The story of David and Jonathan is one of the most inspiring examples of true friendship anywhere.  Our LDS SS manual firmly places this lesson within the mainstream view of Biblical exegesis, presenting the two as strong personal and platonic friends.  As I studied the covenant made between these young men in 1 Samuel 18, I was touched by the loyalty shown by the young Jonathan, because he “loved [David] as his own soul.”  Because of this love, Jonathan relinquishes his hopes for his father’s throne in deference to God’s choice.  In a symbolic and ceremonial gesture, Jonathan strips off his robe, which represents the authority he holds to succeed his father, King Saul, and gives it to David.  He also gives David his sword and his bow, representing his military prerogative; and his girdle, which symbolizes spiritual truths and the kingdom of God.

But other writers, beginning with Homer and continuing to the present day, have noted the strong elements of intimacy and eroticism within the relationship.  David’s love for Jonathan is described as “wonderful, passing the love of women.”  Saul also reprimands Jonathan at the dinner table, accusing him that “thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother’s nakedness.”  Martti Nissinen concludes that this “choosing (bahar) may indicate a permanent choice and firm relationship, and the mention of “nakedness” (erwa) could be interpreted to convey a negative sexual nuance, giving the impression that Saul saw something indecent in Jonathan’s and David’s relationship.  Some also interpret this as Saul’s caution that choosing David as a lover meant that Jonathan could not produce an heir to the throne. There is also an exchange pointing to 1 Samuel 18:21. Here Saul tells David that when he marries Michal he will become his son-in-law for the second time.  There is reason to suppose the union of Jonathan and David represents the first.

What does it mean that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David?

In trying to interpret the story of these two Biblical figures, I am greatly influenced by my reading of Michael Quinn’s Same-Sex Dynamics among Nineteenth-Century Americans.  In this book, Quinn describes a nineteenth-century Mormon culture far more hospitable to and tolerant of same-sex relationships than that of modern Mormonism, which he regards as “homophobic.”  He gives several examples of long-term relationships among Mormon couples he believes were homosexual.  But in doing so, he also admits of a world and an era where emotional intimacy and physical closeness of same-sex friends did NOT involve homoeroticism.  He gives examples of letters written in the nineteenth century between platonic friends which contained emotional intensity and passionate references.  Same-sex friends held hands, kissed each other on the lips, and sometimes slept in the same bed for years at a time. These things are more aptly described as “homosociality.”   Reading about this phenomenon gave me an insight into the world view of previous ages that I had not understood before reading the book.

At times when I read the story of David and Jonathan through my twenty-first-century lens, I have wondered if these men were not physically intimate.  The words and images used to describe their relationship are passionate, ardent, concupiscent.  But reading about some of the homosocial behaviors Quinn describes has convinced me that David and Jonathan were not gay.  I agree with Quinn that too many Americans find homosociality frightening. Some of my returned-missionary friends have spoken with embarrassment of the strong male bonding they experienced on their missions.  They recall vivid episodes involving platonic intimacy — walking arm-in-arm, embracing, and other emotional and physical affection.  We are suspicious and uncomfortable with these things in our modern paradigm.  But homosociality can be an enlightening concept to consider.  I’m glad this relationship is included among all of the other unusual associations described in the Old Testament!

BONUS: The woodcut of Jonathan and David pictured below may be astonishingly evocative, both to LDS members endowed before 1990 and to those familiar with Masonic ritual.

]]> http://mormonmatters.org/2010/06/17/homosociality-and-the-friendship-between-david-and-jonathan/feed/ 22 http://mormonmatters.org/2010/04/28/what-the-golden-rule-does-not-say-or-jesus-wouldnt-recognize-that-rationalization/ http://mormonmatters.org/2010/04/28/what-the-golden-rule-does-not-say-or-jesus-wouldnt-recognize-that-rationalization/#comments Thu, 29 Apr 2010 00:35:28 +0000 Ray http://mormonmatters.org/?p=10839 One of my monthly New Year’s Resolutions last year was taken from Matthew 7:9-12, a slight change in my original plan. (See here.) These verses state:

Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

The wording of my resolution was:

“Treat others how I want to be treated.”

I want to make one point here about something I have heard over the years. It is something that has bothered me over time, and I want to state up front what I believe this verse does NOT say – what I believe is a classic case of “wresting” scriptures and creating meaning that never was intended.

I have heard it said of old (*grin*) that we should treat others in whatever way will help them best. After all, this reasoning goes, deep down they really want whatever is best – so if we know what is best for someone, we should do all we can to help them see, recognize, understand and accept that which is best for them. This argument asserts that it’s better to treat someone how they “really” want to be treated (often subconsciously) than to treat them how they “think” they want to be treated – that I, as an enlightened individual, know what is best for them and, therefore, I, as an enlightened individual, should treat them as if they were in my shoes.

To try to say it differently, this approach to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is based on you placing yourself in their situation and transferring your own hopes and dreams and expectations on them. While this might sound reasonable and even praiseworthy at first glance, there are at least three problems with this approach that I can see immediately:

1) It is used often as a justification for aggressive action, pressure and even compulsion. At the most extreme, it allowed those in charge of the Inquisition to torture people into confessing non-existent sins – since those doing the torturing were convinced they only were doing what was best for the person being tortured by “cleansing” them of sin and freeing them for a more benevolent judgment in the afterlife. At a more common level, it is used to justify constant and inconsiderate preaching and attempts to convert others – unfortunately, even among our own membership. Again, the reasoning is, “If I didn’t have the Gospel in my life, I would want someone to preach it to me even if I didn’t want to hear it.”

2) It totally ignores and discounts the actual desires of the other person – and illustrates an arrogance that is couched in terms of love but, literally, is judgmental and condescending. In essence, it says, “I know better than you what you need, and I’m never going to quit trying to make you see that, no matter what you want.”

3) It simply isn’t what is commanded in these verses – to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

I want to finish with that last point, and I want to do so by placing each reader in the shoes of an active member of the LDS Church – and focusing on the reaction of nearly every LDS member who has a friend, family member, acquaintance or stranger who disagrees with Mormonism, has left the LDS Church, believes Mormons are not Christian and/or is saddened at the thought of Mormons ending up in Hell. If that person really is sincere in his concern, and if she really thought that constant badgering might convince you of the error of your ways, would you appreciate her preaching at you every time you were together? Would you appreciate her non-attendance at your wedding reception, since she believes your sealing in the temple is a sham and not recognized by God? Would you appreciate her constant, subtle (or blatant) warnings about your eternal condemnation? Deep down, on a very practical level, what would you really, truly want from her – how would you want her to “do unto you”?

I submit that all of us, at the most basic level, want little more than acceptance and respect and love for who we actually are – recognition that we are capable of making our own decisions – friendship that is genuine and not tied to certain conditions – etc. In other words, we want to be treated as equals – as important – as valuable – as legitimate deciders of our own fate, and we want that for who we ARE, not for who others want us to be.

So, the next time you start to say something to someone else, ask yourself, “How would I respond if someone said that, in that way, to me?” The next time you start to write a blog comment, ask yourself, “How would I respond if someone wrote that, in that way, to me?”. The next time you start to react to someone in any way, ask yourself, “How would I respond if someone reacted that way to me?” In summary, ask yourself:

How would I feel if someone “did that unto me”?

If you would thank God for that person’s words or actions, in the actual circumstances of your real life, “do so unto others”. If you would not thank God (or if you would need to pray for forgiveness) for your reaction to that person’s words or actions, don’t “do so unto others”. Finally, if you really would understand this principle, take one entire day and analyze everything according to this standard:

How would I feel if someone “did that unto me”?

If we really focused on that question, I have no doubt we would stop doing and saying much of what we do and say – and start doing and saying many things we currently do not say and do.

That was my resulotion that month – to treat others more as I actually want them to treat me.

Thoughts?  What am I missing that would support or weaken this interpretation of the Golden Rule?

“Delegation Takes No Action on Human Sexuality Issues: Church Will Continue Dialogue.”

Headline  by John Hamer on BCC on Thursday, April 15, 2010:

“Gay Rights Revelation Added to The Community of Christ D&C”

———-

The two headlines above generally cover the spectrum of opinion about what happened at the Community of Christ World Conference as it completed the process of canonization of a new Section 164 for its D&C. The spectrum of opinions about whether what happened was a good thing or bad thing, of course, runs even more broadly. Indeed, I’m not at all certain that we’ll even be able to see how intense the various “colors” of that spectrum will prove until information about the conference filters down to the bulk of the North American church that maintains no real connection to the World Church in the “Blogitorium”. As in many churches on the Christian left in North America, that membership tends to be somewhat more traditionalist than its leadership.

Nevertheless, I’ll give my view as someone from one part of the peanut gallery, focusing on what was in each portion of Section 164 and the effects of associated legislation passed to begin implementation. A future post will provide a similar analysis on legislation considered by the Conference not specifically addressed by Section 164 and suggest something about the overall direction of the Community of Christ in the future.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPHS 1-4

President Veazey describes the experiences of meditation, particularly on portions of Galatians 3:27-29, that led him to offer the Section. After commending the church for similarly seeking to discern the Spirit in a structured process that has been going on for well over a year, he makes explicit an understanding of the church and its sacraments which has been implicit in CofChrist theology for a number of years.

“…Instruction given previously about baptism was proper to ensure the rise and cohesiveness of the church during its early development and in following years. However, as a growing number have come to understand, the redemptive action of God in Christ—while uniquely and authoritatively expressed through the church—is not confined solely to the church. God’s grace, revealed in Jesus Christ, freely moves throughout creation, often beyond human perception, to achieve divine purposes in people’s lives.”

The Community of Christ is to see itself as “one true church”, not as the “one and only true church”. How serious is this theological intent was earlier signaled by something I haven’t seen commentators note elsewhere. The first sessions of Conference always feature certain speeches of welcome. One is usually a non-CofChrist speaker. This speaker is often a local Congressman or a Missouri Senator. The speech is strictly non-political even then, but the identity is interesting because trends over time seem to show the direction of the church leadership’s interest.

