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

[wuapinmon]

So, I've been reading about the work of Peter Berger on the sociology of knowledge, and it's got me thinking about Zizek's Sublime Object of Ideology as it relates to current LDS official and lay 'knowledge' about homosexuality, especially since Elder Packer gave a talk to seminary students recently wherein he said that homosexuality is against the standards of the Church and, "that will not change."

[DISCLAIMER:] This post might sound critical of individuals, groups, the Church, and even gays, but this is merely my wondering about something deep that troubles me deeply (including the conclusion I reach at the end of this post), and I invite dialogue from all sides in the discussion, even people who don't like me or the ideas I'm considering.

Peter Berger calls the sociology of knowledge part of our construction of reality. We inhabit a society with roles that we perform and 'knowledge' about them that we obtain from various observations and sources. Over time these roles become institutionalized as others take on the same roles, and this gives them meaning, lending creedence to the belief that reality is a social construction because it allows us to imbue actions and events with meaning and interpretations of the knowledge that comes from the understood meaning of our reality.

For example, a Christian man hears voices in his head and knows that God speaks to him, or in another iteration, this same Christian man hears voices in his head and knows that he is possessed by a demon, and in yet another iteration this same Christian man hears voices in his head and knows that he is psychotic and needs to see a physician. All three of those 'knowledges' derive their meaning from the social construction of reality that each of the men inhabits. Berger's opinion is that while the conditions might be the same or might be different (spiritual events being impossible to qualify scientifically), there are consequences to the 'knowledge' known in the reality of each individual. The first iteration can be benevolent or malevolent, the second one will probably be malevolent, and third one will seek help before allowing the condition to influence decisions in reality (society).

We can apply this to any type of knowledge, and not just ones of mental sanity. A gay person 'knows' that he was born that way, another one 'knows' that she is flawed because of her temptations which she cannot resist, and another gay person 'knows' that self-denial their entire life despite their temptations (about which I'm neither approving of nor disapproving of) is the only way to obtain salvation from their Creator. What are the consequences of each of these kinds of knowledge? They are legion and unknowable, but certainly some can be predicted without too much conjecture. The first instance might find the person openly gay, but tolerant of those who disapprove. Or, openly gay and antagonistic towards those who disapprove. Or, openly gay and violently opposed to those who disapprove. The purpose of this thread isn't to analyze all possible outcomes (again, unknowable), but to wonder about the ideology of 'knowing' something and the consequences of ideology.

Right now, in the Church, the official doctrine/policy/standard is that 'we know' that homosexual acts are abominations and unholy acts against chastity and grievous sins in the sight of God. The Church's ideology is such that we have been forewarned that allowing homosexuals to legally marry will disintegrate the traditional family and bring about the calamities foretold by prophets of old (and new). The very existence of our country going forward is said to be jeopardized by the allowance of matrimony between two individuals of the same gender. I don't have the inclination to dig around right now for quotes from sources, but I think that the above description is a reasonable description of the Church's 'official' ideology about homosexuality in the 21st Century. The lay ideology is far too broad and varied to try and contain inside of one single whole, but I would argue that a significant majority of members in the US who are active and hold a temple recommend and are over age 35 are pretty much in lockstep with the official ideology of the Church, because they:

1. 'Know the Church is true'
2. 'Know that Thomas S. Monson is a prophet.
3. 'Know that the Q12 are prophets, seers, and revelators
4. 'Know that the prophet will not lead the Church astray'
5. and
6. 'Know that they have their agency'

.

Gays who oppose the Church's ideology have their own. They 'know' that:

1. they never chose to be attracted to the same sex
2. religious freedom shouldn't allow the Church to impose its morals on them
3. the Constitution should protect them from laws that prevent their right to marriage
4. the Church is hypocritical given its own history concerning non-traditional marriages
5. and
6. the LDS leadership causes gay LDS members to loathe themselves so much that they kill themselves. This then becomes a case of them 'knowing' that people like Boyd K. Packer are 'abusers' in the psychological sense.

So, what then, are the consequences of this knowledge/ideology? Well, ideologies are difficult to navigate because, like Berger says, they form a reality to us that can be difficult to see through. Someone in an ideology can be shown evidence that disproves their 'knowledge' and they will actually use that information in an ideological way to strengthen their position in the reality of the knowledge they claim to have. We've all known a mumpsimus or two.

