Something mentioned several times above is that church members let their bias or gut reaction get in the way of accepting gay members as first of all humans with dignity and value in God’s eyes. On the other hand, some gay members are so focused on their identity as gays (and the conflict that creates with the church) that they forget to look at other aspects of their lives and see the value there. They get more and more focused on that and it distorts their vision of themselves (I’m thinking of Stuart Matis, for example, who seemed to be unable to let go and see himself as valuable as something more than a failed perfect Mormon).

I’ve been involved with gay Mormon men in therapeutic settings, some of whom have intense anxiety about being gay and want to be “changed” to heterosexual. Others are stuck in addictive behaviors and assume the addiction and their sexual identities are the same thing. Most of these men are unable to work productively on their spiritual lives because they are stuck going in circles with psychological or addictive issues. As they work in a therapeutic setting one of the first tasks is to get them to set aside their anxieties about being gay and work on the psychological issues first. They have to be able to defer “fixing” themselves (if that’s what they want) and get healthy in a psychological sense, or they have to get their uncontrolled addictive behaviors under control. After they achieve a better level of mental health, they are then more able to address the conflicts of their sexual identities. Many learn to be more accepting of their orientation rather than keep fighting to “turn straight”, a few may continue the quest to leave behind their gay feelings. But the important point is that they need to work on their general mental well-being first.

A problem with church members is that we often see the unhealthy side of gay people and assume that’s their identity. What’s needed is to set aside the homosexuality while we work on developing healthy relationships focused on common spiritual ground. We need to give them psychological relief by accepting them as children of God and looking for the many ways that we share spiritual experiences.

This is a hard concept for many Mormons because they assume that the gay identity issue trumps everything else. They don’t like setting it aside temporarily to help build up a better sense of spirituality. Many gays give up on spiritual development because they feel unworthy by virtue of who they are, not necessarily what they have done. If they lose that ability to connect with their spiritual side, they tend to give up on both church and God. But a huge challenge the church now faces, by claiming that gays have a (celibate) place in the church, is to find ways to give them a full spiritual experience within that celibacy. As several have already pointed out, celibacy is not a great option, but since we’re a church that has traditionally railed against celibacy as a lifestyle, we’re going to have to fill that void and come up with a meaningful way for it to work for gay members and to be accepted by the general membership.

Carlos, I understand that perspective, but, I repeat, we simply don’t know enough about the afterlife to be able to say with any degree of certainty what will happen to gay members then. Also, that is NOT the focus of this post, and John explicitly asked that it not become the focus. I will not pursue that out of respect for his wishes.

Please understand, as I have stated in multiple places, I do not claim that active, extra-marital homosexual relationships should not be viewed either as sin or transgression. To take away that designation, I believe, probably would require direct revelation, so I don’t believe it is something “we” can do. All I am saying is that much can be done within our current theological framework to include our homosexual brothers and sisters in our fundamental worship services and general fellowship that is not being done universally at this time.

I also return to the actual wording of the temple covenant, which I will not quote here and don’t want quoted here. Allowing monogamous and married gay couples into the temple would not require any changes to the current endowment, even if they could not be sealed. I am not saying that should be done; I am saying only that it could be done without doing any harm to the endowment itself.

Sure. But one can easily read a comment that addresses “what we might be able to do” as telling the church “what is the best thing to do” in this area.

With marriage, it is pretty clear that to entre exaltation one needs to be sealed so, following the logic of it all, if we accept gay couples in the pews then we should also accept that latter on they can continue on as a gay couple in eternity [I doubt one changes sexual orientation in the spirit world], and that implies massive theological changes without revelations from the top. That seems to be the logic that many here in Mormon matters are advocating.

I really hope that gays don’t commit suicide. It’s not a outer at all. But then telling then that something which is wrong could be right if you are in a couple and accepted by the rest and given callings is, imo, denying the reality of Mormon theology which holds chastity at the highest possible levels.

So, brainstorming, the best way to treat a gay person in church is by confronting him with the truth, the theological truth, that same sex relationships won’t bring exaltation and therefore will only result in an eternal life which falls just short of the best possible. But doing this the proper why, i.e. a Bishop or parent saying it in confidence, certainly not through gay hate speech in church and certainly not via the US religious right anti-gay agenda. It’s a personal matter dealt with in person. Only when we are dealing with a married priesthood holder should things change as they do with adultery and other similar law of chastity violations.