This year that slot went to the Rev. Dr. Michael Kinnamon, General Secretary of the National Council of Churches. Kinnamon unabashedly spoke of the Community of Christ having unique gifts that should be seen as adding to bodies such as the NCC, rather than as a body going its own way. Ironically, contacts between the RLDS and the NCC were among the suspicions cited by fundamentalist opponents of the church circa 1970 as evidence of apostasy. Thus, such a speech 40 years ago might itself have been too controversial to occur.

Section 164 then lays out specific instruction (that will be followed quickly by formal administrative policy guidance to become effective by September 1, 2011). These policies will result in acceptance into membership into the Community of Christ upon confirmation by CofChrist priesthood – without requiring rebaptism if the original baptism: a) involved water;  b) was performed by an ordained Christian minister;  and c) as a personal expression of faith in Christ. In particular, we will not require someone to present proof of their baptism or the baptizing minister’s credentials, since that would be impossible in many places throughout the world. This clearly expands the notion of true priesthood authority beyond the boundaries of those called through the priesthood line passed to Joseph Smith.

The phrase “using water” also allows for baptisms done by immersion, pouring, or sprinkling, while upholding the church’s own standard practice of baptism by immersion at the age of accountability. There is also some additional specific guidance regarding the substance of the prayer of confirmation (Baptism of the Spirit) that is now the means by which one moves from being part of the Body of Christ into membership within the denomination. And preparation for confirmation will now be a formal requirement for the ordinance to occur.

Paragraph 3 contains a call for all members to serious consider and live the meaning of their baptismal covenants (water and Spirit). Paragraph 4 ties this call to consideration of the role the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper should play in renewing, witnessing, and amplifying our covenant. (Portions of the preamble specifically warn us to NOT make the meaning of the covenants atrophy even as we broaden the procedures, because of the concern that in some places this has happened with open communion).

This portion of the Section makes the Community of Christ look very Protestant – if you can call becoming more Protestant through modern revelation a Protestant concept in the first place.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPHS 5-7

These are the paragraphs whose approval generated the widely divergent headlines above. Their actual content is to call attention to “serious questions about moral behavior and relationships” – but to prioritize those questions not simply as they are listed within the dominant culture of the denomination.

“These issues are complex and difficult to understand outside their particular settings because of strikingly different cultural histories, customs, and understandings of scripture. For example, the issues include female submission, female genital mutilation, child brides, forced marriages, and sexual permissiveness. They include cleansing and exploitation of widows, harsh conflicts over same-gender attraction and relationships, and varying legal, religious, and social definitions of marriage, to name just a few.”

More importantly, the Section calls us to see the solutions for these moral dilemmas as arising from an understanding of Christianity as a community that transcends definitions by economic status, social class, sex, gender, or ethnicity. They simply are no longer primary. Relationships are to be rooted in the principles of Christ-like love, mutual respect, responsibility, justice, covenant, and faithfulness, against which there is no law.

Section 164 then extrapolates that these principles require that the church move the resolution of moral issues to the church in the cultures most affected by them rather than let the dominant North American church decide for the rest of the world. Field Apostles, under the guidance of the Presidency, are authorized to call and set the agenda for field, national, or (non-geographical) cultural groups to deal with issues such as those listed above as they feel directed.

Uncertainty about the nature and timing of these conferences is generating the widely divergent headlines about gay rights. First, everyone in the Community of Christ seems to understand that the leadership feels that it must not expose our leaders and members in cultures where discussion of gay issues is taboo. If so, they can hardly move toward expanded gay rights in the United States unless they can find a way to maintain what the government would call “plausible deniability”.

Second, there is a large body of conservative members in the US church (and non-members in society) whose reaction must be anticipated and allowed for. The LDS experience with Prop 8 shows what happens when the church in the US takes any position on controversial issues in the political arena. Many feel the church has moved too hesitantly and will continue to do so; others are likely to feel the church is moving in the wrong direction entirely.

Finally, there are logistical questions. It seems unlikely that the US church has the resources to assemble a national conference on gay rights issues before the spring of 2012 at the earliest. It will take until September, 2011, simply to implement the new conditions for membership.

The greatest sign of movement toward gay rights comes from something in administrative minutia. It is normal for the church to realign Apostolic Fields following a World Conference (our Apostles retire, so there are usually changes in the Twelve). This time a gerrymandered field has been carved out for Apostle Susan Skoor that stretches from Southern Australia to Eastern Canada – and just happens to cover all of the non-US jurisdictions that proposed World Conference legislation expanding full priesthood and sacramental rites for gays. The extension of rights in that Field or in nations within that Field might be granted while maintaining sufficient distance from the World Church (and prying media) to protect the church in cultures hostile to gay rights.

Expansion to the US is much more difficult to do while maintaining any credibility to foreign governments and religious bodies that “this is just local jurisdictions acting on their own.”

Perhaps more significantly in the long run than the particular moral issues – at least from the perspective of this Washington spectator – is the change these paragraphs make in the legislative rights of mission centers to set the agenda for the church. The Presidency immediately ruled 21 legislative proposals that had been painstakingly brought to the conference as out of order because they reflect National or Regional concerns. These rulings were entirely appropriate under Section 164 guidance.

However, the Conference later passed implementing legislation for the field and national conferences that make them “special conferences”. Such conferences operate under different parliamentary rules than World Conference. In particular,  Mission Centers lack the right to place items on the agenda of special conferences; that agenda is set only by the Apostle who calls the conference with the approval of the Presidency. In short, this revelation makes the Community of Christ less democratic and more theocratic than it was a year ago.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPH 8

Paragraph 8, by contrast, shows the flexibility and speed with which the Community of Christ can move on organizational issues when it wishes to do so. The Twelve and the Presidents of the Seven Quorums of Seventy have been meeting for several years in response to the immediately previous revelation (Section 163) to consider organizational changes to increase evangelistic effectiveness. Paragraph 8 is taken as authorization to make these changes.

Within 24 hours of Section 164 approval, the number of Quorums of Seventy was increased from seven to ten, the additional Quorum Presidents were named, and they were approved by the Conference and set apart to that calling. Jack Bauer couldn’t have moved faster. Clearly, the outcome of these discussions among the leading quorums was well prepared in advance, while they are still feeling their way around the notion of how and when national conferences will function.

Reorganization of the Twelve, while not fundamental, essentially separates the world into 10 Fields for the moment, each led by an Apostle, with the remaining two Apostles focusing on Headquarters-oriented tasks. For the first time, a single Quorum of Seventy will be aligned with the geographic or other missionary focus of a Field Apostle.

SECTION 164, PARAGRAPH 9

The final paragraph of the document is a benediction of sorts, and a challenge that the rise of Zion is no farther away than the willingness of all of us – all the “beloved children of the Restoration” – to overcome our insecurities and embrace a Christ-like life.

“The mission of Jesus Christ is what matters most to the journet ahead.”

“The Genesis passage is very clear, that the sin of Sodom that brought on the destruction of the city was indeed linked to homosexuality.” (R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Seminary)

“Saying that the last recorded acts of the Sodomites — the demands for same-gender sex — are proof that they were destroyed for homosexuality is like saying that a condemned man cursing his guards on the way to his execution is being executed for cursing the guards. Sodom was judged worthy of destruction before the incident with Lot and the angels.” (Inge Anderson, “Sins of Sodom“)

One of the prominent themes in this week’s Sunday School lesson is the story of Lot and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. But in Christian thought there has been some controversy over how closely the story should be linked to homosexuality, as the quotes above indicate. There are several points that are up for grabs, and I’m not sure either side has a complete understanding yet. Read on, and let me know what you think!

The background of the story should be taken into account as we try to figure out what is happening. In Genesis 18, three angelic messengers visit Abraham to prophesy about the birth of his son and to warn of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. This is the part where Abraham shows his compassion by bargaining with the Lord for a stay of execution if there are 10 righteous people to be found in the city. The narrative shows that the destruction has already been decreed, even before Lot’s experience with the men of Sodom.

Next, the angels enter the city. That Lot meets them at the gate is significant. Though a resident alien, Lot is taking a turn guarding the walls. Sodom has been at war, and not surprisingly the inhabitants of the city are wary of visitors. The very night a non-native of the city is trusted to watch the gate (thus controlling traffic in and out), he lets two people that nobody knows into the city and what’s more behind closed doors for the night in his house! Certainly this raised some eyebrows and caused some suspicion. Soon the residents of Sodom — all the people, both young and old — have gathered outside of Lot’s house and are demanding that Lot bring the visitors out “that we may know them.”

The meaning of the Hebrew word yada’ (to know) has engendered much of the controversy behind this story. The word has a euphemistic meaning (to engage in coitus). Of 943 times yada’ is used in the Old Testament, only ten times is it used with a sexual connotation, and all of these are heterosexual coitus. Thus some have conjectured that the townspeople were merely asking to know the credentials and intentions of strangers in their city. On the other hand, when yada’ is used with a sexual meaning, a large number of those references occur within the book of Genesis. In fact, the word is used in a clearly euphemistic sense in Genesis 19:8, just three verses after the reference in question.

The absolute sacredness of a guest was a principle well known in the Middle East. Lot wanted to protect his guests, and he refused to hand them over to the crowd. When the crowd insisted, he offered his two daughters as the most expedient diversion for a hostile situation. In the Joseph Smith Translation of these verses, it is suggested that Lot did not offer his daughters, but that the Sodomites demanded the girls as well as the visiting angels. But there is another story in the Bible which parallels the Genesis story. It is found in Judges 19:13-27. In this account, the house guest was a man, not an angel, and the master of the house offered his daughter and the man’s concubine to the mob. They accepted the concubine woman in place of the man, and raped her until she died. The city was destroyed — for heterosexual rape and violation of the law of hospitality. In spite of this very similar destruction of a city, no one condemns heterosexuality on the basis of this passage, but rather there is condemnation of rape.

This may indicate that the story of Sodom in Genesis has little to do with homosexuality and more to do with rampant, violent sex as well as irreverent attitudes regarding sex. Sodom’s primary sin was violence. The threat against the messengers and Lot’s daughters is a threat of sexual violence in which sexual orientation is irrelevant. The behavior of the people of Sodom wasn’t about attraction. It was about harming people as profoundly as they could. One might conclude that gang raping some guys is a pretty serious sin, no matter how you look at it. Making the sudden leap to compare them to committed monogomous gay couples, however, is outrageous and unfounded. There is no real similarity, and indeed, our modern Western view of “sexual orientation” did not exist in ancient Biblical times.

