anymore and therefore you would not know that this is changing, slowly but surely. There are even apostles today who are convinced that SGA is not a choice. There continues to be unanimity in regards to acting on SGA being a sin, but there is not unanimity in regards to where that SGA comes from.

The other part of your diatribe has been discussed in other threads but suffice it to say that bishops no longer counsel people with SGA to get married or go through electroshock therapy to get cured. Did they do that in the past? Yes. Were they wrong? Yes, but so were a lot of people in the entire world who encouraged the same thing.

[Indy Coug]

The other part of your diatribe has been discussed in other threads but suffice it to say that bishops no longer counsel people with SGA to get married or go through electroshock therapy to get cured. Did they do that in the past? Yes. Were they wrong? Yes, but so were a lot of people in the entire world who encouraged the same thing.

Signed,

DSM III

[woot]

You lose me here. Membership is optional...no one is being forced to be a member of the Church.

The Church says that acting on homosexual urges is against God's Law and asks them to abstain from it. It doesn't tell them they can't be gay anymore. It tells them they can't act on the urges.

There are many, many, many people that leave the Church because of things they are told they can't do.

The door swings both ways.

And I have mentioned before and will mention again...I have two gay Uncles and we have a few close family friends that are gay. They know our Churches stance and they don't agree with it. They also know that we love them dearly and cherish our time around them. The Church having its stance doesn't make me a hatemonger or a homophobe. I have to choose what I am, and that is a loving and compassionate friend. (And for the record...I firmly believe they were all born this way. Even though 1 of them has 2 children.)

Yes, membership is optional. What happens, however, if someone really, truly believes in the doctrines of the church, and yet is gay? This is the problem. It is not any easier for a homosexual to simply choose not to be Mormon anymore than it is for you or anyone else who believes they have received a spiritual manifestation from god regarding the truthfulness of the church's teachings. I imagine that these are the types who have the hardest time and are made most miserable by the church's views on homosexuality. For them, the doctrines of the church are so ingrained as to be part of who they are. It therefore doesn't surprise me that some homosexual Mormons really believe that homosexuality is a sin. Having two very strong parts of one's identity so diametrically opposed would be very, very difficult.

I realize you are not close to the church anymore and therefore you would not know that this is changing, slowly but surely. There are even apostles today who are convinced that SGA is not a choice. There continues to be unanimity in regards to acting on SGA being a sin, but there is not unanimity in regards to where that SGA comes from.

The other part of your diatribe has been discussed in other threads but suffice it to say that bishops no longer counsel people with SGA to get married or go through electroshock therapy to get cured. Did they do that in the past? Yes. Were they wrong? Yes, but so were a lot of people in the entire world who encouraged the same thing.

I actually do follow it pretty closely, and did not mean to discount the steps the church has taken; I understand it probably came across that way, however. I do appreciate the growing awareness among the church leadership of gay-related issues, and expect that reform will continue. This progress cannot continue indefinitely, however, and it will never reach a morally respectable position unless the church discards some foundational doctrines. It will never be ok for homosexuals to have sex with the people they are most attracted to.

Furthermore, while the church's position has softened regarding homosexuality being a choice, they haven't given indication that homosexuality and heterosexuality are normal biological variations, leaving open the idea that homosexuality is a birth defect. It is not. Perhaps relatedly, they also haven't done enough to convince their membership that love is always preferred over hate, and they have certainly done nothing to discourage their members from attempting to push their morality onto others; quite the opposite, actually. The church is capable of taking steps in these areas without throwing out any doctrines, and I sincerely hope that they work on it.

[The_Tick]

Yes, membership is optional. What happens, however, if someone really, truly believes in the doctrines of the church, and yet is gay?

If they really truly believe the doctrine, then they are going to also have to understand why the Church (Lord) is asking them to deny what comes natural to them.

You are a Darwin guy...I am a human male, and I am wired to want to hump almost anything that moves right? The Church is asking me to "not do" what I desire to do.

I actually do follow it pretty closely, and did not mean to discount the steps the church has taken; I understand it probably came across that way, however. I do appreciate the growing awareness among the church leadership of gay-related issues, and expect that reform will continue. This progress cannot continue indefinitely, however, and it will never reach a morally respectable position unless the church discards some foundational doctrines. It will never be ok for homosexuals to have sex with the people they are most attracted to.

