Mormons and Gays: a poorly executed step in the right direction

Like many others, in the days following the Church's release of its new website dealing with same-sex attraction, I received a few different emails and texts from well-meaning friends and family members advising that I take a look. I had already read through it by the time most of them contacted me, but I was grateful for their concern nonetheless. After reading through it, for the first time in my life, I really wanted to just leave the Church. That shocked me a little bit, but it made me reconsider a lot of things. And just in case your wondering, I'm staying for now.

The website, I think, was a poorly executed step in the right direction. Overwhelmingly, the message that was being portrayed was one of love. Because many families still react poorly to family members coming out, I think that this was a great message to encourage. And there was the wonderful step of admitting once and for all that "attraction to those of the same sex... should not be viewed as a disease or illness. We must not judge anyone for the feelings they experience." I was disappointed, however, that the ways the referred to homosexuals, as "individuals with same-sex attraction", still seemed to assume that gay people are experiencing a problem. In reality, the adage that no one should be judged for the feelings they experience is only taken so far. If someone feels that they are happier in a same-sex relationship than living a celibate, albeit faithful lifestyle, then they are living "contrary to the laws of God."

It interests me that the opening paragraphs of the website make it clear that the contents "reflect the sentiments and teachings of the highest church authorities..." instead of making an appeal to the will of God. I agree wholeheartedly--everything within reflects the sentiments of the Church's highest authorities. Where I begin to question is that the "highest authorities" of the Church have been wrong in the past, a stark example being with interracial marriage. Brigham Young taught that if "they [black and white people] mingle seed, it is death to all." Brigham Young further taught that if the Church ever allowed interracial marriage, the priesthood would be taken away from the Church, and that spilling the blood of any who practiced interracial marriage was the only way to gain forgiveness of that sin. Later, during the Civil Rights movement, Church leaders such as J. Reuben Clark and Mark E. Peterson taught that the movement had a singular agenda: that black people wanted absorption into the white race. They taught that this was to be avoided, for, as Mark E. Peterson pointed out (specifically talking about desegregation), "first we pity, then endure, then embrace." Currently, we have embraced interracial marriage (my aunt and her African-American husband were sealed in the temple), and the priesthood seems to still be with us. Church authorities at the time, therefore, were wrong. (Interestingly, one of their reasons for saying that it would lead to the destruction of the human race was the false belief that interracial children could not reproduce. For more information, click here).

I am very grateful for the prophets and apostles, and especially for their testimonies of Christ, but they have been wrong before. And personally, I think they're wrong again. What especially bothers me isn't just their position currently about homosexuality, but the facade they portray of the consistency of Church doctrine over time. On the website, Dallin H. Oaks says that "...the doctrine of the church, that sexual activity should occur between a man and a woman that are married, has not changed and is not changing" (emphasis added). The problem, is that it has changed. It changed in the early days of the church from monogamy to polygamy (and in some cases, polyandry). It changed in 1847 to disallow interracial marriage (before which there were instances of it within the Church). Brigham Young stood before the Utah legislature in 1852 to encourage them to pass a law that not only forbid all sexual activity between persons of two different ethnicities, but also to legalize slavery in the state of Utah (because it was the natural order of things that God had intended for mankind). The law passed. The doctrine again changed following the Manifesto when polygamy was abandoned. It changed again in 1978 when blacks were allowed the priesthood, and interracial marriage was once again allowed. Church Doctrine on nearly all subjects has changed significantly over time.

The fact that apostles and prophets are wrong on some issues does not, to me, diminish their role as special witnesses of Christ. Joseph Smith often reminded the saints that he was not infallible, but often made mistakes and that they should establish their own relationships with God to test the truth of what he taught. A large problem in the modern Church, I think, is that we often put our trust too much in the highest authorities of the Church, and don't question enough whether or not what they are teaching us is actually from God. We seem to think that to "follow the prophet" is the great commandment, instead of, as Christ taught, "to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, might, mind and strength... and to love thy neighbor as thyself."

Another teaching with which I take issue comes from Jeffery R. Holland and continues in the "God loveth His children" pamphlet, that "you serve yourself poorly when you identify yourself primarily with your sexual feelings." While it is true that sexual identity is far from the only component in anyone's identity, it is also an extremely important one. In fact, the Church teaches that sexuality is a fundamentally important part not only of life, but of the eternities, and thus its emphasis on marriage. It appears that "it is not good for man to be alone" unless he happens to be gay. When one marries and has a family, their family become core parts of their identity, codified in the structure of the heterosexual family. Heterosexuality, according to Church teachings, is not only an important part of ones identity, but core to the very purpose of life. It is unfair (and I believe abusive) to say that the sexual identity of the majority is key to the purpose of life, while the identity of the minority should not even be viewed as a part of their identity (or at least a minor, ignored one).