Another method of uncovering the meaning of the lesson of Sodom is by looking at how other Biblical passages interpret the story. Throughout the Old Testament, Sodom is held up as a lesson in wickedness that deserves utter destruction for reasons other than homosexual acts. Of the eighteen passages outside of the story itself found in Old Testament writings none refer to same sex activity, and only one alludes to sexual immorality (namely, adultery). To cite a few examples of those found among the words of the Hebrew prophets, Isaiah (1:1-17; 13:1-22) refers to Sodom and Gomorrah to condemn general evil and injustice; Jeremiah (23:9-15), to general moral and ethical laxity. Ezekiel (16:46-56) and Amos (chapter 4) condemn the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, more specifically, for neglecting the poor and needy.

“Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me”

The Deuterocanonical books identify the sin as pride and inhospitality; in Wisdom 19:13-14, we read “…whereas the men of Sodom received not the strangers when they came among them.” In Ecclesiasticus 16:8 the sin is recognized as pride. In the New Testament, too, there is reference to Sodom’s sins: In Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:10-13, Jesus implied that the sin of the people of Sodom was to be inhospitable and to reject the words of the gospel messengers.

It’s not until the very late books of 2 Peter 2 and Jude 6, that “sexual immorality” and “depraved lusts” are considered sins of Sodom. In 2 Peter especially, the author seems to be drawing a comparison between “the sons of God” who came down to earth and mated with “the daughters of men” (see Lesson 6), and the men of Sodom who attempted to do sexual violence to the divine visitors whom Lot invited into his home. The comparison is that there was an unnatural mating, or attempt at a violent sexual act, between a divine being and a human being. The first acts lead ultimately to destruction by a flood, the second attempted act to destruction by fire.

A final consideration for the Latter-day Saint might be the words of modern Prophets and Apostles upon the matter. I will only include a few quotations here, but they are enough to demonstrate that there is a lack of consensus upon why the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, and whether or not it had to do with homosexuality. Joseph Smith preached:

“In consequence of rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the Prophets whom God hath sent, the judgments of God have rested upon people, cities, and nations, in various ages of the world, which was the case with the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, that were destroyed for rejecting the Prophets.” Teachings of the Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, 192–205. From a discourse given by Joseph Smith in Nauvoo on Jan. 22, 1843.)

In contrast, Spencer W. Kimball unequivocally equated the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah with homosexuality:

“We hear more and more each day about the sins of adultery, homosexuality, and lesbianism. Homosexuality is an ugly sin, but because of its prevalence, the need to warn the uninitiated, and the desire to help those who may already be involved with it, it must be brought into the open. It is the sin of the ages. It was present in Israel’s wandering as well as after and before. It was tolerated by the Greeks. It was prevalent in decaying Rome. The ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah are symbols of wretched wickedness more especially related to this perversion, as the incident of Lot’s visitors indicates. (Spencer W. Kimball,The Foundations of Righteousness,” Ensign, Nov 1977, 4)

Ezra Taft Benson taught that pride was the sin which caused the city of Sodom to be destroyed:

“The scriptures abound with evidences of the severe consequences of the sin of pride to individuals, groups, cities, and nations. ‘Pride goeth before destruction.’ It destroyed the Nephite nation and the city of Sodom.” (Ezra Taft Benson, Beware of Pride,” Ensign, May 1989, 4.)

More in line with Ezekiel, Neal A. Maxwell considered Sodom’s sin to be neglect of the poor and needy:

“When love waxes cold, let the poor and the needy beware too, for they will be neglected, as happened in ancient Sodom.” (Neal A. Maxwell, Repent of [Our] Selfishness’ (D&C 56:8), Ensign, May 1999, 23)

Perhaps in this post I have taken the long way around to show that, while I don’t think that homosexual orientation can be blamed for the destruction of Sodom and the cities of the plain, there are several valid interpretations of this passage. Additionally, there are many questions we don’t have good answers for. Why did Lot offer his daughters in place of the heavenly visitors, and why was he not condemned for this action? Of the entire city of Sodom, were there not children under 8 years old, and possibly others who were innocently killed in the destruction? Is it possible to connect the several sexual relationships which seem to run through the scripture block comprising Genesis 18-19? What are the symbolic meanings of the characters and actions? The story is so ambiguous that perhaps every reader comes away with a different perception of the lesson to be taught. I have illustrated that point by including below some art work, each with its own unique depiction of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, c. 1320

Albrecht Dürer
Lot and His Daughters

Marc Chagall
Abraham Approaching Sodom with Three Angels

Giusto de Menabuoi
Sodom and Gomorrah

Julius Schnoor von Carolsfeld
Lot flees Sodom

Rembrandt van Rijn
Lot and His Family Leaving Sodom

Gustave Doré
Lot flees Sodom

Henry O. Tanner
Sodom and Gomorrah

Alessandro Bavari
The City of Sodom

CofChrist Prophet: Baptism in Christ Transcends Culture

“5 It is imperative to understand that when you are truly baptized into Christ you become part of a new creation. By taking on the life and mind of Christ, you increasingly view yourselves and others from a changed perspective. Former ways of defining people by economic status, social class, sex, gender, or ethnicity no longer are primary. Through the gospel of Christ a new community of tolerance, reconciliation, unity in diversity, and love is being born as a visible sign of the coming reign of God.”

With these words, the Prophet/President of the Community of Christ delivered to the church for its consideration as divine counsel on January 17 a document that changes the relationship between its sacraments and its people. Copies of the documents are already posted at http://www.CofChrist.org.

Most stunning to readers on the bloggernacle, the document places resolution of pressing issues of marriage, sexual identity and roles, among others, into the hands of field or national jurisdictions to resolve within the context of their own cultures and secular laws. This appears to mean that the Community of Christ will no longer have a world-wide policy toward these cultural institutions, although what local policies will come into place is left undefined. Thus, jurisdictions in which gay marriage is permitted by the culture may be able to move forward with this practice as a sacrament of the church as well, and the church may continue to forbid discussion of the issue in nations where such discussion is taboo.

In addition, persons baptized by water within other denominations who are led by the Spirit to the Community of Christ are now to be accepted without rebaptism into membership upon confirmation following a period of study.

The headlines will probably not be the most important part of the document in the long run. Take a look at it and see what you think.

Now the FBI says this could be the result of better reporting, and not really an increase.

Brian Levin, director for the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University-San Bernardino, warned that the national numbers may be misleading because some states — like California, New Jersey, and Ohio — are good at reporting hate crimes while others — Georgia, Hawaii, Mississippi and Pennsylvania — are not.”The quality of the data is so variable and in some instances so bad that it makes trend analysis extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible,” said Levin. “Generally, states that have effective data collection also have effective training and procedures to address these crimes.”

For the sake of argument, let’s assume these numbers are true.  Are the gays and the religious attacking each other?  How do you explain this?

Posing the Questions on a Personal Level

Since these two bloggers did such a nice job, I will not attempt to address his remarks directly. Rather, I am interested in discussing the address from a personal standpoint. Particularly, I’m interested in how I, jmb275, can understand and deal with his remarks since I clearly do not agree with him.

Let me be very clear here, I do not agree with Elder Hafen’s remarks, and I recognize the poor research, logical fallacies, and dogmatic approach to this issue. I understand that it seems to be a step backwards for the church, and I recognize it is not in harmony with some other messages being sent from the church on this issue (see here, here, or here). I also recognize that Elder Hafen was very bold, possibly to the point of establishing new doctrine (resurrection is, definitively, a mechanism which removes homosexual feelings?). However, none of this is what I want to deal with. What is done, is done, and his remarks have been analyzed. I’m interested in answering the following questions:

1. Is this the last straw? Should I simply leave the church?
2. If not, do I have to agree with Elder Hafen to be a member in good standing?
3. How can I categorize, or otherwise deal with Elder Hafen’s remarks?
4. What is my relationship with the church, and does my membership imply my consent for, or agreement with what has been said?

Answering the Questions For ME

• Answering #1. I am not in the business of trying to convince people to stay in the church, or to leave the church. I see great arguments on both sides. However, I have made my choice to stay, and find spiritual nourishment in my choice. There’s simply enough good, to me, in the church, and I am sufficiently attached to it psychologically, and physically (through family) to convince me to remain. If your choice is to leave, then we’re done here and you can move along. Since I choose to remain we will move on to answering the other questions (and since it wouldn’t be a very interesting blog post if I didn’t).
• Answering #2. I think there will be many who would answer “yes” to this question. I believe this is a product of our Mormon culture. Indeed, from my reading of Joseph Smith’s life, I think the very idea would strike against what Joseph said and did! The good news is that despite what many might think, there is nothing in any doctrine of which I am aware that says disagreement with one of the Brethren puts my membership in jeopardy. Certainly I can “sustain” the Brethren, and recognize their authority in the church without agreeing with everything they say!
• Answering #3. It would seem like there are some relatively straightforward answers to this question.
  • Elder Hafen is a man, so we could conclude that his remarks are “the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.” After all, I have chalked up lots of things said by prophets to this idea. There certainly is truth in this analysis since each of us “see[s] through a glass, darkly”(1 Cor 13:12).
  • Elder Hafen is not the prophet, nor does he speak for the prophet (at least he didn’t indicate that we was). Hence, we can conclude that this does not represent the position of the church collectively, and may not be God’s will.
  • Elder Hafen is using apologetics, coupled with suspect research, all as a dogmatist to draw invalid conclusions. Indeed, rather than examining the evidence and drawing conclusions (the scientific method), the dogmatist already knows the “truth” (has drawn the conclusions) and must interpret the evidence accordingly.

  These are all valid points, and possible answers. But notice that they focus on characterizing Elder Hafen himself, or his remarks. I am interested in something more. How can I understand his remarks, disagree with them, but still respect him and his position?

  For this, I feel I must turn to an attempt to understand Elder Hafen in a Christlike way. Are his intentions good? Does he believe that what he’s doing is right? Does he really seek to hurt people, or does he seek to help them overcome what he believes is a temptation to be conquered? In other words, rather than dismissing his words and analyzing their negative effect on people, I am seeking understanding as to what leads him to make such remarks in the first place. After all, most of us do what we think is best, not intentionally trying to hurt each other, although that effort may be misguided!