As it relates to this issue, I think it's important to try and view the issue of the Brethren's criticisms of homosexuality through an objective post-ideological view. If we merely try to view the qualities of homosexuals as they are, a 'reality' as it were, inside of LDS ideology, then we might find that some of our unconscious prejudices are magically confirmed by further rationalizations. If we view the issue through the ideology of gays, then again, we might find that some of the Church's actions and stances are downright pathologically paranoid constructions, as we also might equally perceive the stances against the Church of gays who play (again in an ideological view) the 'victim card.'

I think it's far healthier to remove ourselves from the ideologies of both sides (in as much as that's possible) and view the LDS ideological view of homosexuals and homosexual sex as an attempt to patch up the inconsistency of our own ideological system. What does that mean? 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.

So, despite my goal of remaining outside of ideology, I arrive at this conclusion, which sounds like a new ideology:

Until the LDS ideology can justify the existence and acceptance of these people as whole and natural children of our Heavenly Father, then the ideology for most members will continue to function thusly:

MEMBER:"I have several homosexual friends. They have adopted children, are loving parents, faithful companions, and great neighbors. I don't know why the Brethren are always saying that the calamities foretold by prophets will come about because of these people."

GENERAL CONFERENCE: "THAT'S PRECISELY WHY YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL!"

[Sullyute]

So, despite my goal of remaining outside of ideology, I arrive at this conclusion, which sounds like a new ideology:

Until the LDS ideology can justify the existence and acceptance of these people as whole and natural children of our Heavenly Father, then the ideology for most members will continue to function thusly:

MEMBER:"I have several homosexual friends. They have adopted children, are loving parents, faithful companions, and great neighbors. I don't know why the Brethren are always saying that the calamities foretold by prophets will come about because of these people."

GENERAL CONFERENCE: "THAT'S PRECISELY WHY YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL!"

Nice treatise. So do actions necessarily confirm idealogy? I agree that the actions of the church have seemed homophobic, but do the brethern (maybe outside of Packer) really think that gay marriage will cause armageddon? I really think that the brethern are in the same pickle they were with the pristhood ban, i.e. believing that God views homosexual acts as sin, society begins accepting homosexuality, Church stuck between respecting the majority view of their members or tying to take a stand on God Will which we don't understand fully. Here in another question, can the Church do a 180 degree turn on the issue without a "revelation" or are we just waiting for a few select leaders to pass away before there is enough consensus among the Q12 to change things?

[wuapinmon]

Nice treatise. So do actions necessarily confirm idealogy? I agree that the actions of the church have seemed homophobic, but do the brethern (maybe outside of Packer) really think that gay marriage will cause armageddon? I really think that the brethern are in the same pickle they were with the pristhood ban, i.e. believing that God views homosexual acts as sin, society begins accepting homosexuality, Church stuck between respecting the majority view of their members or tying to take a stand on God Will which we don't understand fully. Here in another question, can the Church do a 180 degree turn on the issue without a "revelation" or are we just waiting for a few select leaders to pass away before there is enough consensus among the Q12 to change things?

I don't think that they do, necessarily. Certainly, there are several things that seem to contradict ideologies, but the most successful ones are those that adapt to new actions/realities. For example, I do not believe that the Church ideology of the 1970's would've had them show public support for gay rights against discrimination in Utah. This new action shows a change in ideology, even though the underlying bedrock remains mostly unaltered.

Your second question is outside the scope or ability of my analysis. I can speak about what the consequences of that future potential might be, but I cannot speculate unless my ideology claims to "know" that that's going to happen, which it doesn't.

Speaking outside of this framework though, I see a schism arising in the Church while the baby boomers are alive if this were to happen. With Bednar being so young and likely prophet for a long time, I don't see this ever happening in my lifetime. The consequences of that knowledge are that I probably will not agitate as much as I would if I felt that my actions in this reality would have any effect. Presently, I feel stifled as a member, with no voice in church governance. With each year I find my ideology becoming a type of secularization from within. I'm more concerned with being like Jesus than I am with the opinions of old men in suits about my life choices. But, there's always that Book of Mormon testimony and my belief that something happened to Joseph Smith when he was young that makes me not mind wading (usually) through all the competing paranoid pathological ideologies (on all sides of this issue) that I encounter along the way.