I have not advocated gay sealings, and that is the only thing that would require a massive change in eternal theology. Church attendance without excommunication is one thing; temple attendance is another thing; sealing is another thing. The Church could address each of those separately – in different ways, and only the most all-encompassing option would “require” revelation in the strictest sense. Perhaps revelation would be required due to general societal pressures for temple attendance, like with the lifting of the Priesthood ban, but I have never said the Church “should” do anything in this matter, with or without revelation. That’s not my stewardship. All I have addressed is what we might be able to do.

I have no idea whatsoever what “marriage” means in the hereafter, and we simply haven’t been told what it means to “create” spirit children. I have no idea if that could be done by one person or two or three or a committee of millions; again, we simply haven’t been told. That’s part of what we still see a glass, (very) darkly. I’m not concerned about the afterlife in this discussion, so I’m not concerned at all about solemnizing gay marriage in the temple. That definitely would take a direct and detailed revelation, and I’m not at all convinced that is God’s will. I have no knowledge whatsoever about that. I’m concerned about this life and how to help gay members feel welcome on the pews beside me in the here and now.

But then I ask for those who wish to accept a gay-married couple in church, John,Hellmut,Ray et al, what happens in eternity? In the celestial kingdom? We know that only those in exaltation will be married. But what do you expect for exaltation, married gays within exaltation?

If you do then this has to be THE biggest change in Mormonism since the restoration because we, or rather most leaders, always assumed that someday blacks would have the priesthood. But no prophet or apostle or similar has claimed that same sex marriage would be a part of exaltation. Joseph Smith was pretty revolutionary in everything he introduced and polygamy was a secret for a long time because of what others would do but did he ever make gay-marriage a secret part of Mormonism?

This is one massive change you blokes want to force onto the LDS church, isn’t it?

My wife has a similar reaction. I met her in a small town after having lived/worked in Southern California. We live in a small town now and our congregation meetings are much the way they looked in the 70s. Sure most of the ward members know or at least know of gay people, but it is not a topic that comes up frequently in our ward. I’m already spending 7 hours at church on Sunday taking care of the business at hand and my wife has the bigger task of getting a family of young kids ready for church on her own. When we finally meet up at home, we spend a little family time and, if lucky, some scripture time. At the end of Sunday, we are fairly exhausted. Asking the questions brought up by this post is not something that is at the forefront of our church experience nor something we feel pressed to expend energy toward. The luxury of personal hobbies drops and the needs of kids tops. Of course I think it is important to do what we can to prevent suicide for any reason, but attending my ward is vastly different than blogging on MM. One could attend for years and not be aware of the emotions members hold in and express here.

Re #83

About the dynamics of pair bonding that MoHoHawaii brought up, Curtis (from the opening link) bonded with a co-missionary who was able to help him through many rough times and I tend to believe that they were brought together for that purpose. Of course, (continuing with Moho’s comment contrasting pair bonding and sexual activity) it is easy to substitute the “pleasures” of sex for the void of loneliness and isolation with either orientation. When it comes to the test to “deny oneself” something during this mortal existence, how much can someone be expected to deny? What did gay church members do 150 years ago to survive in the culture of the church in that era? Did they make that ultimate denial in order for the church to survive/increase? That is an ethic that a posterity of such a legacy faces and must decide how to “carry-on”.

I have to point out that homosexuality has as much to do with the dynamics of pair bonding as it does with any kind of sexual activity. We often seem to ignore this and focus instead on sex acts. This makes a big difference– it is a lot easier to deny oneself the pleasures of a particular sex act than it is to live a life of loneliness and isolation. (And mixed-orientation marriages are absolutely not a solution.)

If we are to address the issue of suicide in gay youth, we need to be realistic about the problem. It is not just a issue of sexual abstinence. I don’t know what can be said to make this any plainer.