  What does this approach buy me? Empathy, and understanding! Not agreement, and not consent, but understanding. It seeks nuance when the tendency is to be dismissive (black), or accepting (white). It gives me the tools I need to avoid letting anger dictate my actions. And, ultimately, at the end of the day, I personally believe that this kind of understanding helps me to transcend my natural inclinations, and use a higher model of human interaction.

• Answering #4. Answering #4 is an important key, for me, in understanding my relationship with any of the organizations to which I belong – church, work, country, school, etc. For me, it is a balancing act. I must sufficiently care for the organization (since I receive benefit from it) to desire to stay a part of it, and desire that it remain intact. But in contrast, I must be sufficiently divorced from the organization in order to avoid the personal pitfalls that come with being a part of it (groupthink, mind control, defending the indefensible, etc.).How do I directly apply this balancing act to the church? I have separated my spiritual growth from the organization! Currently, I find the church a useful mechanism for me to serve, pray, introspect, and otherwise grow spiritually. Arguably, some of this may be attached to being raised LDS. That’s irrelevant to me, as the important point is that I grow spiritually in this particular environment. It also means I can look at Elder Hafen’s remarks and not feel inclined to defend that with which I do not agree. In contrast to the response to #3, this balancing act does allow me the ability to dismiss his remarks (should I feel so inclined).

  Certainly this can be taken to the extreme, and if the church started sanctioning secret assassinations I would be the first one out the door. But I don’t see this type of evil in the LDS church (contrary to what some critics may infer). I love this church, and want it to succeed. But I maintain sufficient distance that I need not accept every piece of doctrine or opinion.

I appreciate what has been said regarding Elder Hafen’s speech by others in the bloggernacle. I make no excuse for the backward step his words seem to imply. However, I do wish to transcend his remarks and take them in stride. These words from Denise Turner in the Ensign a few years back seem particularly appropriate:

Regrettably, there are times when others’ motives are not entirely innocent. This may particularly cause pain and confusion when the offender’s actions seem to contradict the religion he or she espouses; yet even in these difficult situations we are not justified in nursing our anger or turning away from the Church. President Stephen L Richards, First Counselor to President David O. McKay, said, “Does one offense wipe out another? Does weakness in one, even one who has been given a testimony of the truth, justify transgression of the law or failure to listen to its precepts?” (“Encouragement for Repenters,” Improvement Era, June 1956, 398). Our testimonies must be based on Jesus Christ, not on imperfect and fallible individuals. (Denise Turner, “If Any Man Offend Not”, Ensign, August 1998)

Whether your testimony is literal, metaphorical, or you are TBM, non-Mormon, or a middle-way advocate, I think we can learn to understand our fellows better, and while not agreeing with them, can still respect and honor them.

So how do you plan to deal with Elder Hafen’s remarks?

There is no such thing as being normal

If Kaimi were in dire straits, he would prefer to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s

Apparently, marriage is hard work

Gayby Boomers? Silly name, interesting phenomenon

An explanation for Utah bankruptcies

I don’t think PETA would approve of this

Aren’t you glad we have calculaors?

Even Orson Scott Card realizes that Mormonism is a culture

Another reason to have more kids – Placenta Helper

The Bible & Book of Mormon don’t teach of THIS Holy Ghost

New Dehli: New gay rights in a deeply conservative country

[poll id="10"]

[poll id="6"]

Please refrain from turning this into an argument about the nature or morality of homosexual activity or gay marriage.  This is a poll about a legal decision, and comments should be about the decision.

This post isn’t about marriage. It isn’t about sex.

It’s about love:  something that we all desire, crave, yearn, seek, and strive for. I have, and so have you.

Love comes in different forms: the kind that we have for a friend, a brother or sister, our parents, or for a fellow human being — which can develop into the very pinnacle of love; namely romantic love.

Romantic love is not sex. Neither does it necessarily involve or lead to marriage or sex. It’s that feeling of being captivated by another human being and caring for them, as well as expressing our emotions for them verbally or physically, often in a non-sexual manner such as holding hands, embracing, caressing, and innocent kissing: behaviour that is appropriate, according to LDS tradition, even between a couple that is not yet married. In other words, it’s not like loving your mom.

It’s not unheard of for people to live their entire lives and, if they never enter into marriage, never go beyond the non-sexual displays of affection that I just mentioned. Contrary to what some may think, most human beings are capable of living and functioning without sex, without suffering any “damage.” I’m not sure, however, that the same would be true for all who desire and yearn for romantic love, but are denied that opportunity. Can you imagine life without love? If you are not currently in a romantic relationship, you probably have it as a hope or are always on the lookout for an opportunity, even subconsciously. Right?

I’ve tried to think of an example of love that would be considered evil or immoral, unless it’s incestuous or between an adult and minor. When it comes to two consenting adults, I can’t really think of any examples of “immoral love” that aren’t somehow based on sex or deceit (such as an extramarital affair). A sexual relationship between two unmarried adults is immoral. Sex is, in this case, sinful. But is their love also a sin?

Look at the picture above. If the two people were of the same sex, how would you feel about it? Would you feel differently about it? Would you see their behaviour as immoral and something to be avoided? Why or why not?

This “compromise,” if you want to call it that, will not satisfy all. It will not satisfy those who demand no less than equal marriage status within the Church, heterosexual or homosexual, as well as Church-sanctioned homosexual relations; neither will it satisfy those who believe that two members of the same sex who even sit together like that couple in the picture are treading down a wicked path. The term “compromise” is, actually, misleading in my opinion, because the way I see it, the Church would not be compromising anything in regards to the doctrines or policies related to marriage, families, or the Law of Chastity. The only thing that would change would be that heterosexual and homosexual members of the Church would truly be held to the same standards of chastity and morality outside of marriage. That would mean that a couple, such as depicted in the photo, sitting on a bench on BYU campus or outside the Tabernacle, would face no disciplinary action for their innocent display of romantic affection — whether heterosexual or homosexual.

We know that we have a problem in the Church with homosexuals feeling alone, ostracized, without real purpose, and some even resorting to suicide.

Would acceptance of non-sexual same-sex relationships within the Church help to ease the burden of those who struggle and help them to remain in the Church?

What if gay members of the Church were truly held to the same standards of the Law of Chastity when it comes to expression of love and dating relationships?

What, if anything, would the Church be sacrificing or compromising on in order for gay members to be able to date openly in the same way as heterosexual couples without facing discipline?

Why is/isn’t this a good idea?

1) “We would have headed down this path. The pregnancy just accelerated things,” she said of the couple’s cohabitation, the birth of Sadie and their 2005 wedding. “It was the way it was meant to be.”

(Is this a statement of religious belief, or simply a description of fate?)

2) “Nearly 40 percent of babies born in the United States in 2007 were delivered by unwed mothers.”

(Did anyone realize it was this high?)

3) “While 28 percent of white women gave birth out of wedlock in 2007, nearly 72 percent of black women and more than 51 percent of Latinas did . . . With the publicity of our first family, marriage might slowly become more of a norm for all.

(That last sentence might be the most ironic statement in the entire article – that a liberal, Democrat who is a married President might encourage marriage as a “norm”.)

4) “There are 9.8 million single mothers versus 1.8 million single fathers.”

(So, is this really about women choosing, or is it about men not choosing?)

5) “When California Cryobank, which claims to be the world’s largest sperm bank, opened its doors in the late 1970s, 99 percent of its business catered to couples grappling with male infertility, spokesman Scott Brown said. Now, that market in the sperm donor world accounts for less than 14 percent, according to projections by Charles Sims, the organization’s co-founder and medical director.”

(The article mentions lesbians explicitly as one demographic that has contributed to the declining percentage, but it also takes most of its examples from professional, career women who never marry or are divorced with no children.)

6) “Many of these mothers choose to tap known or anonymous sperm donors as the biological clock begins to pound. Perhaps they are like Morrissette, who divorced in her early 30s, wasn’t in a hurry to jump into another relationship and decided to have kids on her own.”

(Iow, the woman really is fine without the man?)

I found this article fascinating, particularly in light of the statements by LDS apostles and prophets about the destruction of the traditional family.  I wonder how everyone here reacts as they read the article and the quotes I’ve excerpted.

So, what are your thoughts about the rising number of out-of-wedlock births – and the pending death of “illegitimacy” when it comes to marriage and childbirth?  Which quote above struck you as the most interesting – and did any of them concern you more than the others?

Interestingly enough, Tom Hanks was briefly identified as a Mormon (although he was not baptized) when his stepmother Winifred joined the church.  However, his father Amos was not interested in the Mormon church, and according to an unauthorized biography, Tom saw this as one reason they split up.  Tom stated later that he was no longer a Mormon, and he also believed his ex-stepmother had left Mormonism.  Tom made his way through several different religions over time as you can see here.

Speaking of his involvement in the show Big Love, Hanks said (with my parenthetical comments inserted):

The truth is this takes place in Utah (the truth is that it’s a fictional show), the truth is these people are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church (the truth is these are fictional characters based loosely on some bizarre offshoots; but KUDOS for the “bizarre offshoot” remark), and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen (why do I picture someone making air quotes when they say “happen”?).  There are a lot of people who feel that is un-American and I am one of them.  I do not like to see any discrimination codified on any piece of paper, any of the 50 states in America, but here’s what happens now. A little bit of light can be shed and people can see who’s responsible (is he now talking about the Prop 8 maps that identified donors, essentially putting targets on their backs for gay activists?) and that can motivate the next go around of our self correcting constitution and hopefully we can move forward instead of backwards (I’m not even sure this sentence went forward instead of backwards). So lets have faith in not only the American (not Mormons who are UNAmerican for voting for Prop 8), but Californian constitutional process (so, have faith in Americans, but if they vote wrong, have faith in the constitutional process to correct that).