[Sullyute]

Speaking outside of this framework though, I see a schism arising in the Church while the baby boomers are alive if this were to happen. With Bednar being so young and likely prophet for a long time, I don't see this ever happening in my lifetime. The consequences of that knowledge are that I probably will not agitate as much as I would if I felt that my actions in this reality would have any effect. Presently, I feel stifled as a member, with no voice in church governance. With each year I find my ideology becoming a type of secularization from within. I'm more concerned with being like Jesus than I am with the opinions of old men in suits about my life choices. But, there's always that Book of Mormon testimony and my belief that something happened to Joseph Smith when he was young that makes me not mind wading (usually) through all the competing paranoid pathological ideologies (on all sides of this issue) that I encounter along the way.

I don't want to take your thread off track, but I wonder how many people feel like they do have a voice within Church governance? Even back to the early days of the church, those with power and authority have been a very small circle with most of them being related by blood or marriage.

I think with correlation and modern communication, the ability of Church leaders to control (not the best word, maybe streamline or maintain would be better) church culture and ideology at the local level has greatly increased. There seemed to be much more tolerance for differing ideas, opinions, beliefs, 50 years ago than there is today. But I also think that this is cyclical and that we may have already reached the ideologicial peak and are starting to swing back to being more open (which realistically may take decades).

I don't believe we have any sway over the ideology at the COB, but that is not necessarily the case when it comes to the ideology of our local wards. Why can't we be the straw that stirs the drink in the local ward? There is nothing keeping us from accepting and welcoming other's beliefs and opinions in sunday school, priesthood, relief society, ward functions, etc. We can be the person that shakes everyones hands, gives them a slap on the back, and makes them feel welcome. We can share our ideology about love, compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, peace by our actions. And then when others pooh-pooh our ideology (which will happen no matter what the ideology is) we can smile knowing that it is just an opportunity to put into practice what we believe - forgiveness and love. I hope and believe that I can be an instrument of change in the hands of God in my ward, or in my Elders quorum, or just on my street.

On the other hand, maybe this is a polyanna view and I just haven't served in any high enough callings or had my efforts and views minimized or ridiculed like you have experienced and expressed in past posts.

[OhioBlue]

I'm gonna be honest: I love this topic, generally, but I barely understood your title and less of your post. And I have a PhD.



So maybe I'm being lazy, but can I just see the thesis statement?

[wuapinmon]

I'm gonna be honest: I love this topic, generally, but I barely understood your title and less of your post. And I have a PhD.



So maybe I'm being lazy, but can I just see the thesis statement?

Until the Church's ideology can account for biological mutations that fall outside of the current conceptions of gender (read: normal male and normal female) then it (the Church's ideology) will remain pathologically (in the sense of the suffering/consequences this ideology causes in gays' and their families' lives) opposed to actions that it deems contrary to the 'knowledge' that it currently has about gender, same-sex attraction, and homosexual sex acts. It's not homosexuality being a choice that causes the ideology to balk at change. That's easy enough to justify in the current one. The real rub lies in the ones that you cannot explain away easily (this link is safe for work). The biologically male children with vaginas and clitorises and the biologically female children with penises and the 250,000 kids born with ambiguous genitalia each year. How does the ideology convince them that they're made in the image of God when their gender is female, they're attracted to men, but their penis is going to be there next to their husband's when they go to have sex on their sealing day?

[OhioBlue]

So it's more than just ideological problems with sexual orientation, it's a rigid view of sexuality and gender coupled with unwillingness (at worst) or reticence (at best) to acknowledge and grapple with anything that doesn't fit? That's an issue faced by the LDS church?

I can see that. But it's more than just religious cultures that balk at dealing with ambiguity, so it's hard to be too critical of LDS doctrine or culture for struggling with biological outliers like middlesex individuals. If you are suggesting that the LDS church might better serve its members by not ignoring (read: hiding in shame from) sexuality in general, I'm with you.

As an aside, I've worked professionally with two individuals who were transgendered and quite thoroughly convinced they were either in the wrong body or were assigned the wrong gender by a doctor at birth who had to make a decision. Talk about a very lonely, shameful, and incredibly stigmatized experience.