It wont reach a morally respectable position to you.

Furthermore, while the church's position has softened regarding homosexuality being a choice, they haven't given indication that homosexuality and heterosexuality are normal biological variations, leaving open the idea that homosexuality is a birth defect. It is not. Perhaps relatedly, they also haven't done enough to convince their membership that love is always preferred over hate, and they have certainly done nothing to discourage their members from attempting to push their morality onto others; quite the opposite, actually. The church is capable of taking steps in these areas without throwing out any doctrines, and I sincerely hope that they work on it.

The bolded part I will answer in two answers.

1. You are quite incorrect. The Church has done nothing but preach love. What you are asking the Church to teach is tolerance and acceptance. They aren't going to do that. But they have been teaching Love for about 2000 years.

2. Our Church pushes its morality on each member. It also pushes it on every single investigator. Morally we don't have pre-marital sex, and if you want to be a member you wont either. There we go pushing our sense of what is morally acceptable.

I will be the first to admit that you are probably way more booksmart that I am, and you are way more educated. This in some ways is intimidating.

But until the Church turns into what you want them to turn into you aren't going to be at peace with it.

And again for the record....I don't agree with the Church's involvement in Prop. 8, but I respect their right.

[woot]

If they really truly believe the doctrine, then they are going to also have to understand why the Church (Lord) is asking them to deny what comes natural to them.

You are a Darwin guy...I am a human male, and I am wired to want to hump almost anything that moves right? The Church is asking me to "not do" what I desire to do.




It wont reach a morally respectable position to you.



The bolded part I will answer in two answers.

1. You are quite incorrect. The Church has done nothing but preach love. What you are asking the Church to teach is tolerance and acceptance. They aren't going to do that. But they have been teaching Love for about 2000 years.

2. Our Church pushes its morality on each member. It also pushes it on every single investigator. Morally we don't have pre-marital sex, and if you want to be a member you wont either. There we go pushing our sense of what is morally acceptable.

I will be the first to admit that you are probably way more booksmart that I am, and you are way more educated. This in some ways is intimidating.

But until the Church turns into what you want them to turn into you aren't going to be at peace with it.

And again for the record....I don't agree with the Church's involvement in Prop. 8, but I respect their right.

There's a big difference between asking someone to wait until marriage to have sex (while encouraging them to get married quickly), and telling someone that they should never have sex as long as they live.

I recognize that the church teaches love, but it seems to me that they are not getting the message across. It is a big problem, and the church should do more to make sure that the members understand that hatred of homosexuals is wrong. I recognize it's probably a losing battle and no amount of instruction will fix the problem, but I'd like to see them do more. It's similar to how Mormons, on average, are obsessed with money despite Christ's teachings about the love of money, the call to give up everything, and idea that rich folks are unlikely to get to heaven, the church's early dabblings in socialism, its emphasis on staying out of debt, living frugally, etc. Sometimes, a membership of an organization takes on characteristics not advocated for by the organization itself. In these cases, the leadership would do well to moderate behaviors whether it is the direct source of them or not.

Of course the church teaches morality to its members. They also have a history of wanting to push their morality onto society at large. Prop 8 is a perfect example of this. Mormons working to take rights away from homosexuals through legislating morality is just as wrong as trying to take rights away from women would be, and just as wrong as trying to ban alcohol and cigarettes would be. Mormons don't drink because they think god doesn't want them to. Those who don't have such notions aren't immoral if they drink. The same applies to homosexuality and other areas of sexual behavior, and I wish the church leadership would realize that.

[The_Tick]

There's a big difference between asking someone to wait until marriage to have sex (while encouraging them to get married quickly), and telling someone that they should never have sex as long as they live.

I recognize that the church teaches love, but it seems to me that they are not getting the message across. It is a big problem, and the church should do more to make sure that the members understand that hatred of homosexuals is wrong. I recognize it's probably a losing battle and no amount of instruction will fix the problem, but I'd like to see them do more. It's similar to how Mormons, on average, are obsessed with money despite Christ's teachings about the love of money, the call to give up everything, and idea that rich folks are unlikely to get to heaven, the church's early dabblings in socialism, its emphasis on staying out of debt, living frugally, etc. Sometimes, a membership of an organization takes on characteristics not advocated for by the organization itself. In these cases, the leadership would do well to moderate behaviors whether it is the direct source of them or not.