Then, Tom did a fairly nice reversal of his statement:

Last week, I labeled members of the Mormon church who supported California’s Proposition 8 as “un-American.” I believe Proposition 8 is counter to the promise of our Constitution; it is codified discrimination.  But everyone has a right to vote their conscience – nothing could be more American. To say members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints who contributed to Proposition 8 are “un-American” creates more division when the time calls for respectful disagreement.  No one should use “un- American” lightly or in haste.  I did.  I should not have. (I really like the terseness and directness of the last few statements.  Apologizers, watch and learn).

Obviously, the reversal of his statements (which was doubtless prompted by those who have a financial stake in his popularity) doesn’t necessarily mean he’s ready for a group hug.  So, what are Tom Hanks’ true feelings about Mormons?  Here’s a guess:

• He’s an activist for gay rights.  Like most of Hollywood, he’s an SSM activist and considers those not ready for SSM to be discriminatory.  It’s hard to blame him for his sheltered Hollywood existence, though.  When you spend most of your time around like-minded people, you develop group-think.  I’m sure we can all relate on some level.  In summary:  his feelings are pro-SSM, not anti-Mormon.
• He’s spiritual, not religious.  He saw his ex-stepmother as flaky (looking at his own religious history I say “physician, heal thyself”) and therefore attracted to Mormonism as a phase; he probably doesn’t take it very seriously as a religion (see:  Hollywood).
• He’s an artist.  We see Hollywood as a money machine; they see themselves as creative artists, holding a mirror up to the human experience.  Tom Hanks strives to make characters (even the polygamous Hendricksons) understandable, human, accurate, and relatable.  Showing the Mormon temple ceremony is not being done as payback (although he does resent Prop 8); it’s being done for accuracy and to render Barb Hendrickson more human.  And he is just an EP, not a writer for the show (that would be Dustin Lance Black, the gay ex-Mormon who gave the impassioned speech at the Oscars).

So, that’s my view.  I’m inclined to cut Hanks some slack.  Plus, I somewhat think there’s no such thing as bad press (even all that bad press out there).  Not many Mormons watch Big Love, but many do watch Tom Hanks.  I think his apology was adequate, and I don’t consider his work mean-spirited (although I hated the mullet he sported in DaVinci Code).  It’s a low bar, but high enough for me.  Discuss.

IN politics, as in marriage, moments come along when sensitive compromise can avert a major conflict down the road. The two of us believe that the issue of same-sex marriage has reached such a point now. 

We take very different positions on gay marriage. We have had heated debates on the subject. Nonetheless, we agree that the time is ripe for a deal that could give each side what it most needs in the short run, while moving the debate onto a healthier, calmer track in the years ahead.

It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

Please take the time to read the entire article, since it provides their justification for this proposal – and because I think it is very well written, regardless of agreement or disagreement with particular points in it.

My question is very simple:

Would this compromise work – for both “sides” of the issue?  Could you personally accept it?  Do you think those with whom you disagree would be able to accept it?  Why or why not?  Which group would have a harder time accepting it – and why?

If you think this would not work, is there a different compromise that you think would work?

In looking at “righteousness”, “spirituality” and “religiosity” throughout the scriptures, my search of the scriptures was incredibly instructive. “Religious” appears only 4 times in our entire canon – two of which are in the D&C and two of which are in the NT.  One of the NT references (Acts 13:43) means simply “attached to or in line with a particualr religion” (the core meaning of “religious”), while the other NT reference (James 1:26) actually is a negative usage (“If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain.”) “Religiosity” (the actual result of being religious) never appears in our scriptures.  In summary, there is no encouragement or command in the scriptures to be religious, and no blessings are attached to that goal – probably since someone could belong to a religion that encourages human sacrifice and still be “religious” in the purest sense of the word.

On the other hand, the adjective, “righteous”, has 214 references in our canon, and the adjective, “spiritual”, is listed 45 times. That is interesting. However, the noun, “righteousness” (the actual result of being righteous), appears in our canon 274 times, while the noun, “spirituality” (the actual result of being spiritual), appears a grand total of . . . . . . . 0 times. Nada; not once; zero; nil; never – in our entire standard works. That alone told me something profound, since it is found exactly as often as “religiosity”.

When I looked up “spirituality” in the dictionary, the most interesting and comprehensive definition was, “of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material”. In other words, at the most fundamental level, to “be spiritual” means to be focused on the spirit – and, by extension, away from the body.

“Righteous”, on the other hand, is defined as “characterized by or proceeding from accepted standards of morality or justice”. In other words, to “be righteous” means to be “right with or living in accordance with proper standards of action, not thought” – which implies actions that, of necessity, are accomplished by the soul (the connected and united body and spirit).

Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

The thought that hit me was that there is a real difference between being “spiritual” and being “righteous”. There is an even bigger difference between pursuing “spirituality” and striving for “righteousness” – and, by extension, pursuing “religiosity”. If I have to choose between one of these three, I need to choose righteousness as the object of my hunger and thirst. Spirituality can be a motivating factor in pursuing a connection to the Holy Spirit, but it alone cannot produce a perfect (complete and whole) life lived in harmony with God’s standards for all His children. Again, we are not blessed for seeking spirituality or religiosity as an end goal – to hunger and thirst after either of them. Rather, we are blessed for pursuing righteousness. Why is that?

In a very real way, “spirituality”, alone and isolated, is selfish, inwardly focused, susceptible to gluttony (constant spiritual feeding with no service to burn away spiritual calories), insular, and not inherently active or giving. It is understanding without application; it is the spirit divorced from the body; it is belief without action; in a way, it is like faith without works. Furthermore, if pursued exclusively, it can lead to a hermit-like existence away from the world – like a monk sequestered in a monastery living a life of isolated introspection – doing no bad, but also doing no good – never finding completeness and wholeness.

On the other hand, “righteousness” is selfless, focused on actions, high spiritual energy consuming, service-oriented, producing fruits that can feed one’s self and others and bring the Holy Ghost to replenish personal spirituality. “Righteousness” is the physical application of true “spirituality” – the “proof” of real faith – and the difference between the “fruits of the Spirit” and the “works of man”. (The last comparison is a separate topic for another post.)

No wonder the command is NOT to hunger and thirst after spirituality, but instead to hunger and thirst after righteousness. In fact, what hit me as I typed my post last April is that righteousness can be phrased as “being right with God” – and the pursuit of righteousness can be phrased as the pursuit of “becoming one with God”. That is a good way of describing the effect of God’s grace – since it is God’s grace that allows “being right” to mean being as complete and whole as one can be at any given point on the path that leads eventually to becoming truly complete and whole. One can be “righteous” all along that path, all the while hungering and thirsting after perfect righteousness.

Tying all of this back to people leaving the Church, I believe that the proper pursuit of righteousness is a combination of proper religiosity (being in line with a religious institution) and proper spirituality (being in tune with the working of the Spirit).  I think that we cannot be “righteous” if we aren’t pursuing both – and I also believe that “sprituality” is something that the institutional church cannot provide.  It must be pursued independent of “religiosity” – on one’s own time, if you will.  I also believe that spirituality and religiosity cannot be separated and produce righteousness – since, at the most basic level, “faith without works is dead, being alone”.  (James 2:14-26)

Many people leave the Church because, “It lacks true spirituality.”  I agree; the Church, as a disembodied institution, does lack true spirituality – since true spirituality is found spirit to spirit.  I believe the role of the Church is to provide a formal structure of “religiosity” that, when combined with individual “spirituality”, creates true “righteousness”.  Therefore, in my mind, the key to the Church’s role in my eternal development is to present an overarching theological vision that inspires me to pursue the type of divine unity (including community) that Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount (summed up in Matthew 5:48) and for which he prayed in the Intercessory Prayer (all of John 17, summed up in John 17:21-23).

Having said that, many wards and branches of the Church contain powerful and vibrant spirituality, since many members of those congregations are deeply spiritual; many others do not contain that type of spirituality, since many members of those congregations are not deeply spiritual.  “The Church” provides the theological vision that can enliven and inspire righteousness (a “true and living” combination of faith and works), but in order to tap into that “righteousness” each member (and local ward or branch) must, of necessity, be both spiritual in and of themselves AND tapped into the religiosity the organization provides.

Those who leave the Church simply have not married (and perhaps cannot marry) their own spirituality to the institution’s religiosity in a way that produces empowering righteousness, while those who stay often have done so – or are still in pursuit of that goal.  I believe too many members rely on the Church to provide their spirituality, and when they realize that the Church is incapable of doing what they need to do themselves, they leave – to find outside of the Church what they failed to find inside it.  (This is understandable in the lives of those who struggle mightily in one ward or branch, then flourish in another one – or vice versa. Some, lacking internal spirituality, end up reflecting the spirituality of the congregation they attend – for better or worse; others have internal spirituality but can’t deal with the lack they see feel around them.)

Many people take a much more active role in their own spirituality once they leave the Church (especially those who leave with the express purpose of seeking spirituality), and, not surprisingly, they then become more spiritual than they had been as members.  Many are constricted by the particular religiosity of Mormonism and must leave in order to pursue a combination of spirituality and religiosity that can bring them a measure of righteousness (like homosexual members), but it is interesting to consider those who end up returning to Mormonism once they have found the personal spirituality they lacked previously.  Once they become spiritually independent of their religiosity, they are able to return to their former religiosity as new beings and find righteousness in a new manifestation of their former faith.  Others never do return, and too many end up blaming the Church for not being able to provide them what it DOES provide others.

The real tragedy is that too many deny what the Church really does provide for the majority of its members, simply because they didn’t gain it themselves.

NOTE: I need to mention two previous posts here on Mormon Matters that delve into this general topic.  They are worth reviewing:

1) Stephen Marsh’s “Shadows and Spirituality”

2) Hawkgrrrl’s “Spiritual or Just Religious“

The church has had a lot to say about sex and sexuality. It’s been on a winding path, but over time it has developed a rather comprehensive universe-view to back its positions. I like to think, even if some people vehemently disagree with the church position, or think that the church has become bland on certain doctrinal points in relationship to its past, LDS doctrines concerning the family have been consistently unique, fresh, and vitalic (even though that’s not a word, no other word sounds right to me…so hush up!)

