It was found to be totally objectionable by virtually everyone: believers and unbelievers alike….including most of the perma-bloggers on this blog.

What a disaster.

The Management

P.S.  For a first-hand account of the meeting w/ Elder Marlin Jensen, click here.

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/2010/04/21/after-action-report-the-community-of-christ-did-what/ http://mormonmatters.org/2010/04/21/after-action-report-the-community-of-christ-did-what/#comments Wed, 21 Apr 2010 18:45:34 +0000 FireTag http://mormonmatters.org/?p=10678 Headline in the Independence Examiner for Thursday, April 15, 2010:

“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.”

Natasha:  As it says on my site, I am a Licensed Clinical Marriage and Family Therapist, a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and have 12 years of experience working with LDS members. I graduated from BYU-Provo with a degree in Psychology and from Friends University-Wichita with my masters in MFT. I am also fluent in Spanish.

Batman:  Can you tell us about the purpose of your site, The Mormon Therapist?  What made you start it?

Natasha:  Being a Latter-day Saint, I understand there are many issues that relate exclusively with members of our church that would be difficult to discuss with therapists not of our faith. It can also be frustrating for those who do not have access to an LDS therapist/counselor geographically close by. Or maybe the LDS therapist one knows is a close friend or someone one’s not comfortable with.

My hope through this blog is to present a venue where anonymous questions can be posted and where relevant information and resources can be shared. I review the questions or comments submitted and answer them in as timely a manner as possible.  I want to be upfront, creative, and open to discussing issues that in the LDS community can feel taboo.

In fact, the person who was most influential in getting me to start this blog is a wife of a gay man.  Both have been faithful members their entire lives and both are now feeling confused and somewhat abandoned by the church.  When she found out about her husband’s secret, she had nowhere to turn that felt safe.  She explained to me the frustration of going on the internet and finding nothing she deemed useful or relevant to her, especially being LDS.  I know that the purpose of the LDS lifestyle is to offer happiness, strong family relationships, eternal perspective and unlimited blessings.  However, it is a reality that the high expectations our religion promotes can often leave members feeling guilty, inept, depressed and frustrated. I want my site to be a safe place to go and get useful and pertinent information in these situations

Batman:  That is certainly a tough issue.  What are the limitations of offering answers on a site vs. therapy?  At what point should someone consider therapy rather than just trying to work through issues on their own?

Natasha:  Well, obviously therapy is going to be a much more personal process than getting answers on an “advice column” like mine.  The therapist will be able to ask more pertinent questions that will get to the heart of issues more quickly and efficiently.  Plus therapy is a give-and-take process with both the therapist and the client participating in a discussion that takes into account things like body language and non-verbal cues I don’t have access to.  I just hope my blog can be a place where people can begin to get some answers and then follow that up with more specific treatment if necessary.

As far as when to consider therapy, I wish more people would consider it sooner than later.  Problems are easier to solve when they are not yet set into cyclical patterns and when people are less angry, bitter, resentful, and/or hopeless.  Just as in the medical field, preventive mental health/relationship care is easier and provides better results than crisis management.

Batman:  What are some of the most common questions you get on the site?

Natasha:  Many of the questions I receive deal with sexuality.  This is not surprising really, seeing as how I am providing an avenue to discuss a very sensitive and personal topic in an anonymous yet open and direct fashion.          The second most common questions deal with the issue of how to move forward when a spouse loses their testimony, leaves the church, or is acting in ways that do not follow church teachings.

Batman:  Do Mormons have sexual hang-ups?

Natasha:  There is a tendency for any religious culture to have “hang-ups” with sex.  This is not to say that many religious people don’t have healthy sexual relationships with their spouses, because they do.  And we have an advantage in the area of seeing sexuality as a sacred endeavor that is to be treated with the utmost respect.  Where I think we falter, is in the education of our children and adolescents.  We focus so much on the “not having sex” part during these formative years that sex can become a topic correlated with shame, guilt, embarrassment, etc.  It can also be difficult for our youth to know how to discuss anything to do with sexuality, where to go for help, and how to move forward when they have made mistakes in this area.  Even minor mistakes can feel or even be treated as major.  Then all of a sudden members find themselves married and everything is supposed to magically fall into place.  Many times it doesn’t.  But nobody is normalizing this and letting couples know that it takes time, patience and a lot of communication to foster a healthy sexual relationship.  Now the issues become marital and can spiral into very difficult problems for many couples.  This is a very unfortunate process that needs to be addressed more openly within our culture.