Of course the church teaches morality to its members. They also have a history of wanting to push their morality onto society at large. Prop 8 is a perfect example of this. Mormons working to take rights away from homosexuals through legislating morality is just as wrong as trying to take rights away from women would be, and just as wrong as trying to ban alcohol and cigarettes would be. Mormons don't drink because they think god doesn't want them to. Those who don't have such notions aren't immoral if they drink. The same applies to homosexuality and other areas of sexual behavior, and I wish the church leadership would realize that.

Membership in the Church is optional. If you aren't comfortable then explore something else. You have...and look how happy you are?

The Church has a stated goal of wanting to consume humankind as a whole. It's goal is to convert everyone, so at some point it is going to try and get everyone to buy into its "moral code". That is the business model.

I wish more people in the Church were more loving and less judgemental of everyone. I also wish the same thing for the rest of the world...not just my Church.

[SoCalCoug]

Membership in the Church is optional. If you aren't comfortable then explore something else. You have...and look how happy you are?

Not if you don't want to be damned. Isn't that what we believe?

[Moliere]

Yes, membership is optional. What happens, however, if someone really, truly believes in the doctrines of the church, and yet is gay? This is the problem. It is not any easier for a homosexual to simply choose not to be Mormon anymore than it is for you or anyone else who believes they have received a spiritual manifestation from god regarding the truthfulness of the church's teachings. I imagine that these are the types who have the hardest time and are made most miserable by the church's views on homosexuality. For them, the doctrines of the church are so ingrained as to be part of who they are. It therefore doesn't surprise me that some homosexual Mormons really believe that homosexuality is a sin. Having two very strong parts of one's identity so diametrically opposed would be very, very difficult.

I agree with you here. Membership is optional but not as optional as some make it seem.

I actually do follow it pretty closely, and did not mean to discount the steps the church has taken; I understand it probably came across that way, however. I do appreciate the growing awareness among the church leadership of gay-related issues, and expect that reform will continue. This progress cannot continue indefinitely, however, and it will never reach a morally respectable position unless the church discards some foundational doctrines. It will never be ok for homosexuals to have sex with the people they are most attracted to.

Furthermore, while the church's position has softened regarding homosexuality being a choice, they haven't given indication that homosexuality and heterosexuality are normal biological variations, leaving open the idea that homosexuality is a birth defect. It is not. Perhaps relatedly, they also haven't done enough to convince their membership that love is always preferred over hate, and they have certainly done nothing to discourage their members from attempting to push their morality onto others; quite the opposite, actually. The church is capable of taking steps in these areas without throwing out any doctrines, and I sincerely hope that they work on it.

Maybe you do follow it closely, but I'd wonder how closely you can follow something without being a part of it. If you are following it on CB, CUF, and through blogs and press articles then I'd say that's not really following it closely. If you are attending meetings (SS, PH, GC, etc.) on top of followin those other items then you are following it closely.

I've attended my weekly meetings and have seen that for the most part this issue isn't even discussed. Which means that there is neither hate nor love being perpetuated by local leadership. The stuff that happened in California did not reach my ward or my stake. It was just not discussed at any level in meetings or outside of meetings. I realize this is not always the case, but it was the case in my corner of hte world.

As for the "normal biological variations" statement, I'd like to submit the following as evidence that the church is open to accepting SGA as a normal biological variation: http://mormonstories.org/?p=1158

Although not a GA, the presenter is a former MP, SP member, and definitely seems qualified to make this presentation. It was also given at BYU.

[creekster]

Furthermore, while the church's position has softened regarding homosexuality being a choice, they haven't given indication that homosexuality and heterosexuality are normal biological variations, leaving open the idea that homosexuality is a birth defect. It is not.

I think you are taking a non-theistic view of humanity and overlaying a believing view and you see irreconcilable tension. I think this tension will exist in many places, not just with respect to homosexuality. You contend that homosexuality is not a birth defect, and I would agree, at least in the march of dimes sense. But the unstated premise is that homosexuality and other non-heterosexual sexual desires, including those that are unambiguously illegal and improper in our modern western world view, are variations on the sexual impulse inherent in all living things and thus should be accepted equally. While that may have merit as a scientific principle, I do not accept it as a moral principle.