Even when we see the church seeming to move with other groups on matters of sex and sexuality (for example, that most controversial proposition 8 issue), what becomes clear in one way or another is that many of the church reasons will be rather unique. It’s not as if most (if any) other groups who supported prop 8 had a proclamation on the family, theology on the eternal nature of true gender or of the unique role that marriage and the family play in the eternities. Some of the prop 8 allies might not even acknowledge that gender or marriage even exist in the hereafter. Oh well; politics makes strange bedfellows (and that sells nearly as well as sex, if the post-proposition fallout has been any indication).

Prop 8 obviously was a controversial issue, so this is not where this post lies. But I think it shows, to an extent, that sex and sexuality are particularly serious business for the LDS church. I’ve had some non-member friends call the church a “sex cult,” and although I’d disagree with them strongly on many accounts concerning those words (cult? sex? sex cult?! no matter how you spin those words it just doesn’t sound like the well-meaning, wholesome [or at least wholesome-seeking] group *I* grew up in), I can at least rephrase these misunderstanding and negative words to suggest that the church, which understandably has vested interests in the family, cares about what can strengthen or weaken the family and its umbrella’d functions (which includes, yes, procreation and sex).

It seems that, whether doctrinal or cultural, in this viewpoint, we’ve gotten the idea that some people “should” be celibate in this life. We (used generally) might say, “Well, it is unfortunate that people with same-sex attraction [for example] are that way, and we don’t necessarily know why it is, because science is still out on that, and we don’t necessarily condone them just getting married to a woman to “fix” it, and it might be that they don’t “fix” it in this life…but for now, we’ll just have to ask them to hold on for this short, short life without engaging in those attractions.”

And some people object: “Isn’t that horrible?!”

But we’ve got answers. “Well, it’s unfortunate, but there are those of other circumstances who will face a burden of celibacy in this life too. That’s just the way things are.” or “Well, everyone has their thorn to deal with. Some people are predisposed to alcohol, but they have to abstain too.” And we’ve got complex issues (although I suppose these aren’t set in stone) for why this is one issue that cannot change and that cannot be abided.

And so on. No need to “judge,” but I really just wanted to pose a few questions:

• Do you think lifelong celibacy is what some people (not just any groups I may have alluded to; think broadly) “should” do to keep with the gospel?
• What do you think the role of sex in a relationship is? Is it “essential” for a “good” relationship?
• What would you think of a committed, unwed opposite-sex couple who were celibate (by mutual choice) for life?
• What would you think of a committed, unwed same-sex couple who were celibate (by mutual choice) for life?
• What would you think of a committed, married couple who were celibate (by mutual choice) for life?
• (Touchy question from a silly immature no-life-having blogger; don’t need to answer publicly): If somehow, you were pressured to be celibate for an extensive period of time by outside forces (ex: your significant other wasn’t attuned to your desires; society or the church frowned upon your sexual activity, etc.,), would you “give up” the prospect of sex?

I hope this isn’t too risque for MM. If it is, I’ll just have to get a disguise and go to FMH or something.

The guests on Oprah were young transgenders, who underwent hormone therapy and/or a sex change operation because they felt they had been born into the wrong body. One had been born a boy, but was living as a woman. The other had been born a girl and was now living as a man.

The more that I witness the personal stories of such people, the harder it is for me (or anyone, in my opinion) to deny that what they feel is extremely real and often devastating, depending on the support — or lack of it — that they receive from their loved ones.

I found the story of the young girl-to-man especially compelling. It was interesting to see old pictures of when he was a little girl. You could see the unhappiness and, more than anything, the awkwardness. I don’t mean to be mean, but she was a very homely girl. Why? Because she looked like a boy in a wig and dress. Now that “she” has become a “he,” he looks normal.  I never would have guessed that he had been born female.

His mother described the living hell that their family went through when this young girl was suicidal because of her mental and emotional agony. As soon as she began with hormone therapy and started on the road to becoming a man, he became a happy person, and the depression and suicidal feelings disappeared. Being Mormon, I tried to imagine being in the position of that mother, who wasn’t Mormon. If she had followed Church policy on gender — which, from what I understand includes excommunication for those who undergo transgender operations — and pushed for her daughter to continue living as a girl, the daughter very likely would have taken her life or at least remained terribly depressed her entire life. Talk about feeling torn.

I’m not a mother.  For those of you who are a parent, think about it.  If your teenage child was suicidal and you knew that the “remedy” (i.e. a sex change operation) is grounds for excommunication, what would you do?  Yes, you could go through the rounds of fasting, prayer, and hope.  But what if that wasn’t enough?  What if your child was still suicidal or at least extremely miserable?  Would you feel torn between your (or your child’s) membership in the Church vs. his or her happiness and well-being?

I find especially perplexing the question of those people who are born intersex.

“Intersexuality is the state of a living thing of a gonochoristic species whose sex chromosomes, genitalia, and/or secondary sex characteristics are determined to be neither exclusively male nor female. An intersex organism may have biological characteristics of both the male and female sexes. Intersexuality is the term adopted by medicine during the 20th century applied to human beings who cannot be classified as either male or female.” (Wikepedia)

If the parents of an intersex child feel forced to decide which gender the child should become through surgery, in order to allow for a future opportunity to serve a mission or marry in the temple, is that any different than transgender operations by those who feel that they’re trapped in the wrong body?  The parents and doctors might be wrong, and the child could grow up to feel trapped in the wrong body.  To me, I think that would be worse than being intersex.

In “The Family: A Proclamation To The World,” the First Presidency and Council of the Twelve Apostles stated:

“All human beings—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.”

Where does this leave intersex people? They’re neither one nor the other. Do they have to choose? Is their gender determined by how they feel, or is it determined purely by biology, which is sometimes still ambiguous?  Would someone who is intersex be able to serve a mission?  Marry in the temple?  What would life be like in a church where gender is virtually everything to someone’s identity, when s/he is neither one nor the other, or perhaps feels that his/her mind does not match his/her body?

I’ve tried to imagine what it would be like if someone said to me, “FD, you are a man, so you just need to accept it. You need to start thinking, acting, walking, talking, and dressing like a man. And therefore you should be attracted to women.”

Can you imagine what it would be like if you had to convince yourself that you were actually the opposite sex that you think and feel you are?

I agree with the the “Proclamation On The Family” that “(G)ender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” I believe that our gender is eternal and that Heavenly Father didn’t just leave it up randomly to our DNA to decide whether we would be one gender or the other.

But…

I’m thinking more and more that gender really is a state of mind and spirit: one that is as much a part of us as all the other aspects of our spirit and intelligence. I am female because I feel and act female. If I were sitting in a male body at this very moment but with the same mind that I have now, would I consider myself to not be female?

Heavenly Father can and does allow some of us to be born into bodies that are defective or imperfect, for reasons that are often a mystery to us. The physical state of such individuals does not change their spirit. Could it not also be the same case with physical gender? Could he not have allowed certain individuals to be born into the “wrong” physical body, which then causes a conflict with their spirit, which is of a different gender?

We are taught in Mormonism that our physical bodies are imperfect, subject to disease and defect, and that our spirits and intelligences are eternal. Why, then, should our gender be defined solely by our physical bodies? Should not the mind and spirit take precedence over the body?

A commenter, Chedner, from the discussion on my blog said:

“Say, for example, a young man came to his father or his Bishop or any of his Priesthood leaders and said, “I feel like I am innately a girl.”  Would it not be easy to take a day or two of fasting, scripture study, meditation, and end with a sincere Priesthood blessing to discern the true, eternal gender of that child?  One may be surprised to find that this child’s mother was supposed to have a little girl, but something went awry within the womb and a male body was formed instead.  How is that not possible?  It doesn’t threaten any LDS doctrines. Nothing in our canon has to be further revealed, nothing has to be altered or made more perfect.  We simply need to fully embrace what we do have: gender existed in the pre-existence; our bodies are imperfect and prone to birth defects.”

A non-member commenter and trangender woman, Just Jennifer, had this to say:

“Simply put, our “gender” is inherent. It is something that is fixed at birth. And yes, it is anatomical, but not in the way that some think. A better term is “sexual differentiation of the brain.” And our genitals may be sexually differentiated at odds with our brains. It all has to do with hormone levels in utero. I was born a male physically. But my brain was female. I struggled for much of my life, not knowing what was wrong. Even when I figured it all out, it took some more years to reach the point where I understood what could be done to rectify the situation. I am now a happy and successful woman. And I am closer to God than I was as a very unhappy parody of a man. Those who wish to tell people like me that I should “just deal with it” are both ignorant and cruel.”

Zoe, a non-member transgender woman said:

“Your post shows not just compassion, but true understanding of a situation most people find incomprehensible. I can’t blame them either, it’s no easier for those of us in this situation. Many of us go through decades of denial, trying to be like others around us.”

Another commenter from my blog, Mina, a non-Mormon, had this to say:

“I just want to say thank you so very much for an amazingly compassionate position from all of you – as a trans-woman myself, I’m not used to such understanding from deeply religious people.  I’ll be honest in that this aspect of who I am caused me years of anguish. I had grown up in a very conservative Dutch Reformed community, and even though I knew I was different from a very early age – 4 or 5 if I remember correctly, I denied it into my mid 20′s. Then I came across a very interesting opinion piece by a young Catholic priest. Basically he took the position that we need to remember the Fall from Grace, and that one of God’s punishments was visitation of pests and plagues on Adam and his descendants. The world was MADE imperfect then and there, including how we develop from conception. We humans have added to this imperfection through chemical pollution and the like, and so intersex and transsex are to be expected.”

After reading her comment, I thought, “How sad, that a human being having been born into such difficult life circumstances could be met by anything BUT compassion from deeply religious people.  Can we Mormons do any better?”

What do you think?  Are we over-simplifying the teachings on eternal gender by Church leadership by interpreting them to mean that either male or female physical body parts are the only factors that determine spiritual gender?  Or are transgender and intersex people simply suffering from a mental and emotional trial which they need to bear through this mortal life?

Growing up with younger siblings, I always had a hard time believing that Satan couldn’t possess kids under the age of eight.  And that goes for myself too, since if what my parents have said is true, I was a bit of a devil child.  But, in all seriousness, I have some questions that make it hard for me to not see conflicts between the doctrine of the Age of Accountability and other Church doctrine.