Batman:  In one of your posts, you talk about the fact that issues tend to recur from generation to generation.  How can this knowledge help people?

Natasha:  Yes, in fact the scriptures talk about this at length.  I sometimes get resistance regarding “talking about the past.”  Many people don’t want to revisit painful or difficult memories.  Many don’t want to feel like they are blaming all of their problems on their parents or their chidhood environment.  I understand these concerns.  However, I try to explain that the main purpose of “talking about the past” is to: figure out what patterns, rules, family structure, and emotional communication (both negative and positive) were role modeled in the family of origin.

Whether we like it or not, we are all subject to and highly affected by the families we grew up in.  Statistics continually support this.  And these influences will and do inevitable affect the families we are now forming ourselves.  So it is important to do some generational work in order to recognize negative patterns we do not want to repeat, recognize positive strengths we do want to incorporate, and if there has been trauma, it is important to give voice to those memories so that they have less influence on our future.  The “past” work is only beneficial when it moves us toward the present and future.

Batman:  Do you feel that your work ever puts you at odds with any members of the church?  Are there some who resist your counsel based on their perceptions of the church’s stance?

Natasha:  Anytime religious beliefs are involved there are going to be differences of opinions and/or different interpretations.  This is just a normal part of being part of this human family.  And this does come into play within my work.  Although my intention is never to cause offense, I am sure that there are members who find my counsel or my opinions contrary to theirs.  This is perfectly normal and I welcome discussion and challenges.  I believe this is what is so important to have happen, as long as we can have these discussions in a Christlike way that elicits respect and common courtesy.

Batman:  You talk about the effects of guilt and shame on the site.  Do Mormons suffer from unhealthy guilt?

Natasha:  Yes, unfortunately many times we do.  Guilt and shame are interesting topics because there are times when it is appropriate to have these feelings and there are times when it is not.  Or even more confusing, it can be appropriate to have these feelings, but not at the intensity we attribute them. And this can be a difficult process to sift through.

I think it is important to remember that guilt has a purpose as a tool from God – it reminds us when we are doing or contemplating doing something wrong to get back on the right path.  There are some legitimate things to feel bad about.  However, it’s purpose is not to throw us into the depths of depression or low self-worth.  Because when we get to the point of feeling unnecessarily bad about ourselves, it can be very difficult to gather the energy needed to get back on the path previously mentioned.

Feelings of guilt can legitimately come from the “pricking” of the spirit.  They can also come from environmental forces that we have been subject to and taught from (i.e. the culture we were raised in, the family we were raised in, the way in which our religion was taught to us, etc.).  It is difficult, yet imperative, that we all strive to clarify these sources of guilt for ourselves through self-awareness, study, prayer and questioning.  Therapy can be useful towards this end.  It is also imperative that when dealing with guilt, sin, shame, etc., we always have at the forefront of our minds that we have a saviour Jesus Christ who loves us, has atoned for us, and wants us to succeed. He does not want us to use guilt as a wallowing place. Only as a quick state of being to get us headed in a better, healthier, and happier direction.

Batman:  Well, that is certainly a lot to think about.  One last question.  What general advice would you give church members to strengthen families and individuals’ mental health?

Natasha:  Education and Communication!  Being willing to learn about and be open to the latest psychological research and medical advancements in addition to church teachings are pivotal to many issues such as depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, marital and/or parental distress, etc., etc.  Being willing to communicate:  talk openly about issues that may feel taboo or uncomfortable and then be willing to listen is pivotal for any spousal or parental relationship.  If we can’t talk about our problems in a respectful, safe environment, we will be less able to solve the issues we are faced with.  Managing our own anxieties many times is important to this process.  My hope would be that we can approach our relationships with ourselves and with our loved ones in a way that follows Christ’s example of unconditional love and understanding.

Batman:  Thanks to Natasha, The Mormon Therapist, for answering our questions and for providing such a great service to members with the issues we all face from time to time.

I encourage everyone to visit the site (link above) and browse through some of the frank questions and answers that are of interest to you.

For our readers, what do you think of some of these topics we’ve discussed:

• the role of faith in marriage and the implications of one partner’s loss of faith to the marriage
• sexual hang-ups that are so common to religious people
• shame and guilt; that it is sometimes necessary and positive, but can be damaging if we wallow in it
• the influence of past mistakes and family on our current behavior patterns
• overcoming our own anxieties as parents and addressing things openly with our kids

How do you feel about therapy in general and advice columns?  Discuss.

First Steve Young’s wife.  Now this.