The church teaches that homosexuality and other sexual relations between anything/one other than married adults of opposite gender is sinful. If you accept God, and if you accept revelation and if you accept the premise of the church's existence, then at root you cannot avoid the conclusion that regardless of the source of the homosexual impulse, it is deemed sinful and so must be unfulfilled in order for the possessor to be seen as a member in good standing. This may cause pain and great difficulty for those with this impulse, but in the end is not that different from others who have otherwise natural impulses that must be suppressed or controlled. I would never suggest that anyone with such impulses, from whatever cause, be treated with anything less than the love and respect that all other persons should receive. But neither do I see a reason to attempt to bend or change doctrine on the basis that their pain is different than the pain of many who are required to moderate their behavior to abide by gospel principles. After all, some category of pain will always be the worst.

I do endorse the need to reaffirm the importance of treating everyone, including homosexuals, with respect and love and acceptance.

[woot]

I agree with you here. Membership is optional but not as optional as some make it seem.



Maybe you do follow it closely, but I'd wonder how closely you can follow something without being a part of it. If you are following it on CB, CUF, and through blogs and press articles then I'd say that's not really following it closely. If you are attending meetings (SS, PH, GC, etc.) on top of followin those other items then you are following it closely.

I've attended my weekly meetings and have seen that for the most part this issue isn't even discussed. Which means that there is neither hate nor love being perpetuated by local leadership. The stuff that happened in California did not reach my ward or my stake. It was just not discussed at any level in meetings or outside of meetings. I realize this is not always the case, but it was the case in my corner of hte world.

As for the "normal biological variations" statement, I'd like to submit the following as evidence that the church is open to accepting SGA as a normal biological variation: http://mormonstories.org/?p=1158

Although not a GA, the presenter is a former MP, SP member, and definitely seems qualified to make this presentation. It was also given at BYU.

That talk looks good, but I can't help but think he's at least slightly off the reservation. Have the brethren ever even referred to homosexuality as such? It seems they still like to use weasel phrases like "homosexual tendencies" or "same-sex attraction", making sure to not actually admit that the person is homosexual, only that the person has tendencies or feelings or attractions, again leaving open the impression that such attractions are a choice, or somehow temporary or perhaps curable. Whether the brethren believe those things or not, they're allowing their membership to do so, and seemingly in large numbers. It is true that I don't attend meetings, so perhaps this has changed in the last couple years.

Either way, that such a talk was given at BYU gives me hope that the church will officially adopt a position not too far from the one Dr. Bradshaw seems to be advocating.

[Moliere]

That talk looks good, but I can't help but think he's at least slightly off the reservation. Have the brethren ever even referred to homosexuality as such? It seems they still like to use weasel phrases like "homosexual tendencies" or "same-sex attraction", making sure to not actually admit that the person is homosexual, only that the person has tendencies or feelings or attractions, again leaving open the impression that such attractions are a choice, or somehow temporary or perhaps curable. Whether the brethren believe those things or not, they're allowing their membership to do so, and seemingly in large numbers. It is true that I don't attend meetings, so perhaps this has changed in the last couple years.

Either way, that such a talk was given at BYU gives me hope that the church will officially adopt a position not too far from the one Dr. Bradshaw seems to be advocating.

I listened to this talk on my way into work this morning and it was good, but I missed out on the visuals so I'll ahve to listen again. You make good points and I agree with you and I have definitely appreciated this exchange. I will say that I also feel the tide shifting adn I feel it from inside the church. I stated before that there is not a consensus among the apostles that being gay is a choice. I only know this from hearing it from someone who would probably know this. As with most things within the church the tide shifts at a slower than glacial pace, which is unfortunate but I have faith that it will shift for the better.

[The_Tick]

Not if you don't want to be damned. Isn't that what we believe?

That is probably the company line, but not one that I really buy into.

I think Mother Theresa and Billy Graham are probably much better than I am, and did more for people than I ever will. They both showed a Love for Christ and willingness to serve.

In my mind...if they aren't in a better place than me, then I probably don't belong there.

I do know that my view is probably in the minority though.

[Indy Coug]

That is probably the company line, but not one that I really buy into.

I think Mother Theresa and Billy Graham are probably much better than I am, and did more for people than I ever will. They both showed a Love for Christ and willingness to serve.

In my mind...if they aren't in a better place than me, then I probably don't belong there.

I do know that my view is probably in the minority though.

There's that whole spirit prison/paradise, temple proxy stuff.