[wuapinmon]

So it's more than just ideological problems with sexual orientation, it's a rigid view of sexuality and gender coupled with unwillingness (at worst) or reticence (at best) to acknowledge and grapple with anything that doesn't fit? That's an issue faced by the LDS church?

Yes, in a sense. The rigid view of sexuality and gender is the ideology. The inability of that ideology to grapple with anything that doesn't fit is the reason why the ideology persists as is--it cannot resolve this problem, so it ignores it and focuses on what it can address via the 'knowledge' LDS have about (im)morality.

I can see that. But it's more than just religious cultures that balk at dealing with ambiguity, so it's hard to be too critical of LDS doctrine or culture for struggling with biological outliers like middlesex individuals. If you are suggesting that the LDS church might better serve its members by not ignoring (read: hiding in shame from) sexuality in general, I'm with you.

I don't think I'm being too critical. I feel like most Christian churches, even gay-tolerant ones, wrestle with this issue, but the LDS Church is my church and the one I know best. Then Anglican Church in America and the Episcopalians are headed for a schism over, well, jism, because the ideology of some is diverging from previous 'knowledge' about ordaining practicing gay men to the priesthood. I am absolutely asserting that the LDS Church, writ large, could better serve its members by not ignoring sexuality, especially intersex individuals. The cost, in human terms, is too great for me to abide.

As an aside, I've worked professionally with two individuals who were transgendered and quite thoroughly convinced they were either in the wrong body or were assigned the wrong gender by a doctor at birth who had to make a decision. Talk about a very lonely, shameful, and incredibly stigmatized experience.

Indeed. These stories are tragic, especially when we're talking about Mormons. Imagine having your sexual agency as it relates to the Gospel stripped from you at birth and not being able to ever act upon your urges, ever, without it being considered sinful. It's enough to make you cry out of compassion for these traumatized people.

[thesaint258]

How is this any different from people who are born into other difficult situations? I'm not trying to minimize the suffering some people go through, but whether its an ambiguous gender identity, being born in extreme poverty, or being born in a body that doesn't work, God puts his children into difficult, terrible, and sometimes even horrific situations every single day. To me, this seems like a specialized restatement of the problem of evil. Given the various theories for solving the problem, people can answer your question (how can a just god expect people to obey the commandments and be happy at the same time) in a way that works for them.

[wuapinmon]

How is this any different from people who are born into other difficult situations? I'm not trying to minimize the suffering some people go through, but whether its an ambiguous gender identity, being born in extreme poverty, or being born in a body that doesn't work, God puts his children into difficult, terrible, and sometimes even horrific situations every single day. To me, this seems like a specialized restatement of the problem of evil. Given the various theories for solving the problem, people can answer your question (how can a just god expect people to obey the commandments and be happy at the same time) in a way that works for them.

I can think of few cases outside of gender issues wherein any possible solution to the underlying 'problem' (even imagined future ones) still leaves you unable, in all cases, of partaking fully of the plan of salvation, the new & everlasting covenant, and exaltation.

Poor people can win the lottery or work their way out of poverty without being denied the fullness of the Gospel. Those without a working body can hold out hope of a healing, a surgery, or some technology to improve their life, but they can always partake of the Gospel (as much of it as they can comprehend if they are mentally retarded). But, those who are intersexed and those who are homosexual have no solution to their problem, especially the intersexed. Imagine the psychological toll that life would take on you if you were really really attracted to women, but the Church said that heterosexual relations were an abomination. Could you really make yourself lust after a man and find fulfillment in homosexual sex? I could not.

Now, imagine that a physician cut you and made you a woman at birth, but you were biologically a heterosexual male. How would it feel to be a woman physically but a man biologically and in your view of yourself, and to lust after women, all while knowing that the Church expected you to be with a man? The whole "gender is eternal" ideology founders in the face of these situations, which is why I think that it pathologically denies homosexuals equality: it cannot square intersex people with itself, so it resists.

[thesaint258]

I can think of few cases outside of gender issues wherein any possible solution to the underlying 'problem' (even imagined future ones) still leaves you unable, in all cases, of partaking fully of the plan of salvation, the new & everlasting covenant, and exaltation.