The new website is a step in the right direction, because "God is love," and its message is generally one of love. But it is poorly executed in that it rhetorically does not live up to parts of its own message, and in that it establishes a false understanding of Church doctrine over time, placing too much emphasis on the authority of man and not enough on the authority of God (who has, to my knowledge, never explicitly revealed His will on the subject)(though, research shows that hundreds of gay Mormons have had spiritual experiences affirming their sexual orientation--including me).

When reading through this website and other materials that the Church has produced, I often find myself asking this question: how much do I value life? I'm sure most everyone who reads this blog is familiar with the suicide statistics. David Phan added his own to the long list of names of gay people in Utah and other areas influenced by Church culture who have lost their will to live due to homophobia and abuse just a few weeks ago. My heart aches for him and for the others whose pain was so great that they choose death. And my heart goes out to anyone now experiencing the depth of loneliness and shame that seems to be ubiquitous among those who "struggle with same-sex attraction" in the Church.

It is because I value life that I have chosen not to be silent on this subject. I do believe that the Church's current policies and practices concerning homosexuality and the culture within Mormondom are largely mentally, emotionally, and sexually abusive to believing homosexuals. No one should have to go through life sincerely believing that something so inherent and innate to their being makes them less than anyone else. All is not well in Zion.

Of Muggles and Mudbloods

While my friends and family were busy being disgusted and frustrated with J.K. Rowling for pushing Dumbledore out of the closet, I was silenty grateful. At the time I was still very ashamed of my attractions for men, and though I felt very guilty for how appealing Dumbledore and Grindelwald's relationship was to me, it felt relieving to have a character I trusted (okay, perhaps fictional characters become a bit too real to me at times) be the same as me. When the topic came up in conversations, I would always argue that far from ruining the character, the knowledge of Dumbledore's sexuality added greatly to his depth. People were often surprised by me, and I went to great lengths to hide my own sexuality and would condemn homosexuality, but point out that Dumbledore never acted on his feelings.

I'm glad those days are over. I love what Marry Griffith, mother of Bobby, a gay man who committed suicide, once said, "I would rather be branded a heretic while helping a child of God out of the gutters of this world, where the church and I have thrown them, than to pass by on the other side muttering under our breath, 'the wages of win are death.'" I no longer believe that LGBT people who have same sex partners are awful, bad people living in sin. As I've ceased muttering of sin and death, I've been able to see the good in these relationships. I recently met with my cousin and his fiancée, another man, and talked with them about their relationship. As my cousin's partner described the pain he had been through in his life and how being with my cousin was the first time he had ever felt loved and had ever been truly happy, tears came to my eyes and I felt that familiar feeling of God in my heart, and I felt deeply that He was here, too, in their supposedly sinful relationship.

I had another moment of tears two days ago, albeit a significantly more silly one. I was watching part one of the Deathly Hallows movie with my family, and there was a part where you see a pamphlet describing the dangers about Mudbloods and the threat they posed to the wizarding world. My thoughts returned to the abolition movement, and the supposed dangers that abolishing slavery posed to the world. And to the women's suffrage movement, and the arguments that their right to vote would put society in danger. And then to the civil rights movement, and how LDS leaders like Mark E. Peterson taught that it was dangerous because ending segregation could lead to an increase of inter racial marriage, which posed a danger to society. And how Ezra Taft Benson decried the dangers of the civil rights movement as part of a communist movement in America. And I remembered how from Hitler and the holocaust to George Q Cannon positing that all homosexuals should be destroyed as to rid the world of their contagion in a generation, justifications of dehumanization and all of the world's worst atrocities have been justified in fear and promulgated in arguments of fictitious harms presented to society because of one group or another. One of the biggest arguments against gay marriage is that same argument. It will destroy the family, and lead to the crumbling of society. It's still a poor argument.

And so yes, I cried over Muggles and Mudbloods.

I'm happy J.K. Rowling brought Dumbledore out of the closet. It was brave of her, and it helped me at the time. I'm at home for Christmas, and I know that I need to come out to my dad soon. I don't know if it will be while I'm here. I've thought of writing a letter instead, because it would be much easier. But I'm grateful that I'm no longer ashamed. That makes a big difference.

(Side note: I don't mean to sound too negative about the church's past, and I want to clarify that while I find our history as a people and as a church extremely important to my own understanding of which parts of the doctrine to accept, I still love the church and find much divinity in its teachings.)