First, we have to separate ourselves from the Moral Majority right-wing. The Church is making far more moves towards fellowship than they are, so we would do well to learn to use our own rhetoric/principles to describe our stance. Otherwise, we absorb their hideously unhelpful arguments about how “natural” heterosexuality is and how their will be men marrying cows, etc.

You must not live anywhere near California. ;-p

Clay: “Most straight faithful LDS are creeped out by gay people.” Really?? I have a hard time believing this, in this day & age. I think this is generational. People in their 40s and younger have spent sufficient time around openly gay people that they can’t possibly feel this way on the whole.

Hawk, you might just be too sophisticated for your own good. My wife has a major gross-out issue with homosexuality, she’s 30. Keep in mind that a huge portion of LDS folks do not regularly go into environments like corporate workplaces where diversity is thrust upon them. There is a massive force of stay-at-home moms, and lots of folks who live in extremely homogeneous environments like Utah, Idaho, and parts of Arizona. I have met several LDS young people who moved from places like American Fork and said they saw a black person for the very first time in real life when they moved to their new state.

I’ve been part of many conversations with young Mormons where the gross out factor was directly expressed when the topic comes up. My impression is completely based on my own generation and younger. I have not had many conversations about homosexuality with folks older than myself at all. Quick story, although not mormon… My backyard neighbors are a gay couple. When we moved into this house, their next door neighbors ended up meeting us and chatting us up with neighborhood gossip. This woman told us that those guys were a gay couple, and then told us of an incident where they called the police on them once because they were allegedly taking pictures of their kids swimming from their upstairs bedroom window. We eventually came to realize the woman was crazy and that family had all kinds of issues. But the jump from gay to pedophile was so automatic for her.

Honestly, Clay…I do understand that homosexuality carries with it its own challenges. But so do many others…challenges that homosexuality does not bring. It is wrong, in my opinion, for anyone to wade too much in exceptionalism…whether it’s American, WEstern, or homosexual exceptionalism. It only makes it more difficult for those who are trying to reach out.

Yes, the gross-out factor must be overcome…at least when we are talking about feelings. Frankly, I am disgusted at ANY sexual activity not condoned by doctrine…even if it is premarital sexual activity. But in answer to your question…

First, we have to separate ourselves from the Moral Majority right-wing. The Church is making far more moves towards fellowship than they are, so we would do well to learn to use our own rhetoric/principles to describe our stance. Otherwise, we absorb their hideously unhelpful arguments about how “natural” heterosexuality is and how their will be men marrying cows, etc.

Second, it’s wonderful when good-hearted and well-informed Latter Day Saints give talks on these touchy subjects. To me, Elder Holland’s article fit that bill rather well (also, his interview on the Mormons documentary). No blazing guns. Just Christ-like love that can articulate the relatively nuanced stance the Church has on this topic.

*sigh* that’s what I have friends…if you’re all interested in more, I can talk…but I think folks have probably gotten tired of seeing “Russell Stevenson” pop up on the “recent comments” section incessantly.

The theology is only toxic when the theology is misunderstood. The Plan of Salvation is one where people must endure these ambiguities/difficulties well (which I think I’ve said now to the point of redundancy). People like Stuart Matis and Curtis Rognan have a place at the Lord’s table just along with every member who is addicted to heterosexual intercourse, yet abstain…and believe you me, this is a real addiction for some people within our walls (and I know, I know…”heterosexual abstinence is different from homosexual abstinence”–that argument only serves to isolate members who want to reach out to them and to reinforce homosexual exceptionalism). They have a place alongside every physically ailed person who endures it well without turning against God.

And frankly, if those members were more loving and welcoming, they should have been willing to say “it’s OK to be Eunuch.” We need to do better, much better. But then again, my disabled friend hears well-intentioned, but ultimately unkind remarks all the time. From the theology you claim we believe, there is hardly hope for her either; she is “written out of the P. of H.” as well. While her mind is bright, most of the daily realities of marriage would have to be drastically altered. And yet, she does not commit suicide; she believes that all will be made up to her. Any suicide is a tragedy and, sometimes, a failure of the community. But there is nothing in the theology that indicates that homosexuals will never be able have a part of exaltation…just as there is no theology stating that those “unmarry-able” in this life will not have exaltation in the afterlife. Of course, we hope that people can change…but then again, we wish that the lame could always arise from their wheelchairs and walk. In miraculous cases, both happen. Many times, they do not.

The best solution then is that we be willing to give our fellow SSA brothers/sisters a hug, tell them we love them, and let them know that we will do our best to make them feel at home.

Our people MUST do better at redefining homosexuality as a “cross to be borne” rather than as a chosen abomination

We are at an impasse on that one. I agree that we need to not see it as a chosen abomination, but it sadly seems that for a while in the near future, the best we could hope for in the LDS church is for faithful folks to see it your way. Of course, that comes with little to no understanding of the actual pain that fosters for faithful homosexuals. Even the willingness to compare asthma with homosexuality is a staggering example of the gap between truly understanding and just trying to reconcile your loyalty to the church with your compassion.

The most severe asthma imaginable would still elicit sympathy and compassion from fellow ward members. Most straight faithful LDS are creeped out by gay people. Once same-sex attraction gets pinned to an individual, they can no longer think of that person without attaching images of their sexuality. Even two men holding hands grosses some folks out. Shivers run down spines, subjects are changed, little hymns are sung in minds. Many people still can’t separate even the initial urges of same-sex attraction from pedophilia. Most LDS parents would strongly object to a gay man teaching primary. That experience is NOTHING like any kind of physical ailment.

The question is, if the people of the church were able to change their mindset to more of a cross to be borne kind of thing, how do you move past the gross-out factor? There is a huge tide to try stem with that because many members feel that seeking to find understanding and compassion for homosexuals is a slippery slope which opens the door for Satan to deceive you into softening your own morality. We are taught constantly that our society’s increasing comfort with homosexuals is the result of Satan’s influence. How do we overcome that?

I entirely disagree. I cannot say I know the heart and inner feelings of those who have taken their own lives, but I get the impression that Curtis Rognan and Stuart Matis and others were completely able to resist the temptation to have homosexual sex. I’ll bet that they took their religion seriously and maintained clean thoughts and refrained from lusting or dwelling mentally on sexual thoughts. Controlling their thoughts and appetites did not save them.

Not only were there no “it’s OK to be gay” slogans, there was no “it’s OK to be Eunuch” promoted. Essentially, Curtis and Stuart were written out of the Plan of Happiness. Even if church members learn to be more loving and welcoming, That can only go so far. The theology itself is toxic to gay people.

And I suggest that the term “blaming the victim” is being misapplied here. I maintain that no matter how deeply embedded a tendency is, it need not control us. It need not define us, unless we want it to. If we feed that appetite, then the appetite, alas, will begin to define us regardless. And it can’t exactly be compared to food; after all, I have sexual appetites that I must keep in check all the time (granted, it’s not for the duration of mortality like homosexuals). In the end, we ultimately preach what we have practiced. What is being called “blame” is actually the ultimate form of empowerment, if one wants that power. I suggest that we do not need to be controlled by any appetite, heterosexual or homosexual, unless we give that appetite our consent. Just as with any other temptation (pride, for example…that too, according to Pres. Benson, is quite fundamental to the fallen world), homosexuality can be kept in check. In my experience, this is liberty…and the realization of this will help prevent suicide more than any kind of “it’s OK to be gay” slogans.

As an aside, I believe those LDS gay youth who do commit suicide will be granted an added measure of grace, probably as a terminally patient who receives euthanasia. My good friend who suffered from bipolar almost certainly was. This is not to say that “it’s better to be dead than to be gay.” Indeed, it breaks my heart when it happens, and I too would bend over backwards to save both their lives and their souls, calling out their ward with ringing pleas for understanding and charity if necessary.

What might reduce suicide among homosexual members? At “The Church” level:

28 Ray

3) Allow them to have sex within the bonds of a legal marriage without any guilt. That actually would require very little, if any, change to our current wording of the Law of Chastity. That is a possibility, but it might require revelation.

What is the church’s position for example if you are a guy couple legally married in Canada(living the law of the land) and wanted to join the church?

What is the church’s position if you were a gay unmarried couple and wanted to join the church?

Is one of these a possible get out clause to gay and married and active in the church?

Or is the church’s position they would require a gay couple to get a divorce in order to join the church?

Nations that recognize gay marriage:

Canada
In June of 2005, the Canadian Parliament enacted a law allowing legal marriage for same-sex couples.

Belgium
The second nation to legalize same-sex marriage in 2003.

Netherlands
The first country to grant gay marriage in 2001.

Norway
Became the sixth country to legalize same-sex marriage on May 11, 2008.

South Africa
South Africa became the fifth nation to recognize gay marriage in 2005.

Spain
Spain became the fourth nation to allow gay marriage on June 29, 2005.

You are attempting to blame the victim. And I think you have it backwards. It is the church that has made sexuality FUNDAMENTAL to one’s existence. In our meetings, marriage, family and gender roles are discussed perhaps even more than the Savior. If heterosexuality were not so essential and central to the Plan of Happiness and ultimate salvation, then those who fail to possess heterosexuality would not experience the conflict.

What ever happened to the simple Christian doctrine of salvation by grace through faith? Instead, in mormonism, our soteriology is all bound up in family and procreation, mothering and fathering and patterning our lives after our anthropomorphic God, who obviously has a wife and would never create homosexuals because that would frustrate his entire plan of mortal happiness.

And if that fundamental dissonance weren’t bad enough, homosexuality is described as an abomination, and placed next to murder in repugnance. Members tend to recoil in fear at the thought. Imagine growing up as a gay child in a believing Mormon family. Whether or not the youth “identifies” as gay or is preoccupied with his or her sexual hormones, the youth will still experience a fundamental discord and feel lost.

Russell,

I agree with you that sexual orientation shouldn’t dominate one’s identity or life and that endlessly bemoaning one’s situation (whatever that may be) is counterproductive. Also, I should mention that I’m not arguing in any way that homosexuality is a bigger cross to bear than any of a number of other issues a person might face.

My point is only that sexual orientation is a deep part of personality. For myself (and speaking only for myself), I feel that eliminating my homosexuality would erase me, the ’self’ that I know. This is terrifying, not something that I would ever willingly submit myself to. That’s why I react badly to Elder Holland’s suggestion of post-mortal heterosexuality for all. I make no claim as to what will really happen in the life hereafter. I’m just saying how I, as a gay Mormon, feel about this.

When it comes to what might help gay youth avoid suicide, what seems lacking in the
discussion are the voices of gay Mormons themselves. When I was a young person, I
struggled like many other gay Mormons to reconcile the irreconcilable. After my mission, my struggle drove me into depression and very near to suicide. That I didn’t actually go through with act is just a flip of the coin. I could just as easily have been one of those statistics we’ve been discussing.

I’m not trying to say how others should live their lives, but if we really want to address the issue of suicide in gay LDS youth, we should at least listen to the voices of the survivors.

I know that blog posts are a difficult medium to express tone, but I really do want to say that I mean absolutely no disrespect or ill will with my involvement in this thread. The issue being discussed is personal to me, and I would do just about anything to save the lives of gay Mormon youth.

At a ward level, I have also seen our gay members receive love and acceptance. Sadly this is not always the case.

At the church level things become a bit corporate and the message is different. The ‘church’ is struggling with its message but it is hampered, in my opinion, by the idea of conformity to a norm. I understand why large organizations need this. However, in forming the organizational message the ability to love individuals can get lost.

I wish I had an answer for this. I wish our gay members could be accepted the way my daughter was even though I know that acceptance was at times difficult. I understand the situations are different. I wish the acceptance could be the same.

“We long ago stopped taking our mentally handicapped daughter to church. Not because we were asked to stop, and not because people expressed some discomfort with her. I very much appreciate the accommodation all of our wards have shown us.”

and

“The only true action I can see from a Christ centered religion is to embrace people as they are and do what you can to support them and help them find happiness without judgment.”

I agree with your second statement up to a point (since there is some degree of judgment necessary in any group that teaches standards of any kind, including Christ’s own words), but it appears that your second statement happened with your daughter, so I read your first statement as being an example of how your wards did what you say “Christ centered religions” should do.

That’s not a critique or criticism of any kind. I truly want to understand the point you are trying to make.

Now that’s well said.

-ps Hope you don’t mind my endorsement, as I think some here do.