Poor people can win the lottery or work their way out of poverty without being denied the fullness of the Gospel. Those without a working body can hold out hope of a healing, a surgery, or some technology to improve their life, but they can always partake of the Gospel (as much of it as they can comprehend if they are mentally retarded). But, those who are intersexed and those who are homosexual have no solution to their problem, especially the intersexed. Imagine the psychological toll that life would take on you if you were really really attracted to women, but the Church said that heterosexual relations were an abomination. Could you really make yourself lust after a man and find fulfillment in homosexual sex? I could not.

Now, imagine that a physician cut you and made you a woman at birth, but you were biologically a heterosexual male. How would it feel to be a woman physically but a man biologically and in your view of yourself, and to lust after women, all while knowing that the Church expected you to be with a man? The whole "gender is eternal" ideology founders in the face of these situations, which is why I think that it pathologically denies homosexuals equality: it cannot square intersex people with itself, so it resists.

I don't think the "gender is eternal" ideology founders in those situations at all. In your example, the doctor made a bad decision. Yes, it's going to make life terribly difficult for that person. What happens in the resurrection though? Will that person, who was born a man and a doctor made a woman, be resurrected as a man or a woman? Obviously I don't know the answer since my experience with resurrection is minimal, but it seems like if the person is a biological man, he'll be resurrected as a man.

This brings to mind an interesting tug of war in LDS theology. On one hand, this life has a lot of value. On the other, this life is an exception to the rule. We're beings who existed long before this life, and we'll exist long after. This life is a relatively quick detour in which we're tested, so this life is also meant to be difficult. I do feel for people who cannot partake in all of the Gospel's ordinances, but at the same time, I don't believe that will always be the case.* God's plan of salvation covers people who will never have a chance to hear the Gospel and have a chance to accept it or not. I think it's logical that the plan also covers people in difficult, trying situations like the ones you've described. Will this life be harder? Yes. Will the Gospel's ordinances always be denied to people with these trials? No.

[RobinFinderson]

I don't think the "gender is eternal" ideology founders in those situations at all. In your example, the doctor made a bad decision. Yes, it's going to make life terribly difficult for that person. What happens in the resurrection though? Will that person, who was born a man and a doctor made a woman, be resurrected as a man or a woman? Obviously I don't know the answer since my experience with resurrection is minimal, but it seems like if the person is a biological man, he'll be resurrected as a man.

This brings to mind an interesting tug of war in LDS theology. On one hand, this life has a lot of value. On the other, this life is an exception to the rule. We're beings who existed long before this life, and we'll exist long after. This life is a relatively quick detour in which we're tested, so this life is also meant to be difficult. I do feel for people who cannot partake in all of the Gospel's ordinances, but at the same time, I don't believe that will always be the case.* God's plan of salvation covers people who will never have a chance to hear the Gospel and have a chance to accept it or not. I think it's logical that the plan also covers people in difficult, trying situations like the ones you've described. Will this life be harder? Yes. Will the Gospel's ordinances always be denied to people with these trials? No.

Usually, in those situations where a doctor cuts off a penis, the child is born with both kinds of genitalia, and the parents decide whether they want to raise the intersex child as a boy or girl. It isn't a doctor's mistake. It is more of a parental mistake. As a matter of human rights, I don't think parents or doctors should have the right to cut off baby parts (including foreskins), but that is just me.

[wuapinmon]

I don't think the "gender is eternal" ideology founders in those situations at all. In your example, the doctor made a bad decision. Yes, it's going to make life terribly difficult for that person. What happens in the resurrection though? Will that person, who was born a man and a doctor made a woman, be resurrected as a man or a woman? Obviously I don't know the answer since my experience with resurrection is minimal, but it seems like if the person is a biological man, he'll be resurrected as a man.

This brings to mind an interesting tug of war in LDS theology. On one hand, this life has a lot of value. On the other, this life is an exception to the rule. We're beings who existed long before this life, and we'll exist long after. This life is a relatively quick detour in which we're tested, so this life is also meant to be difficult. I do feel for people who cannot partake in all of the Gospel's ordinances, but at the same time, I don't believe that will always be the case.* God's plan of salvation covers people who will never have a chance to hear the Gospel and have a chance to accept it or not. I think it's logical that the plan also covers people in difficult, trying situations like the ones you've described. Will this life be harder? Yes. Will the Gospel's ordinances always be denied to people with these trials? No.

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.

[OhioBlue]

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"

Bingo.

[wuapinmon]

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