“From latter-day revelation, we know that little children are redeemed through the mercy of Jesus Christ. The Lord said, “They cannot sin, for power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before me” (see D&C 29:46–47). They are not to be baptized until they reach the age of accountability, which the Lord has revealed to be eight years of age (see D&C 68:27; Joseph Smith Translation, Genesis 17:11). Anyone who claims that little children need baptism “denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption” (Moroni 8:20; see also verses 8–19, 21–24).” (LDS.org, Topic Definition, Little Children And Baptism)

I’ve always wondered, then, why some kids under the age of eight can do bad things — really bad things — like commit murder, sexual assault, etc.  Although such occurrences are rare, they have happened and I wonder how the doctrine of the Age of Accountability and the power of Satan can explain them.

We believe that God can only influence us to do good and Satan can only influence us to do bad. But since “power is not given unto Satan to tempt little children, until they begin to become accountable before (God),” how are they even capable of doing bad things? That children are influenced by adults and the world around them is certain. Those children under the age of eight who do commit crimes are clearly under the influence of someone or something, but I’m not exactly sure what it is.

A seven year-old who stabs his playmate or displays sexual aggression is not accountable for what he has done and is not guilty of sin in the eyes of God. I understand that. But what is the power driving a child to commit such a crime? If someone is not forcing him to do it, what is influencing him, if not Satan?

I’ve also wondered about how the Age of Accountability applies to matters of homosexuality and gender confusion.  From as far as I can remember (which is about age 4 or 5), I have known that I was attracted to boys (I am female). I was too young to know what a heterosexual was or that I was one. I simply knew that I wanted to chase boys. Many homosexuals and transgenders report much the same thing: that they knew from a very young age that they were either attracted to the same sex, or perhaps felt that their physical gender was in conflict with their mental/emotional gender. Even if they were too young to understand the technicalities or significance of these feelings, they were at least able to recognize the feelings in themselves.

So, getting back to how this applies to children under eight and how Satan cannot influence them, it seems to me that in order for this doctrine of the Age of Accountability to be true, homosexual or gender conflict cannot be categorized as “temptation.”  And if it’s not a temptation, then how can it be from Satan?  If the homosexual feelings or gender confusion (not acts, but desires) are temptations coming from Satan, enticing them to engage in homosexual behaviour or making them desire a gender reassignment operation (both of which are potentially grounds for excommunication among adults), then how could a little child under the age of eight ever be capable of experiencing them? If Satan has no power over them, then they can’t come from him. But to say they come from God would be blasphemous in the eyes of many.  God can only encourage us to go good, while Satan can only entice us to do evil.

So, in conclusion, I have two questions:

1.) How are some children under the age of eight capable of committing heinous crimes, without being forced into it by anyone, if Satan has no power over them?

2.) How can a child under the age of eight experience homosexual desire and/or gender conflict if such thoughts and feelings are to be classified as temptations from the adversary?

neu-tral /ˈnutrəl, ˈnyu-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [noo-truhl] -adjective: not taking part or giving assistance in a dispute or war between others. (Random House Dictionary.)

* * * * *

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

-Jesus (Matt. 10:34-35.)

Although much, probably too much, has already been said about the Church’s endorsement of Proposition 8 in California, as well as similar ballot measures in other states, I can’t help making some observations about what an interesting case study it has presented on the issue of the Church’s political neutrality. I get the feeling that the Church’s overwhelming support for Proposition 8 signals either the beginning of a series of major political battles in which the Church will involve itself in the future with increasing frequency, or the Church’s last political stand of its kind. I’m just not sure which it is yet.

I’ll be honest: when I heard the announcement that the Church was officially throwing its hat into the ring in support of Proposition 8, I was deeply puzzled. With a few rare exceptions, the LDS Church has a longstanding policy and practice of not endorsing or opposing legislative proposals, even if important moral issues that affect the family are involved.

For example, even on the literally life-and-death issue of abortion, the Church’s official position statement states:

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes in the sanctity of human life. Therefore, the Church opposes elective abortion for personal or social convenience, and counsels its members not to submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions. . . .

The Church has not favored or opposed legislative proposals or public demonstrations concerning abortion.

(Source.) In essence, the official position statement says that although the Church opposes elective abortion and counsels its members against it, the Church has been neutral on legislative proposals concerning that important moral issue. Or in other words, although the Church believes and teaches X, the Church doesn’t feel compelled to endorse or oppose legislation to ensure that X is made the law of the land.

In the few instances when the Church has made an official statement on a moral/political issue, oftentimes the official statement simply states that we don’t take a position on that issue. For example, the Church’s official position statement about capital punishment (another moral life-and-death issue) concludes: “We neither promote nor oppose capital punishment.” (Source.) Likewise, the Church’s official position statement about stem-cell research states: “The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has not taken a position regarding the use of embryonic stem cells for research purposes.” (Source.) (See here to read the seven official position statements the Church has posted on its official website.)

The Church’s default position of political neutrality on moral issues sometimes frustrates members of other faiths who would like the Church to take a more active role in politics, as other churches do. I have a friend who used to work for the Church in Public Affairs. She often received angry phone calls from members of other faiths who were outraged that the Church wouldn’t get involved politically with abortion, capital punishment, stem-cell research, and other moral issues. The Church’s political neutrality on moral issues upset them and, in their minds, cast doubt on the Church’s claim to share the same concern for upholding traditional moral values as other Christian churches.

Because I was aware of the Church’s default position of political neutrality on these and other important moral issues, I was confused as to why–out of all the important moral issues being debated and legislated today–the Church came out so strongly and decisively against same-sex marriage. It seemed to be a departure from our longstanding policy and practice of saying, essentially, “although we believe X is morally wrong (e.g., elective abortion), the Church does not feel compelled to ensure that its moral views are enacted into legislation.”

During the Proposition 8 campaign amongst Church members, we often heard the refrain that Proposition 8 must be passed because the Proclamation on the Family states that “marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God.” This oft-repeated argument intrigued me because, as we see in so many other examples, the fact that we believe “X” does not automatically lead to the conclusion that the Church must ensure that “X” is enacted into law. We certainly don’t take that position when it comes to our beliefs about the Word of Wisdom, abortion, adultery, etc.

The fact is that California law already departs from the Proclamation on the Family in numerous ways. For example, the Proclamation on the Family also states that “Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” Yet existing California law directly contradicts Church doctrine by allowing any individual to essentially re-define his or her gender at will. I’m unaware of any plans to ensure the Proclamation on the Family’s doctrinal declarations about gender are enacted into California law. So the fact that the Proclamation on the Family says “X” does not automatically compel the conclusion that the Church must work to ensure that “X” is reflected in the law.

Why? Because as members of the Church, we have long been accustomed to the reality that there are two competing standards of morality, i.e., the standards of the Church, and the standards of the world/society/culture/government. I was raised to look to the former and not the latter for my personal definition of right and wrong. I was never raised to use the laws created in Washington, D.C. or Sacramento as my moral compass. To the contrary, I was taught to abstain from fornication, adultery, abortion, alcohol, tobacco, pornography, and a host of other things that my Church teaches are 100% immoral, and yet are 100% legal under the laws of the United States of America and the Republic of California.

There are, always have been, and always will be, significant ways in which my Church’s standards depart from the government’s standards. For example, the fact that government says two people are effectively “married” simply by virtue of their having shacked up and fornicated for several months is, to me, a terrible perversion of the sacred institution of marriage. And yet that legal concept of “common-law marriage” has existed for decades in numerous states. To my knowledge, however, the Church hasn’t fought against laws regarding common-law marriage, even though such laws deviate from the traditional religious definition of “marriage.”

This most recent election in California presented another interesting contrast between the Church’s positions on two moral issues that were both on the ballot. California’s Proposition 4 was a proposal to require parental notification before a minor could obtain an abortion. This was certainly an important moral issue concerning the family and, in particular, parental rights and responsibilities. However, the Church sat silent on Proposition 4 while it encouraged its members to donate thousands of dollars and man-hours to pass Proposition 8.

All of this seems to create the appearance that over the past 25 years, the Church’s de facto position on political neutrality is that the Church abstains from endorsing or opposing legislative proposals even when important life-and-death moral issues affecting the family are involved, except in cases where same-sex marriage is at issue. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I think we have to go back to the ERA to find a political issue other than same-sex marriage in which the the Church was so heavily involved.

The purpose of this post is not to advocate any particular position, but simply to share my process of seeking to understand the reasoning behind when the Church decides to depart from its default position of political neutrality and enter the political fray. I can’t help wishing I could have been a fly on the wall to overhear the discussions that resulted in the Church’s decision to become embattled in an issue that has now thrown the Church into the national spotlight. I can’t help wondering: what was it about same-sex marriage that made it more intolerable to Church leaders than, say, partial-birth abortion?

If our friend Bruce Nielson is correct, only one thing is certain: We will never know.

So what do you think? Of all the moral issues affecting the family that are being debated today, why was same-sex marriage the one that caused Church leaders to break from the Church’s default position political neutrality? And does the Church’s overwhelming endorsement of Proposition 8 signify a shift in Church leaders’ attitudes towards political neutrality, foreshadowing increased involvement in major political battles to come? Or was it the the dying moans of an out-of-touch mindset that is going the way of the do-do bird, as some have suggested? Or neither?

I decided to bag the post I had planned because this issue or at least the reaction to the passing of Proposition 8 in California seems to have some longer range consequences. As a California native who lived the great majority of my life there (until I moved to Colorado 5 years ago), I am interested.

1. There has been a strong and sometimes violent reaction to the passing on Proposition 8 by the opponents similar to, but not on the same scale as those during the civil rights struggles. Not riots, but strong protests, mainly at religious institutions and mostly at Mormon Temple sites, Los Angeles, Oakland and San Diego. I have not heard nor seen any reports on widespread protests at LDS chapels on Sunday. ( CORRECTION: here’s one in Seattle) There was also a large protest at Saddleback Church (Pastor Rick Warren’s Church) in Lake Forest, Ca. Anti-8 folks are angry and frustrated that they did not get what they wanted and are now demonstrating it toward those they feel are responsible for their loss.

The fact is that while these folks certainly had no love for the Mormon Church prior to the vote, or were at least ambivalent toward it, they were probably like most people in their knowledge of the Church.  So their reaction to the well coordinated efforts by its members at the urging of its leaders is probably one of sheer frustration rather than any vendetta that they might personally hold against the Church itself. So, it was, up until now.

It has been pointed out that the Church was one of many involved in the campaign, but again, the most organized of the bunch, it appears.  Mormons only represent 2 percent of Californians, so, if all voted for Prop 8, could only be blamed for 2% of the 52% majority. Of course, as we know, not all agreed with the pro 8 position and many church members are too young to vote.

The irony here is that had prop 8 lost, you would not see the kind of protests from the frustrated pro 8 folks.

2.       There is also an irony involved as you watch the videos that Andrew referenced in his post as the protesters shout “Stop the Hate.”  There are hateful references to the Church, Christians in general and others who supported Prop 8 because of their belief in traditional marriage but not unkind feelings toward gay people.

Certainly, there are those in religious organizations that “hate” gay people or their lifestyle, but certainly the prop. 8 campaign did not appear to be “hate-filled” but only addressed the issue itself.  There were no untoward ads that mocked gay people or spoke of extreme dire consequences of the defeat of prop 8 against a backdrop of sinister music and visuals.  I suppose some might argue that some references to the potential acceptance and teaching of the Gay lifestyle in schools and the influence on children might be construed that way, but from my point of view, it was handled respectfully. The anti 8 campaign seemed to be quite the opposite especially at the end. Granted, I don’t live in California any longer so I can’t say that I saw all the ads, but I did see a number of them on YouTube and on the California newspaper websites, which I look at every day.

So, who needs to “Stop the Hate?”

3.       The final irony for me is the fact that the polling data seems to indicate that African Americans and Hispanics were the deciding voters who pushed Prop 8 over the top to passage. So, apparently, they did not see this as a civil rights issue. According to the Sacramento Bee, 70% of those identifying their race as Black voted for the proposition while 53% Hispanic/Latino against 49% White and Asian. In spite of the talk to the contrary, it appears to be a morality/societal question, not a question of civil rights.

So, I hope we can all get passed this episode and come to some place where all sides can be satisfied. Perhaps that is not possible, I hope it is. The trend seems to indicate that in a few years, voters will be willing to allow gay marriage, if the demographics are correct as older, more conservative voters are eliminated from the voting rolls and younger, more accepting voters replace them.   Of course, it is harder to overturn a constitutional amendment than it is to pass one.  And, we don’t know what the courts will do.

So, stand by, this is not over.

General Authorities (“G.A.”s) tend to share the following characteristics:

• a history of personal sacrifice
• much experience in delayed gratification.
• a set of spiritual skills and experiences.
• a set of social experiences and narratives.

When you hear of a G.A. who was ordained a bishop at 22, few think that means that since the man was 22 he has spent hours every week in an unpaid clergy position.  When you hear that someone has not been able to sit with their wife or children for the past sixty years, you are hearing form or about someone who has put other things first for a very, very long time.

Most of what general authorities do can be broken down to tasks that involve a great deal of travel without sight seeing.  Sleeping in strange beds, eating strange foods, mostly dealing with people in humble circumstances. Imagine a schedule that general consists of company travel, three to four days of reorganizing or organizing a stake and more travel.  Imagine that forty times a year, for twenty or thirty or forty or fifty years — most of it before modern telephone connections or travel (I still remember when long distance cost the equivalent of $1.50 a minute in today’s money).

The, there is time spent in conferencing and correlation.  At one time, there was also a good deal of joint travel (2-3 general authorities going together to a stake conference, for example), but now almost all face time between general authorities occurs at “home base” (Church Headquarters).  There are also disciplinary counsels, either appeals or leaders guilty of adultery or embezzlement.

Finally, there is the time spent in training and public speaking.  The schedule is very demanding.  It is not unusual to meet general authorities who have never celebrated at home since their call.

The travel and conferencing leads to social narratives that combine working by consensus and hierarchy.  This is an interesting combination and as the number of general authorities grows, the sense of cohesion and consensus seems to have grown more, rather than less.  They also meet many people full of themselves who feel they are ready to be general authorities without understanding the position.

Finally, out of order from my introductions four point outline, there are the set of spiritual skills and experiences they share.  The first has to do with organizing stakes.  New general authorities are paired with older ones for a trip or two until the new one has the hang of the spiritual connection necessary to know God’s will in the matter of calling a Stake President.  Thirty or forty times a year a G.A. will seek and learn God’s will in that matter.  They will also often learn how to train others in the same gift or skill.  Some are better at it than others, but they all know that God speaks to them within the confines of their calling.

Many can also directly perceive sin and spirituality, at least to some extent.  That colors many of their perceptions.  Many are sensitive not only to the strength of the Spirit around someone, but also to the texture of it.  They also commonly deal with people who may be strongly spiritual, but who need correction.

These factors combine to create an interesting mind set.  It is one that does not value personal gratification or satisfaction in comparison to obedience or sacrifice.  It is one that does not overly respect academic doubt or questioning compared to seeking the Spirit and waiting on God.

Finally, it leads to discounting things said by those tainted by sin and accepting a state of delayed or deferred gratification as natural.  Few the see the calling as one they want for their children, especially before those children are grandparents.

It is a mindset with an amazing combination of depth of planning and short term focus, of delayed gratification and immediate responses.  In looking at the general authorities, I would suggest that the next time you find yourself framing a question of policy or a “why don’t they …” you ask yourself how you would address someone whose mindset does not include personal gratification as a reason for anything and who sees revelation (in specific contexts) as routine and trusting their own instincts (for the gaps) as normal and appropriate.

Also, cf:  Edifying Others if you really want to communicate with a general authority, not just understand them.

A few years ago I did some research on the topic, and discovered that Utah leads the nation in suicides for men from 18-24 years old, and that an estimated 1/3 of those suicides are tied to homosexuality.

Recently I had the opportunity to interview Bruce Rognan and his son Chris — about the suicide of their son/brother Curtis.  I would like to share with you the following 4 clips from this multi-part interview:

First, here are the father and brother discussing how Curtis didn’t “fit into the mold” of Mormon culture, and how Bruce once felt inspired to discuss the issue of homosexuality with his son, but didn’t out of cultural/social fear…..

Second, here are Bruce and Chris talking about “the day” Curtis committed suicide….

Third, here is (Bruce) the father trying to find meaning in the suicide, and wondering how Christ would have us treat homosexuals in the church…

And fourth, here is Bruce providing some recommendations/suggestions to LDS parents and church leaders about how to avoid suicides in the future:

(the full set of interviews can be located here)

===============

For those interested, I would love to brainstorm on how we (as members and leaders in the LDS Church) could work to develop greater understanding and support for gay members of our church — and what we might be able to do, together, to carve out a space for them, even if they choose to pursue relationships as homosexuals.

My only hope/goal is that we can avoid more isolation and suicides in the future. Perhaps together, we can make a small difference in this regard. And even if it saves just one life — perhaps it will have been worth it.

(Please no arguments about politics or church doctrine/policy here. Thanks.)

Also, for more information on suicide prevention — see here: http://www.thetrevorproject.org/suicidal_signs.aspx

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn’t changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can’t marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britney Spears’ 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn’t be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren’t full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That’s why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That’s why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms, just like we haven’t adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

Open Letter to California Mormons

Jeffrey S. Nielsen

I am a member of the Mormon Church, a married heterosexual, and a supporter of marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. I am asking you to pause and give sincere thought to the letter from our religious leaders you have heard read, or will soon hear read, over our church pulpits asking you to get involved and oppose marriage equality in California. Please think deeply about this, not only as a member of a particular church, but also as a citizen of a democracy.

To press for an amendment to a civil constitution that would legalize discrimination against an entire class of people is no small matter, but of the greatest significance. When the argument, no matter how well intentioned, is based solely upon a religious proclamation; then, I believe, it is a serious contradiction of the wisdom of our founding fathers. It also does tremendous damage to the great progress in civil rights we’ve made in our country respecting the equal dignity of each person and towards a more certain legal equality for all citizens.

You should also know, not all faithful Mormons agree with our religious leaders’ encroachment into political matters. In fact, a growing number of active Mormons, who have gay friends and family members, are coming to the conclusion that our current leaders are as mistaken in promoting discrimination against gays and lesbians as was the Mormon hierarchy in the 60’s when they opposed equal rights for people of color, and our Mormon leaders in the 70’s when they opposed full legal equality for women.

Of course, religious authorities of any denomination possess the right, and may claim the legitimacy, to set the theology and policy for their religious community. When they; however, attempt to interject religious doctrine into the public spaces of a diverse democracy without reasonable justification, then members, especially faithful members, of that religious organization have the civic responsibility to express public disapproval of such dangerous and undemocratic behavior.

No one is asking that you condone a behavior that might violate your religious faith, but we need to allow everyone the freedom to live their life as they see fit, so long as it does not physically harm another person. After all, religious values must be something an individual freely chooses, not something forced upon him or her by the state. We should never allow our constitutions, whether state or federal, to become weapons in a crusade to impose a particular religious value system upon a pluralistic democracy. Today it might be a particular religious value that we affirm, but tomorrow it might be a religious system, which would seek to legislate against our own sincere beliefs. So now is the time to take a stand and keep separate civil and religious authority.

I do not believe that people choose their sexual orientation any more than they choose their skin color or gender. So to discriminate and deny them equal protection and equal opportunity under civil law because of these natural traits; especially in this case, sexual orientation, is grossly unfair and should be rejected outright in a compassionate and just democracy. If anyone could give me a single reasonable argument against marriage equality in our civil society, which doesn’t make fallacious appeals to tradition, misplaced appeals to religious authority, or make some ridiculous claim about nonhuman animals, then I would like to hear it. So far, no one has been able to present me with even a single justifiable reason.

You should know that like you, family and marriage are very important to me. As I have become acquainted with gay and lesbian couples, I have been touched by their goodness, sincerity, and commitment. I am persuaded that allowing marriage equality would, in fact, strengthen the institutions of family and marriage in our country. Perhaps it might even make all of us a little more considerate and responsible as both marriage partners and parents. I can only hope that the citizens of California, and my fellow Mormons, will possess the wisdom and moral decency to reject the call to discriminate against our gay and lesbian coworkers, friends, neighbors, church members, and family.