Will announcements like this eventually impact broader LDS opinion going forward (at least in the U.S.)?  Will it make some LDS members think twice, or feel emboldened to disagree w/ the mainstream church on this one issue?

Should be interesting if this keeps happening.

What does this mean?

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.

Feel free to share experiences of friend and family as well.

Perhaps our feelings about tomorrow’s letter were abreacted in last week’s multifarious and sporadically acerbic discussion. My purpose here is to highlight some of the feelings and perspective of one who is connected to many aspects of the Church’s political action regarding gay marriage. My sister Emily is a lawyer in California, and gay (also kind, witty, and sagacious, but that is beside the point). Her journey through life has had a positive and profound impact on my family and I. I have learned a lot from her, but this issue specifically has inspired me to be more thoughtful and considerate of those who are different from my straight white male middle-class American self (not that there’s anything wrong with that).

I have often contemplated on the thought that members who have gay friends or family often seem to feel differently than those who do not (or who are not aware of it). The following is from an email regarding this topic she recently sent to the rest of our family and some friends.  With her approval, I would like to share it here:

This morning someone forwarded me the letter that went out, I knew about it but hadn’t seen it yet. I don’t know why I should all of a sudden be so hurt and disappointed, maybe it feels more directly threatening than previous times this ’cause’ has been taken up by the church but I am seriously considering showing up in my ward for the first time on a testimony meeting Sunday and offering a few thoughts. I am thinking about how I could get the word out to ‘inactive’ gay Mormons all over the state to suggest a similar effort… If people spoke from their hearts, no doubt many would be made a little uncomfortable, and some probably offended, but if it made them feel even a little conflicted then it would be a success. And it’s not like a whole lot is at stake for us in terms of our standing. I’ve worked so hard to maintain a positive attitude for many years but I am very very hurt and disappointed and angry right now.

One of my BYU professors, in whom I confided before I left there, said “there will be a lot of Mormons who won’t love you but you don’t have to turn your back on your faith.” I have often reflected on that. I don’t know if I would be able to go through with the testimony meeting address or not, but if I did I would want to do my best to have a spirit of love about it. Though it is deeply offensive that a religious, or any, private institution (and many of its constituents) feel completely justified in a effort to dictate my, and my friends’ civil, secular, and / or individual rights, but would probably not at all welcome the opposite in the form of a gay intrusion into their worship services, and part of me wishes I could get up and tell them that. I just don’t think it would be very helpful toward winning hearts and minds. I know how fearfully people react to anyone they perceive as a ‘hostile’ disaffected or ex-Mormon because that’s how I used to react, and fear is already big part of the problem.

I’m sorry if this is troubling to any of you but I am grateful that I’m now able to express these feelings, whereas even a year ago I don’t think I could have. A lot of that is due to your expressions of love and increased invitations for communication even when it’s challenging…

…In response to…why is it that gay people seem to make such a big deal about being gay, the point was…that if you’re not gay / lesbian you never really have to give it a second thought. If you’re holding hands on the street with your opposite-sex partner, you can be confident wherever you go that nobody will notice or care (other than maybe thinking how sweet it is to be in love). But if you’re gay, you have to decide if you feel safe or not just to express this simple little affection in public, because people might take it as some kind of ‘statement.’

Thanks for listening,

Emily

They are asking all members of the church to, “do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time to assure that marriage in California is legally defined as being between a man and a woman.”

Here’s the memo to the church, which will be read to all members in California next Sunday.

Ouch.

As I attended high school and early-morning seminary, I began to notice that there was more than one kind of Mormon in the world as well. Some Mormons had such different attitudes and beliefs from me that I sometimes felt like I had grown up in a different church. Also, some Mormons I knew made strange comments, like whites shouldn’t date those of other races because the prophets have counseled us not to, or Americans shouldn’t pay income taxes because the prophets said not to. To my horror, as one raised by a baby-boomer mom to respect Martin Luther King and John Kennedy, some even used statements of the BRETHREN to condemn the civil rights movement as communist-led and hence Satanic.

Going to BYU, serving a mission, getting married, going to grad school, starting a career, and having a kid have exponentially increased my exposure to THAT KIND OF MORMON. But increasingly I learned that there were others too. There were Mormons who were pro-choice, Mormons who were gay and most interesting of all to me, those who acknowledged there was at least more than one kind of Mormon .

Given this diversity, is there something that all Mormons have in common? What does Joseph Smith have in common with Gladys Knight? And why are there so many kinds of us?

More ominously, should there be so many kinds of us?

I’m confident that no matter what kind you are, you will be able to unite with me behind this timely message: