Very Lengthy Public Affairs discussion of same-gender attraction
Posted on August 16th, 2006 by Geoff B.
This interview on the Church web site is extraordinary. Church public affairs interviewed Elder Dallin H. Oaks, a member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of the Church, and Elder Lance B. Wickman, a member of the Seventy, at length and asked just about every imaginable question on the issue of same-gender attraction. This interview is extraordinary because of the timing and the repeated statements from the Church making absolutely crystal clear its position on this issue.
Some highlights:
This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic.†In at least one country where homosexual activists have won major concessions, we have even seen a church pastor threatened with prison for preaching from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful. Given these trends, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle. This is more than a social issue — ultimately it may be a test of our most basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach.
The distinction between feelings or inclinations on the one hand, and behavior on the other hand, is very clear. It’s no sin to have inclinations that if yielded to would produce behavior that would be a transgression. The sin is in yielding to temptation. Temptation is not unique. Even the Savior was tempted.
The New Testament affirms that God has given us commandments that are difficult to keep. It is in 1 Corinthians chapter 10, verse 13: “There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.â€
One of the great sophistries of our age, I think, is that merely because one has an inclination to do something, that therefore acting in accordance with that inclination is inevitable. That’s contrary to our very nature as the Lord has revealed to us. We do have the power to control our behavior.
Yes, homosexual feelings are controllable. Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. But out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings, they increase the power of the temptation. If we yield to the temptation, we have committed sinful behavior. That pattern is the same for a person that covets someone else’s property and has a strong temptation to steal. It’s the same for a person that develops a taste for alcohol. It’s the same for a person that is born with a ‘short fuse,’ as we would say of a susceptibility to anger. If they let that susceptibility remain uncontrolled, it becomes a feeling of anger, and a feeling of anger can yield to behavior that is sinful and illegal.
One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?â€
Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.
I think it is an accurate statement to say that some people consider feelings of same-gender attraction to be the defining fact of their existence. There are also people who consider the defining fact of their existence that they are from Texas or that they were in the United States Marines. Or they are red-headed, or they are the best basketball player that ever played for such-and-such a high school. People can adopt a characteristic as the defining example of their existence and often those characteristics are physical.
We have the agency to choose which characteristics will define us; those choices are not thrust upon us.
The ultimate defining fact for all of us is that we are children of Heavenly Parents, born on this earth for a purpose, and born with a divine destiny. Whenever any of those other notions, whatever they may be, gets in the way of that ultimate defining fact, then it is destructive and it leads us down the wrong path.
For openers, marriage is neither a matter of politics, nor is it a matter of social policy. Marriage is defined by the Lord Himself. It’s the one institution that is ceremoniously performed by priesthood authority in the temple [and] transcends this world. It is of such profound importance… such a core doctrine of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, of the very purpose of the creation of this earth. One hardly can get past the first page of Genesis without seeing that very clearly. It is not an institution to be tampered with by mankind, and certainly not to be tampered with by those who are doing so simply for their own purposes. There is no such thing in the Lord’s eyes as something called same-gender marriage. Homosexual behavior is and will always remain before the Lord an abominable sin. Calling it something else by virtue of some political definition does not change that reality.
In fact, the Savior did make a declaration about marriage, albeit in a somewhat different context. Jesus said that “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and they twain shall be one flesh. What God has joined together let no man put asunder.â€
We usually think of that expression in the context of two people, a man and a woman, being married and the inappropriateness of someone trying to separate them. I think it may have a broader meaning in a doctrinal sense. Marriage of a man and a woman is clear in Biblical teaching in the Old Testament as well as in the New [Testament] teaching. Anyone who seeks to put that notion asunder is likewise running counter to what Jesus Himself said. It’s important to keep in mind the difference between Jesus’ love and His definition of doctrine, and the definition of doctrine that has come from apostles and prophets of the Lord Jesus Christ, both anciently and in modern times.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Would you extend the same argument against same-gender marriage to civil unions or some kind of benefits short of marriage?
ELDER WICKMAN: One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.â€
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: On the issue of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting same-gender marriage, there are some Latter-day Saints who are opposed to same-gender marriage, but who are not in favor of addressing this through a Constitutional amendment. Why did the Church feel that it had to step in that direction?
ELDER OAKS: Law has at least two roles: one is to define and regulate the limits of acceptable behavior. The other is to teach principles for individuals to make individual choices. The law declares unacceptable some things that are simply not enforceable, and there’s no prosecutor who tries to enforce them. We refer to that as the teaching function of the law. The time has come in our society when I see great wisdom and purpose in a United States Constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is nothing in that proposed amendment that requires a criminal prosecution or that directs the attorneys general to go out and round people up, but it declares a principle and it also creates a defensive barrier against those who would alter that traditional definition of marriage.
There are people who oppose a federal Constitutional amendment because they think that the law of family should be made by the states. I can see a legitimate argument there. I think it’s mistaken, however, because the federal government, through the decisions of life-tenured federal judges, has already taken over that area. This Constitutional amendment is a defensive measure against those who would ignore the will of the states appropriately expressed and require, as a matter of federal law, the recognition of same-gender marriages — or the invalidation of state laws that require that marriage be between a man and a woman. In summary, the First Presidency has come out for an amendment (which may or may not be adopted) in support of the teaching function of the law. Such an amendment would be a very important expression of public policy, which would feed into or should feed into the decisions of judges across the length and breadth of the land.
There is definitely a lot to digest here. Anybody interested in this issue should read this interview carefully.
» Filed Under Any
Comments
460 Responses to “Very Lengthy Public Affairs discussion of same-gender attraction”
This is awesome. It would be nice to get Q and A’s like this on a list of other hot topics too. I hope this is a new trend starting.
Thanks for pointing this out. It is, as you say, very thorough. I’m a bit bothered because it contradicts what was told to the General RS Presidency in the 1990s on civil unions, though it does leave some wiggle room. Also, I’m pretty sure that Elder Wickman abuses the term “begs the question” in a rather novel way. He seems to mean “sidesteps the question”:
ELDER WICKMAN: Whether it is nature or nurture really begs the important question, and a preoccupation with nature or nurture can, it seems to me, lead someone astray from the principles that Elder Oaks has been describing here. Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say? But what matters is the fact that we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior which is important.
Yes, I obsess over the usage of “begs the question”. Sue me.
Good post. Not surprisingly, I’m going be a straight talker on this one.
I couldn’t get through all the quotes and I’m embarrassed for us. Not embarrassed by our church’s teachings, but by this presentation of it. As PR, it’s a generation out of date. There’s been a sea change regarding homosexuality in this country and this comes off as gay bashing.
Here’s the crux of the matter and why the sea change occurred: If homosexuality isn’t a choice, and many can’t imagine how it could be, then a straight person preaching celibacy for life to the homosexual, a burden the straight person doesn’t carry and couldn’t possibly understand, is utterly bigoted. I’m fine with our temple recommend question regarding the LofC. But for practicing gay/lesbians and sexually active single heterosexuals who choose to be members, worship with us and forgo a temple recommend, I think we should mind our business and leave them alone regarding their private moments. From what I was reading, the implication was we are again encouraging homosexuals to marry heterosexuals and make the best of it. My kids (all hetero to my knowledge) deserve better.
Wait. Why is he bagging on being from Texas as being a silly definitive characteristic of someone’s life? He should be bagging on Utah…
Somehow, I don’t think the Church leadership cares too much about being labeled as bigots using a social standard for bigotry. I get the feeling that they probably won’t shy away from the label.
I liked this quote from Oaks: “… [W]e do not accept the fact that conditions that prevent people from attaining their eternal destiny were born into them without any ability to control.”
Fortunately, the Kingdom of God is a republic, and not a democracy, and all the electors are in heaven and not on earth.
…in response to the idea of changing times changing mores. Vox populi vox Dei - I don’t think so. Vox exalti vox Dei is more like it.
Thanks for this post, Geoff.
“Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.”
How do we know same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life?
I’ve been taught (usually in the context of word-of-wisdom problems) all my life that whatever addictions, thoughts, desires, weaknesses that plague us now will stay with us in the next life and we’ll still have the cravings for nicotine, etc. Why does this concept not apply to same-gender attraction in the next life?
I was going to ask the same question as the other “ed.”
In chapter 45 of Gospel Principles manual, Joseph F. Smith is quoted as saying:
Of course, Wickmans’ statement makes sense if you think of SSA as a physical disability (a comparison explicitly made by Oaks). I’ve always been taught that physical disabilities would be removed in the resurrection.
The polarization of our society will only worsen. Steve EM is correct in post #3. I read the entire interview carefully, and would like to sit across the table from the two of them with my family (me, my partner, and our daughter) and look them in the eye. Oaks and Wickman are ‘utterly bigoted’ on this one and will ultimately face the consequences of that. I feel so badly for the shattered family relationships and suicides that one so often hears about vis-a-vis gays and Mormons. The section where they discuss shutting out a gay son’s partner was particularly chilling. Don’t really know what to do to help. I wonder if there needs to be some kind of Gay Mormon Evacuation and Healing organization to just get them out and help them start new lives in a non-LDS context. Psychologically, gay Mormons are kinda like Jews in Germany circa 1929.
Mike said, “The section where they discuss shutting out a gay son’s partner was particularly chilling.”
I agree. This dialogue can only foster fear and exclusion:
This is a fantastic interview. Whether or not one agrees with all the content, it is surely signficant that Elder Oaks and Wickman were willing to go on the record with all this, in such detail. I was particularly struck by how good the questions were that Public Affairs posed. The interview really covered all the hard questions, and didn’t sidestep any aspect of the issue, as my cynical self imagined that it might have. With Eric Russell, I certainly hope Church leaders will do more Q&A sessions like this one. (Wouldn’t it be great to have something like this on evolution, or NDBF?)
Steve EM — Read the whole interview and you’ll see that Oaks is hardly saying that homosexuals should marry heterosexuals and just “make the best of it.” His response is more nuanced than a mere “yes” or “no” to the question of whether gays should enter heterosexual marriages, but your characterization is inaccurate.
Also, one wonders if you have ever seen any real “bigotry” or “gay bashing” in your life. If you had, you would probably be able to distinguish it from the very different activity that Oaks and Wickman are engaged in here. I think one can disagree with the substance of their views without resorting to such sloppy, over-the-top accusations. I realize that opponents of the Church’s stand on homosexuality find discussions like these very distasteful, but I don’t think you further your cause by portraying Oaks’ and Wickman’s views in such hyperbolic language.
Some additional thoughts:
1. There were several places where I can easily imagine the “unconditional love” issue might have been raised. It wasn’t, and thank goodness. I am so grateful that Church leaders don’t seem to want to jump on the Elder Nelson bandwagon!
2. The only part of the interview that leaves me slightly confused is Elder Wickman’s discussion of civil unions. The full text of the interview contains a fuller treatment than is cited in this post, but the full treatment still leaves me perplexed. Is Wickman opposed to same-sex couples having ANY of the rights that traditionally come with marriage, or is he only opposed to the full “bundle” of rights being had by gay couples (whether called marriage, civil unions, or whatever)?
Aaron B
I agree with Aaron’s post above, especially his comment to Steve EM. And while I am sympathetic to Mike’s position in #10, he falls into an intellectual trap by calling an apostle and a 70 “utterly bigoted.” This is simply lazy rhetoric. The whole comparison to Jews in Germany is just way over the top and unlikely to convince anyone who doesn’t already hold such viewpoints. Oaks’ and Wickman’s answers show the true love of Christ in that they care about the eternal nature of souls, while Mike’s post appeals to outrage and the politically correct postures of the day.
I too would like to see Mike, his partner and their child in a discussion with an Apostle and a Seventy. I have witnessed similar scenes, and they usually don’t turn out like the outraged person thinks they are going to. It is a humbling thing to encounter the pure love of Christ that emanates from true servants of the Lord.
Post #11 distorts the apostle’s answer. Here is the entire text:
Re #3
You don’t think Sheri Dew could understand, having been heterosexual but celibate for more than five decades?
Unfortunately, this set of interviews actually revealed a great deal of INCONSISTENCY on the part of GA’s. Not only have they contradicted earlier statements in support of civil unions, they also have not quite figured out why they think that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman.
Elder Wickman says: “One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman.”
But Elder Oaks says: “For openers, marriage is neither a matter of politics, nor is it a matter of social policy. Marriage is defined by the Lord Himself. It’s the one institution that is ceremoniously performed by priesthood authority in the temple [and] transcends this world.”
Elder Oaks excplicitly argues against the argument that Elder Wickman has invoked here. Wickman says that marriage is a matter of “rights” (this is already a bad argument since now you have to argue that marriage “rights” should be denied to a certain class of people, which simply does not sound convincing in American rights’ discourse). However, Oaks argues that marriage is a religious institution and therefore (why exactly?) not a matter of rights. The problem here is that no one is asking that the priesthood be used for same sex marriages. Futher, Oaks later acknowedges the, uh, obvious fact, that marriage is a matter of public policy.
My impressions: a lot of pressure put on the distinction between inclination and action; a lot of effort to normalize homosexual sin as run-of-the-mill sin, not in a special class of its own; a lot of reliance on the “millennial” argument for traditional marriage (I find this intuitively persuasive, personally, but I’m not sure whether it’s a good argument or not).
What I see as good news: emphasis on maintaining family and church relationships with gay men (no mention of gay women, interestingly); clear retreat from and repudiation of heterosexual marriage as a cure for homosexuality; clear admission that homosexual inclination is not chosen.
Rosalynde, those are great insights. Thank you.
re: 12 Yes to both, although thankfully no physical violence has ever come my way. I’ve had cars roar by with groups of young men yelling “F—–g faggots!” at me and my friends on numerous occasions. Much more hurt has been inflicted by conservative relatives who do things like send wedding invitations that say “Mike and Guest” even though my partner and I have been together for ages. Or they don’t get my stepdaughter a Christmas present when every other scattered 3rd-cousin-twice removed family member is acknowledged, etc. Oaks and Wickman fall into the latter group; I would not call them “bashers.” But from the perspective of someone who has been there: It is MUCH more painful to have your relationship rejected (in overt or subtle ways) by your family than to face hostility from strangers.
re: 13 I agree that my last sentence was a cheap shot. It was late and I was tired. But even in the light of day, I believe it’s fair to assert that from a secular perspective (and there’s the rub, right?) their comments would be interpreted as bigoted. TT is correct that it’s riddled with inconsistency as well. I’ve often noticed this from the “love the sinner, hate the sin” crowd. It’s ultimately an incoherent position, trying to have it both ways.
Odd, but it’s difficult to imagine Jesus telling a sinner: “Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation….â€
Or maybe that’s just me.
Isn’t it curious that some who raise their hands in conferences to sustain the members of the Quorum of the Twelve and the First Presidency as Prophets, Seers, and Revelators do so until they come up against a position taken by one of those members that butts up against their particular “issue” - whatever that may be. Some argue passionately and sincerely that they will and do follow the Savior and those whom He chose to be His disciples/apostles and prophets in the “Bible”….Mormons claim the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price are latter-day scripture, yet, again, deny what they disagree with (smorgasboard “Christians” anyone?).
There is NOTHING in the interview with Elder Oaks and Wickman on the subject of same-gender issues that disagrees with all that the Lord has revealed on this subject, in any of the books of scripture that I have read. The fact that they are speaking TODAY on an issue in which many are pushing their “issue” as normal and acceptable (and saying any who disagree are “bigots, homophobic”, etc.) is the difference here from what the Lord has said on the subject.
I am old enough to have watched in real time the show “Phil Donahue”, until an episode in which I saw him for what he was….an “imp” gleefully pushing evil and presenting it as “normal”. We don’t have sin anymore, we have “diseases” - all diseases are not equal - leukemia and cancer are two of the most obvious examples of a “disease”, yet today many are pushing the notion that CHOICES are a “disease” - (I say this to bring up a point about language).
I absolutely adore language - I take it apart, study it in its context, study the definitions - the language of scripture, the language of the Spirit and the true meaning of language as I was taught (okay, so many years ago) and I weep at the corruption of language today and excuses made for what the Lord has plainly defined as “sin” - such as “same-gender attraction”:homosexuality.
I have several members of my family who are homosexuals - I know their story, I’ve lived through much of their story with them. By the same token, they know me - my “sins”, my foibles, my areas of weakness and we love each other and recognize we all struggle with areas of great temptation. That love does not ignore the fact that the Lord has definite defined sins, and said, “Thou shalt be perfect, even as I am perfect” - knowing it won’t come in this life, but we go on one day at a time.
I really appreciate this blog - the issues that have been raised and the discussions that have evolved. Please keep up the good work!
Mike, you provide a much-needed perspective on the Bloggernacle, and I encourage you to keep posting.
Having said that, I think that you need to do better than simply calling them “bigots” or implying that their comments were “bigoted.” What exactly did they say that was bigoted? Give me some clear examples. Provide alternate ways of saying it that would not have been bigoted. TT gives an interesting example in #14 of an apparent inconsistency. In such a lengthy Q&A format, it was very likely that apparent inconsistencies could pop up, but TT takes the right approach in using logic and reason rather than grand sweeps of emotionally-laden rhetoric.
I very much appreciated this interview. The questions were definitely not soft pitches and Elders Oaks and Wickman did a great job articulating meaningful, guiding answers in my opinion.
I especially appreciated Elder Oaks’ treatment of the federal versus states’ rights issue in the debate over an amendment to chrystallize a marriage definition in a way that courts cannot reach.
I am grateful to both of them for speaking up on these important issues.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: On the issue of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting same-gender marriage, there are some Latter-day Saints who are opposed to same-gender marriage, but who are not in favor of addressing this through a Constitutional amendment. Why did the Church feel that it had to step in that direction?
Great question.
ELDER OAKS: Law has at least two roles: one is to define and regulate the limits of acceptable behavior. The other is to teach principles for individuals to make individual choices. The law declares unacceptable some things that are simply not enforceable, and there’s no prosecutor who tries to enforce them. We refer to that as the teaching function of the law.
This could come back to bite him. Just which laws do we expect not to be enforced? Speeding? Marijuana? Pornography?
The time has come in our society when I see great wisdom and purpose in a United States Constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is nothing in that proposed amendment that requires a criminal prosecution or that directs the attorneys general to go out and round people up, but it declares a principle and it also creates a defensive barrier against those who would alter that traditional definition of marriage.
This is simply misdirection. My opposition to a constitutional amendment has nothing to do with the specter of criminalization, nor have I ever heard that argument made.
There are people who oppose a federal Constitutional amendment because they think that the law of family should be made by the states.
That’s more like it.
I can see a legitimate argument there. I think it’s mistaken, however, because the federal government, through the decisions of life-tenured federal judges, has already taken over that area.
On the contrary, decisions in support of same-sex marriage (and civil unions) have come solely from state courts. And what’s with this snide reference to “life-tenured judges?” It’s not like life tenure is some recent liberal plot. It was the founding fathers’ idea. Blame them.
This Constitutional amendment is a defensive measure against those who would ignore the will of the states appropriately expressed and require, as a matter of federal law, the recognition of same-gender marriages — or the invalidation of state laws that require that marriage be between a man and a woman. In summary, the First Presidency has come out for an amendment (which may or may not be adopted) in support of the teaching function of the law. Such an amendment would be a very important expression of public policy, which would feed into or should feed into the decisions of judges across the length and breadth of the land.
The federal Defense of Marriage Act has performed these functions quite adequately.
The whole response makes much more sense as opposition to the Lawrence decision. Anti-sodomy laws could be justified as having a “teaching function,” but without the expectation that they would be enforced. Federal judges are, indeed, responsible for that decision, and it has been cited (inappropriately) in the aforementioned decisions by state courts in favor of same-sex marriage. But the constitutional amendment would not address Lawrence, so reasons to oppose Lawrence will not wash as reasons to support the amendment.
And, being skeptical of prosecutors’ good faith application of the law’s “teaching function,” I still think Lawrence was correctly decided.
Thank you for making me aware of this. I am very glad that this was presented. I think it is unfortunate that so many feel that this was necessary. To me there is really not anything new here. Just stating what should have already been understood in a clear way.
Again, good post. Here are a few things to clarify where I’m coming from as there seems to be some confusion:
1) I’m married, hetero, active and believing, but obviously not an apologist for the church, hence why I said I was going be a straight talker on this one.
2) I am genuinely embarrassed for us. As PR it was so bad that, as I said, I couldn’t get through all the quotes in the post let alone go and read the whole interview. To expect the intended audience to do otherwise is what makes it terrible PR. In short, I’m not at all embarrassed by our church’s teachings on this subject, but by this presentation of it.
3) From the little I read the implication was we are again encouraging homosexuals to marry heterosexuals and make the best of it. If it was or had to be clarified/nuanced later, again that’s bad PR as most people would never get that far. I’ve seen so many failed homo/hetero marriages and broken homes, that the church did encouraged in my generation, that I have a real short fuse on that. I would absolutely blow a gasket if it happened to one of my kids and I found church leaders had encouraged such a train wreck.
4) I never said this was gay bashing but that it comes off as gay bashing. It does. As far as my use of the word bigoted, it all comes down to is homosexuality a choice? If it isn’t, and I can’t see how it could be, than stuff like this comes off as bigoted. BTW, if a gay member declines a temple recommend and doesn’t discuss their private life, aren’t they technically welcomed in the church even if there was gay PDA at church? I understand Joe and Molly Mormon would have a cow over it, but that’s not a GA’s problem. A simple statement such as gays are welcome in meeting houses, but sexual activity outside of marriage between a man and woman precludes participation in many callings and temple attendance.
5) I really don’t care about individual GA’s sexual orientation. I will say that just by law of averages, it’s very likely some are repressed gay/lesbian. Some do seem that way, but it’s none of my business.
6) Lastly, if hyperbole is poor practice in making a point in an LDS forum, don’t you have to throw out much of the Bible and BofM?
To me there is really not anything new here.
Whoa. I have recently gone back and read the Homosexuality inserts into the Church Handbook of instructions from the 70’s and 80’s. This interview is a dramatic and revolutionary change in church policy form these decades. It would be good for every person in the church and especially those in Church leadership to read this interview in its entirety.
How much do you want to bet none of the GA’s are repressed lesbians?
J Stapley, I was not a member then. Could you, without revealing anything you shouldn’t, refer to some areas where you think policy has changed? I see Rosalynde’s post above as a possible model for how you could do this.
The agnosticism of the Institutional Church toward treatment and cause of homosexuality (e.g., “Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.” and “The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on.”). I think that Oak’s castigation of abusive theraputic techniques is very important. Oak’s delineation of when heterosexual marriage is appropriate for someone with homosexual tendancies (emphasis added):
Makes one wonder why the brethern aren’t as up in arms over divorce, encouraging amendments to the constitution and influencing the membership to vote in blocks.
This is just a nit pick, Stapley, but I think it’s an important one. Though you make a good point in #28, the latter half of #28, coupled with #25, seems to suggest that the Church Handbook of Instructions insert recommended abusive therapeutic techniques that are now being repudiated.
Just for the record, the insert advises no such abusive techniques that I can find. Oaks’ formal repudiation of such techniques is a good thing – because it counters cultural overbeliefs that some members may have. But he is not contradicting what was formal church policy.
Picking up on the normalization of homosexual feelings that Rosalynde (#16) mentioned…
I think one of the most important statements in this interview is Elder Wickman’s comment about his handicapped daughter, and the way he uses that to analogize to the situation of the homosexual in the church. Since it isn’t included in the excerpt above, let me paste it here:
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: How would you address someone who said to you, ‘I understand it’s the same standard, but aren’t we asking a little more of someone who has same-gender attraction?’ Obviously there are heterosexual people who won’t get married, but would you accept that they at least have hope that ‘tomorrow I could meet the person of my dreams.’ There’s always the hope that that could happen at any point in their life. Someone with same-gender attraction wouldn’t necessarily have that same hope.
ELDER OAKS: There are differences, of course, but the contrast is not unique. There are people with physical disabilities that prevent them from having any hope–in some cases any actual hope and in other cases any practical hope–of marriage….
ELDER WICKMAN: There’s really no question that there is an anguish associated with the inability to marry in this life. We feel for someone that has that anguish. I feel for somebody that has that anguish. But it’s not limited to someone who has same-gender attraction….I happen to have a handicapped daughter. She’s a beautiful girl. She’ll be 27 next week. Her name is Courtney. Courtney will never marry in this life, yet she looks wistfully upon those who do. She will stand at the window of my office which overlooks the Salt Lake Temple and look at the brides and their new husbands as they’re having their pictures taken. She’s at once captivated by it and saddened because Courtney understands that will not be her experience here. Courtney didn’t ask for the circumstances into which she was born in this life, any more than somebody with same-gender attraction did. So there are lots of kinds of anguish people can have, even associated with just this matter of marriage.
Add to that Elder Oaks’s immediate follow-up comment that “a person with these inclinations, where they’re kept under control, or, if yielded to are appropriately repented of, is eligible to do anything in the Church that can be done by any member of the Church who is single,” and this is what I conclude:
If we are to take homosexual inclinations to be one of those physical/genetic tragedies that come with life, and if we are to take Elder Wickman’s daughter Courtney as an example of faithfully going forward despite the happiness which is not available to a person because of such tragedies, then one must assume that there is no shame whatsoever in having homosexual desires. Consider Courtney Wickman. I don’t know why she will “never marry in this life”; is she one of those, to use Elder Oaks’s words, someone without any “practical hope” of marriage, or is she one of those without any “actual hope”? Either way, when we look at her, we may feel sad–as she apparently does!–about the fact that she just can’t accomplish some or all of the physical and emotional tasks involved in marriage (or that no one is likely to be willing to put in the physical and emotional work to marry her), but we certainly don’t feel like her condition is shameful. It’s just….life. She does what she can in the church and in her daily life, and there it is. Given this analogy which Elder Wickham used, I can only assume that it is reasonable to conclude that if a person is unable to love a member of the opposite sex–cannot emotionally bond with them, is not sexually aroused by them, etc.–that’s similarly sad, but also just life. So long as one conforms to the commandments (for a gay man or woman, this means accepting the burden of celibacy gracefully; for Courtney, it means the same–not exploding in rancor or bitterness or self-violence or loathing at the injustice of it all), then you should be taken for who you are in this church, and be allowed to serve, and be expected to serve, as Rosalynde put it, “normally.”
I look forward to the day when I can move into a new ward, introduce myself to the High Priest group leader, notice he’s not wearing a wedding ring, ask him “Are you married?”, and he’ll respond, “Oh no, I’m afraid not, I’m gay”….and that’ll be that last time it would ever come up.
“this interview is a dramatic and revolutionary change in church policy from these decades.”
Thanks for pointing that out, J. Stapley, I think that’s a very important point.
My question: if the teachings and policies have changed so much in the last couple of decades, what reason is there to believe they won’t continue to evolve? Should we believe we’ve heard the last word on this issue?
And for those who say there was nothing new in this interveiw, I think the teaching that SSA will be removed after this life is new…at least I haven’t heard it from an official source before.
Steve EM,
If it is known to the proper authorities that a gay member of the Church is actively engaged in sexual activity, and utterly refuses to stop, the proper course of action is for him or her to be excommunicated (cf. D&C 42:24-26,77).
On the political side of things, I have to also say that I think TrailerTrash (#14) highlights an important problem with what Elder Oaks and Wickman say in this interview. It’s not an irresolveable problem, but it is a problem nonetheless. If marriage is not a matter of politics or social policy, and finds it legitmacy solely through the Lord’s definition of such, but on the other hand marriage involves a bunch of rights that clearly reflect public interests, then you have a possible inconsistency. One way to resolve that inconsistency, of course, would be to say that the rights associated with marriage have been defined by God; they are “natural rights” in Catholic parlance, embedded in our Judeo-Christian civilization and thus are a collective “public interest” as well as a binding revelation. The fact that the interview, at the bottom as published on the LDS website, includes a link to Richard J. Neuhaus’s theoconservative Catholic journal First Things suggests that at least some of the people who have been major players in this discussion within the church leadership have accepted this kind of “civilizaional,” natural law morality as a way of defining political life. I’ve long suspected this (and have mixed feelings about it); unless someone else knows of an easy and obvious way to resolve the contradiction which TrailerTrash pointed out, I’m going to take this interview to be further evidence that my suspicion is correct.
What would have made Oaks’ repudiation of abusive therapeutic techniques even more impressive would have been a simultaneous regrettable acknowledgement on his part that the LDS Church’s flagship university used to lead the way in implementing such abusive techniques.
Aaron B
Ed Johnson (#32), I have the same question about whether the policy may continue to evolve, and note that Elder Wickman has an opinion about this, which I found quite striking:
“There is no such thing in the Lord’s eyes as something called same-gender marriage. Homosexual behavior is and will always remain before the Lord an abominable sin. Calling it something else by virtue of some political definition does not change that reality.” (emphasis added).
It’s one thing to stand in defense of the clear statements of the First Presidency on present policy. It’s another to proclaim that things will always be that way. Given the source of that quote, and the many, many other times church officials have been wrong in making similar pronouncements, I think this has to be taken with the tiniest grain of salt. I say tiny because I think that this issue is far more likely to be an eternally consistent one than that of blacks and the Priesthood or polygamy. Still, based on how badly I feel when I see statements of authorities saying similar things with those policies, I think we need to be careful never to assume anything (besides the most basic principles and ordinances) will always be the same. I hope that doesn’t betray in me a great lack of faith.
This seems like a perfect opportunity to brag about the fact that I know Elder Wickman. He was my stake president in the 80s and sent me on my mission. (The fact that he was called to be a GA is evidence to me that God himself inspires such calls.)
Carry on.
Re: #37
Is it just me, or does E. Wickman remind you of Dana Carvey? When he came to our Stake Conference a few years back, I was just waiting for him to break out into an impersonation of George Bush Senior.
anyway, sorry for the distraction to the real focus of this thread.
#31,
Have you seen the videos posted yesterday at http://www.mormonstories.org about two gay Mormon men– maybe the day is a teeny bit closer than you think. Two Mormon men talking openly and frankly about their homosexuality, with their names given for everyone to see. I think that Marilyn and Stuart Matis have done a great work with their book too; however, it’s not nearly widely enough known.
J.
I think Eric Russel spoke well in my defense in #30. Now I will say I am thrilled by this interview, personally I think it was spot on. But I do not find it surprising in the least. The biggest eyebrow lift I got was saying that there was no SGA in the pre-existence nor will there be in the afterlife. That is very interesting to me. But otherwise I don’t see this as much different from what GBH or particularly SWK had to say all along.
Now, I can’t help if some bishops and Stake presidents, perhaps gave and received some well intentioned but bad advice about using hetro marriage as a therapy. Individuals should have prayerfully considered that advice. Perhaps we have leared some things about practice and teaching practice about certain things. But from a basic teachings and doctrines there does not seem to be much here that surprises anyone. The only interesting thing really will be how some individuals respond.
Ryan, #36, great comment, and welcome back!!! I for one missed you.
Russell, you raise very interesting and thoughtful issues in both your comments. Thank you.
Russell,
I think that the problem with analogizing homosexuals to people with physical/mental disabilities is that this is an analogy which is utterly rejected by many of those who identify as homosexuals. They don’t see themselves as sick, nor incapable of “practical” or “actual” hope for fulfilling relationships. Unless these analogies are only intended for the rhetorical effect they have on beleivers, they really should be abandoned.
To invoke an analogy, this would be like telling short people how they are simply not statistically normal. We know that many short people cannot help it. Perhaps if they had only drank more milk when they were young… We simply cannot tolerate that short people should be allowed to marry. This would be to make a mockery of regular, tall marriage!
The problem here is trying to impose a definition of “abnormality” on another group who does not want to be labeled and categorized as such. The church seems to have accepted this category of persons, but wants to impose its own definition on them.
Eric, to be more explicit, Eric Russell’s qualificaiton is the only thing not expressly taught by former church training materials of those items I listed. I added it as being ancillary, but there are three other points that are the core of the change. Eric doesn’t qualify those.
Russell, your #31 is such a good comment that I just had to comment on it. One of the most frustrating things about being a former liberal and a convert to the Church and also a convert to more conservative viewpoints is explaining my (and what I believe to be) the Church’s position on homosexuality. I too want to arrive at the day when people will not be condemned for their inclinations but for their actions. This is one of the reasons I found this interview so exciting because it puts into words things I have been thinking for a long time, namely that homosexual tendencies are one of a myriad of shortcomings that human beings are given and that we should understand that clearly and respond with love and respect to these people. I personally have a long list of shortcomings that are devastating to me. It just so happens that homosexuality is not one of my shortcomings, but I have others that I am trying to get under control and manage.
So, from an eternal perspective, I don’t consider myself one ounce better than a gay person — to do so would be the height of hubris. If we look at it this way, it helps us be more understanding and loving in the way Jesus would want us to be.
But this also helps us to understand that we as God’s church cannot participate in a culture that encourages people to celebrate their shortcomings, especially if those shortcomings will retard a person’s eternal progression. I can’t imagine us encouraging an “Alcoholic’s Pride” celebration, for example.
So, if you take a step back and look at this issue from this perspective, suddenly people who seem to be bigots and homophobes (at least from the perspective of the liberal secular world) are really trying their best to act Christ-like. They have an understanding that Christ would be anxiously concerned about all of our eternal advancement and that passing and overcoming the tests of this world are crucial to our advancement.
I am having flashbacks to the David O. McKay biography — rise of modern Mormonism. Looks like there might be some fractures within the leadership on this?? Why Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman? Are they the current Elders Benson and McKonkie? Who is the current Sterling McMurrin on this issue? Who has more of the Prophet’s ear? Has the Lord unequivocally spoken (I think yes, but the McKay bio makes me wonder).
Trailer Trash — Your point is somewhat problematized by the existence of activist groups that reject the notion that, (to cite one example), deaf children should seek to hear again. Hard as it may be to believe, there are those who want deafness to be “normalized” and not perceived as a disability worthy of efforts at correction.
Aaron B
44
The problem, of course, is that with alcoholism and adultery, the sinner can still have a family and be basically, if not perfectly (it’s all a matter of degree), part of the Lord’s design for happiness. Homos cannot. Comparing them to retarded children or single sisters seems incongruous, but I may be missing the point.
Looks like there might be some fractures within the leadership on this?? Why Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman? Are they the current Elders Benson and McKonkie?
More like Tanner and Brown. We have recent testimony that the Church hierarchy is more unified than every it its history. If anything this interview represents the more progressive faction of the hierarchy. To have this inteview, they would need express permission from the First Presidency, the text of which was likely reviewed by the them and the Quorum of the 12, unlike the conservative speeches by former mavericks.
should be “more unified than ever in its history.”
TT, I have known many, many homosexuals in my lifetime, and all of them, without exception, say they wish they did not the feelings they have. All of them wished they could have heterosexual urges but for whatever reason they do not have these urges. So, Elder Wickman’s comparison is quite apt, and so is Russell’s #31.
Yes, I meant Tanner and Brown.
Geoff B, #50
I am sorry, but I actually laughed out loud on that one. Apparently you and I know different homosexuals! Then again, my sample group is activists, professors, and university students.
I don’t deny that some homosexuals will accept the categorization and analogy of being handicapped. But I am not sure that that proves anything. My point is that while this may work for beleivers who already have accepted a huge number of presuppositions required for this argument to make any sense, this argument is utterly unconvincing outside of that context.
Aaron B, I am not sure how that example problematizes my point. Actually, I think it proves it. Most of the activists that you mention are deaf or family members of deaf people who actually quite like thier identity. Once “abnormal” people are given a choice to voice thier own point of view, one finds that the kind of good intentions of the majority look more like tyranny than benevolence. Haven’t you ever seen X-Men?
Geoff(#50),
As a pediatric neurologist, I have a little experience with the disability rights movement. Yes, deafness, Autism, and a whole host of disorders have movements that insist that their condition is part of who they are and does not need to be “cured.” However, they also proclaim the non-disabled public to generally consider their condition shameful. They also see pity as lesser form of prejudice that keeps them from being independant. However, I’m sure as enlightened Latter-day Saints, we should certainly be above any such behavior and see any disabled or same sex attracted member as a Child of God as encouraged strongly by this Q&A.
TT(#52),
Ah yes, I saw X-men. I also saw that rogue made a perfectly legitimate choice for her personal wants and desires by seeking out the “cure” for her condition. She did this in the face of others like her taunting her and strongly objecting, taking personally.
Geoff(#50),
As a pediatric neurologist, I have a little experience with the disability rights movement. Yes, deafness, Autism, and a whole host of disorders have movements that insist that their condition is part of who they are and does not need to be “cured.” However, they also proclaim the non-disabled public to generally consider their condition shameful. They also see pity as lesser form of prejudice that keeps them from being independant. However, I’m sure as enlightened Latter-day Saints, we should certainly be above any such behavior and see any disabled or same sex attracted member as a Child of God as encouraged strongly by this Q&A.
Ryan, #36:
Brigham Young and many others thought the issues of polygamy and blacks and the Priesthood were eternal in nature. You shouldn’t feel bad if it turns out that your view is wrong as well.
The biggest challenge for the church on this issue will come if more and more people come know gay couples who appear to be happy, productive, and well functioning members of society. Why should gays be asked to suffer in secrecy and lonliness, when a happier life is within their reach?
Oaks and Wickman don’t directly address this question. They don’t really deny that happiness can be found inside a gay relationship, although in general the church teaches that “wickedness never was happiness.” Perhaps they believe that the gay person must simply sacrifice happiness in this life in order to avoid eternal punishment in the next. Or perhaps they think that allowing gay couples will destroy the rest of society, so gays need to just “take one for the team.”
I also wonder if church leaders see any moral difference between promiscuous homosexual behavior, and sex within a long-term, committed homosexual partnership.
JM (#38) — No it is not just you.
Eric (#30)–While abusive practices were never recommended by the Handbook of Instructions, they were part of officially sanctioned practice at BYU. Moreover, the church (until at least very recently) regularly referred people to groups like Evergreen and endorsed treatment methods by the now widely discredited “father” of reparative therapy, Joseph Nicolosi. I wish Elder Oaks had carefully distinguished between what used to be called “aversive” therapies like those used at BYU in the 70s and early 80s (involving gay porn and electric shock or nausea induced by syrup of ipecac) and the less violent “reparative” therapies which church social services practitioners endorsed later. I’d really love to see if there’s an update to the Social Services manual on Helping Members with Same-Gender Attraction (and for the love of Pete, can we at least just say same-*sex* attraction, if we’re talking about biological sex rather than culturally mediated “gender”?)
(#45) Why Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman?
Well I believe it probably is related to the fact that they are two of the top legal minds among the brethren and in the church. If I remember correctly, Elder Wickman is the church’s General Counsel and Elder Oaks was on the Utah supreme court.
Kristine, the Same-Gender Attraction is chosen purposely to avoid mentioning the word “sex”. Stuart and Marilyn Matis explained in a presentation that they gave at a retreat this year that they prefer using the term to remove all overtones that the sex act defines, um, people who are gay or lesbian. I’m assuming that the term was chosen in discussion with leaders of the church because they have spent time with several leaders, especially Brother Holland, talking to them about the church’s position on, um, people who are gay or lesbian. I’m sorry, I just can’t come up with a good term here because I think that “Same-Gender attraction” is silly. I do think that the Matis’s book is a good thing, because, like this interview, it rejects the idea that homosexuality is a choice, and clearly rejects the anti-gay bigotry that is a part of the culture of many church members; however,there are some parts that are just silly, like the Same-Gender Attraction.I noticed that even Fred Matis had a hard time remembering to say SGA rather than Gay or Homosexual while he was talking. I wonder if “Same-Gender Attraction” has a history with fundamentalist Christians, or some other far -right group, but haven’t had the chance to look for it.
I haven’t read the entire thread.
Steve EM, Mikeweiho,
My suspicion is that the reason you can’t see this interview as anything other than “gay-bashing” is because you have bought-into the conventional view that “homosexuality” is the the entire person.
For you, sexual orientation seems to be the paramount attribute any living being can possess. Either that, or sexuality is so important as to cause all other human traits to pale by comparison.
I disagree and think you are dehumanizing these people. They are not “homosexuals,” they are people. Spirit children of Heavenly Father first and foremost. I feel like you have, in effect, for the purposes of this argument, annihilated any humanity from the homosexual population other than their sex drive. Under that viewpoint, yes - the interview was a personal attack against that which is precious above all else in a homosexual’s identity (i.e. their sexual attraction). I don’t see any other way that you can make the arguments you were making. The paradigm I see emerging in your statements does a great deal of violence to the human identity and I think you ought to reconsider it.
Sexual orientation is not what humanity is primarily about. I refuse to define people by their sex-drive. I refuse to believe that I cannot condem “homosexuality” without automatically condemning those people who have homosexual feelings. People are not their impulses.
I see your statements as far more degrading to the identity of homosexuals than anything Elder Oaks or Elder Wickman said.
RE: #10 & 11
I did not get that impression at all. I thought Elder Oaks was saying that the parent should have compassion for their children. If a son’s problem were something besides homosexuality, ie: word of wisdom, stealing, law of chastity (heterosexual), what would be the problem with a parent inviting a child home for dinner and saying “but don’t do drugs here; don’t steal anything; or don’t bring your live-in honey that you’ve been having ilicit sex with”?
I think a parent can say those things. So if a parent says not to bring a gay lover, why is that bigoted?
Re: Steve EM #26,
Also note that Elder Oaks emphasized very strongly that those Bishops who are encouraging homosexuals to marry as a form of therapy are misguided and wrong. He also stated that a homosexual man should not marry a woman unless he has sufficiently dealt with his own inclinations to where he can be a good husband to her. And she has to enter into it knowing what his feelings and tendencies are. Never marry a homosexual as a form of therapy was a take-home message of the interview.
Your venting about failed hetero marriages, with a homosexual in the marriage, encouraged by Bishops is misplaced and could have been avoided if you’d read the entire interview (which you admited you did not).
You might also have noticed the part where both GAs noted that there are only a handful of callings in the Church that require you to be married. As far as I know, the only positions are members of the Bishopric and Stake Presidency, and that’s it (anyone know of any others?). They left the field wide open for a future “homosexual Apostle” as far as I’m concerned.
That Elders Oaks and Wickman compare homosexual identity to Texas pride or an affiliation with the armed forces indicates a general lack of understanding and prescience on the topic. Can you imagine heterosexuals analogizing their sexual identity to their affinity for the Boston Red Sox or the Utah Jazz?
And I find it particularly tragic that Elder Wickman chose to compare his handicapped daughter to homosexuals. Homosexuals are not handicapped or disabled, and they should not be taught by the Church or anyone else to view themselves this way.
I predict that the next generation will cringe when they read this interview - not unlike President Packer’s cringeworthy analogy to “little factories”.
I was recently told that single men over 30 were not allowed to be temple workers. Also, I don’t think they can be seminary or institute teachers. I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for a single GA.
Melanie,
I was waiting for the disabled analogy indignation. I just want to go on the record that I find it tragic that you find the disabled analogized to anyones natural tendencies cringeworthy.
Re Wes #63:
I would add that they left a lot of leeway in this area for family dynamics. In some cases, the family situation is such and the personalities of those living at home is such, that allowing the gay partner into the home would, in fact, be tantamount to endorsing the homosexual behavior.
But in other households, there probably is no need to exclude the partner from family events and worries of “moral contamination” are unjustified. Such worries would be unjustified in my family as presently constituted. But that doesn’t mean one size fits all. Some families may need to make a statement on this in a way that others don’t.
If it were my son, I’d actually want a working and friendly relationship with the boyfriend, or girlfriend if it were my daughter. I care about my child. Therefore I want to be a part of the people who are most important to them, regardless of lifestyle. Just from a mere practical standpoint of wanting to know who to call in case of emergency I think it’s important to have a good relationship with the “partner.” But I’d want it anyway, for more reasons than that.
As far as staying the night in my home with the partner … I would hope that my children had been raised with the manner not to ask. I would hope they were considerate enough not to put me in that position. In any case, I would hope I could discuss it with my daughter without embarassing anyone or making a scene. Hopefully, I would have already discussed the eventuality with my daughter beforehand.
But I don’t have any basis for saying that a stance that would work in my home is appropriate for anyone else’s home. Elder Oaks admitted that he doesn’t know either and therefore left enough wiggle room for families to personalize their own responses in accordance with their own situations.
I finally had a chance to read the interview. My thoughts are as follows:
1. I’m glad that they did this, and I agree with J. that this shows a more progressive view compared with a generation ago.
2. I agree with EO that I don’t much like the term “homophobic,” if it is defined to mean, as I’ve seen it defined, that a person is secretly homosexual and is projecting. That’s just plain stupid. I think a better word would be antigay, analagous to anti-Mormon. You can’t assign a self-loathing motivation to every person who hates gays!
3. EW twice used the expression “gender orientation,” which I thought very odd. I can understand “same-gender attraction,” but I agree with the poster above that this attempt at avoiding any derivative of the word “sex” is just plain silly. But to me gender orientation is not the same thing as sexual orientation; it smacks of transgenderism. I think it’s a linguistically flawed formulation.
4. The feelings/action dichotomy is probably the best the Church can do given its scripture and doctrine, and its a step up from past rhetoric. But for me personally, sexual intimacy is on another level. If I were forced to choose between that and the Church, I’d choose sexual intimacy, no contest at all. Church leaders don’t have a lot of moral authority in telling someone to be satisfied with a life of celibacy when they can go home and slip into bed with their beautiful wives. I’m reminded of a divorced sister who visited with our bishop, complaining that she hadn’t had sex for years. His response was, “Is that a problem?” Easy for him to say; for her it was a very real problem. (I suppose a Catholic priest might be able to advise lifelong celibacy with more moral authority than a happily married hetero LDS church leader can muster.)
5. In the part where Elder Oaks says marriage is ok with desire for a woman, I would add with full and frank disclosure beforehand. I think it’s a terrible idea, but if a woman wants to try it she needs to know what she’s getting into.
6. The notion that homosexual feelings are not eternal is mere assertion. In the Mormonism of my youth, we were taught that there is a continuity between this life and the next, and if you die with a nicotine addiction, you’ll still crave the stuff in the hereafter.
7. On dealing with one’s gay children, I’ve been watching a new Bravo series called Workout. It stars an LA gym owner named Jackie, with really hot, killer abs. She is gay. A couple of weeks ago there was an episode where her Mormon mother came to visit. I was embarrassed by the mother’s behavior. If my child were gay and in a relationship, I would be much more accepting.
8. EW said people need to read their Bible more carefully, but he may need to follow his own advice (witness the BCC thread on what the Bible really says about homosexuality by Ronan and Ed Snow).
9. I do think there is a profound irony that Mormons are so gung-ho monogamists in the light of our historic practice of polygamy. I was glad this question was raised near the end. EO’s response did nothing to lessen the irony in my estimation.
10. I didn’t buy EW’s definitional argument for why gay marriage would harm hetero marriage. EO was on firmer ground (but ultimately I didn’t buy his argument either.)
11. To answer Aaron’s question, I understood EW to be saying that civil unions are not ok if they are a mere semantic substitute for marriage with another name, but they might be ok (the Church has taken no position) if they convey fewer and lesser rights than traditional marriage.
Why is it tragic to consider homosexuals disabled?
Is it because you see nothing wrong with homosexual sex?
Or is it because you feel the disabled are so contemptible that being compared with them is an insult?
Kevin, your #4 (in comment #69) strikes me as very odd.
The Church is very clear on the issue of sexual intimacy outside of marriage — we’re against it. Your comment above seems to imply that you oppose the Church advocating celibacy in all cases. Am I missing something here?
Doc - luckily there is enough tragedy to go around for everyone. My point was that, in the non-PC vernacular, being handicapped or disabled is considered to be a negative, a defect. Elder Wickman loves his daughter, but he acknowledges her defects as a disabled woman in that he says that she would be much happier if she weren’t disabled. I don’t have to be a psychiatrist to say unequivocally that if a teenage boy is taught by his Church leaders that he is irredeemably defective and that he is condemned to live a life of singlehood and celibacy, these teachings will negatively impact his emotional development and self-image severely.
Geoff, yes, I know that the Church is against sexual intimacy outside of marriage. But I simply couldn’t live my life without sexual intimacy. So if I were gay (and thus marriage were not an option), I would leave the Church. I love the Church, but I need sexual intimacy like I need air to breathe. Is that clearer?
TrailerTrash (#42)
“I think that the problem with analogizing homosexuals to people with physical/mental disabilities is that this is an analogy which is utterly rejected by many of those who identify as homosexuals. They don’t see themselves as sick, nor incapable of ‘practical’ or ‘actual’ hope for fulfilling relationships.”
I’ve no doubt it’s rejected by the overwhelming majority of homosexuals; the gay people that I’ve known wouldn’t accept it. However, Oaks and Wickham aren’t addressing the majoriy of homosexuals; they’re addressing those who are or at least could be receptive to LDS teachings about morality, presumably because they believe in at least some other LDS claims. I can’t imagine Oaks and Wickham actually believe this would be a plausible argument in pluralistic context, which I assume is probably why they imply that bans on gay sexual relations and other ways for such people to seek “fulfilling relationships” are unenforceable. But within the church, talking to people who want to have marriage and happiness and ecclesiastically sanctioned sexual relationships but also want to stay faithful to the church, an analogy like this works.
Ed (#57),
“Perhaps they believe that the gay person must simply sacrifice happiness in this life in order to avoid eternal punishment in the next.”
You put this fairly crudely, but is essentially correct: as far as this interview suggests, it’s about obedience. Courtney Wickham can’t marry or can’t find someone to marry her in this life; that’s tragic, and means she misses out on a certain amount of happiness, but it wouldn’t justify, in terms of her standing before God, her hiring an escort of take care of sexual needs. Similarly, if a given gay man or woman just can’t pull off a temple-worthy sexual relationship with a member of the opposite sex, that’s also tragic, and also has the result that said gay person misses out on a certain amount of happiness; but to the extent that gay person accepts the current standards of the church, seeking the happiness they lack through other means is not a possibility.
(I should add that if we take this analogy seriously, then we ought to begin to think again about how we assume God will judge gay persons; to borrow from popular Mormon folk doctrine–which I’m not endorsing, just bringing up as a possibility–might it not be the case that people who struggle with homosexual desires were the most valiant in the pre-existence, and willingly took on the heaviest possible burdens in mortality? We’ve all heard feel-good stories about how those who struggle with terrible physical and mental handicaps may have just needed a body and are really here to test us; again, I’m by no means endorsing such doctrinal twinkies, but turn it around, and it poses the question: maybe those who really need to repent are all of us who have made it so hard for homosexuals to stay faithful and seek a decent life for themselves in the midst of prejudice and constant, harsh, cruel judgments.)
Seth R. - I’m not interested in a debate over how wonderful and what a blessing handicaps and disabilities are. As I stated above, when people hear the words “handicapped” or “disability”, they negatively associate these words with something bad. Right? So, because a young man (or woman) is born a homosexual, he is born “bad” or defective. This teaching is devastating, particularly to those people struggling to develop a healthy self image. Let me ask you (and others) - do you think after reading this interview homosexual members would feel better or worse?
Kevin, and apparently so do most GAS who remarry quickly after a first spouse passes on.
Yes, Oaks and Wickman are preeminent lawyers, but my question is, do they speak for a united quorum on this issue?
Kevin (#69)
“If I were forced to choose between that and the Church, I’d choose sexual intimacy, no contest at all. Church leaders don’t have a lot of moral authority in telling someone to be satisfied with a life of celibacy when they can go home and slip into bed with their beautiful wives. I’m reminded of a divorced sister who visited with our bishop, complaining that she hadn’t had sex for years. His response was, ‘Is that a problem?’ Easy for him to say; for her it was a very real problem. (I suppose a Catholic priest might be able to advise lifelong celibacy with more moral authority than a happily married hetero LDS church leader can muster.)”
While I’m not sure I’d choose sexual intimacy over the church, I think you’ve touched on a terrifically important point here. The implications that I, at least, am (I hope charitably) reading into Elder Oaks’s and Elder Wickham’s words massively outstrip church practice today. If the church leadership is going to build up a serious theological argument that turns upon, among other things, the occasional sacrifice by some people of mortal sexual fulfillment, then it had better start finding space ecclesiastically and institutionally for unmarried and celibate persons, as opposed to rhetoric about how the unmarried and unsatisfied states will be satisfied in the eternities. We need to see celibate leaders, and need to hear them talk about their condition explicitly. We need to see models of this possibility on ward and stake levels. Most importantly, we need to talk about how God might work through celibacy, and at the very least, strive mightily to scale back the at-times overwhelming emphasis in the church on how faithful membership = fruitful (in every sense!) marriage relationships. I agree that Catholics definitely have a leg up over Mormons in this regard.
“We need to see celibate leaders, and need to hear them talk about their condition explicitly.”
Russell, do you forsee this happening any time in the near future? As I mentioned in comment 66, I don’t think single men over 30 are even allowed to be temple workers, let alone bishops or stake presidents.
I suspect that one reason we don’t see this is a belief that homosexuals are likely to be child molesters or such.
Russell, thank you so much for your last comment. The kinds of sweeping statements in the interview above invariably come from married, white males whose life circumstances are completely out of touch with the people they are chastising and exhorting to act just like them. Before the Church can reasonably defend against accusations of homophobia, we need to have homosexual leaders in prominent positions saying the same things that Elders Oaks and Wickman are saying.
I agree: Russell’s #77 gets to the absolute heart of the matter.
Kevin,
I think I read EW’s take on civil unions the same way you do, but I must confess I wasn’t sure. Also, with you, I didn’t come away from EO’s discussion of irony convinced that the LDS position is any less ironic.
I also want to second what Seth R. says at #68. It is virtually impossible for me to imagine shutting out my child’s gay partner (assuming I had a child with a gay partner). I understand the tricky issue of what kind of message one opposed to homosexual behavior might be sending if one accepted the partner in one’s midst, but I would probably always find the risk of sending a potentially mixed message of homosexual lifestyle endorsement preferrable to the risk of sending a message of social ostracism toward my homosexual child.
Aaron B
#69 point 4
Kevin, you seem to be suggesting that being married precludes an authority from advocating celibacy. Do you think this applies to just gays, or should those who are married not be able to advocate celibacy to single heterosexuals? What about our youth?
LOL, Aaron #81. If your child grows up in the current Church climate, you’ll have to do more than tolerate your child’s gay partner to mitigate the messages of social ostracism sent towards your child. Prepare to spend thousands of dollars on therapy.
TT (#42), Re imposing precise definitions of right and wrong, normativity, and normality. Isn’t that exactly what God does, indeed one of his very purposes? If we cannot rely on the Spirit to tell right from wrong, what can we rely on?
If we resort to our own opinions in all things, we end up not with a Church, but with chaos. God is not going to force anyone to obey his higher laws, but it is hard to see how anyone can be sanctified without such obedience. Unremmitted SGA (or DGA) is technically idolatry, because it is contrary to the plan of salvation. I do not understand how the cult of the self attracts so very many followers.
So they have to suffer and sacrifice a little in mortality to be saved - So what? Is that too much to ask for eternal life? I have been mortifying my passions for thirty six years, and I certainly plan to continue indefinitely if the alternative is falling from grace. My relationship with God far outweighs any mortal friendship.
Ed (#78) and Melanie (#79),
I’m doubtful that popular church practice will catch up with the (better) implications of what Elders Oaks and Wickham are saying anytime soon. Which is really unfortunate. I mean, the whole reason that I want to take the analogy Elder Wickham made seriously (and for all I know, maybe he just tossed that one off without much thought!) is because I think it’s fairly crucial to maintaining a compassionate reading of what the church stands for. (Which is what I want to do, obviously.) Of course handicapped people unfortunately often get a sense of themselves as damaged, limited, second-rate, etc. But when we are at our best, we deny the legitimacy of such labels; we insist that the blind person–well, sure, they can’t drive a car or see a sunset and that’s miserable, but it doesn’t mean they should feel at fault or in any way embarrassed about their condition. The same holds for a gay person. They’ve got some heavy issues to deal with, but so do I, and our standing in the church and in the eyes’ of our fellow members shouldn’t be at all conditioned upon what difficulties or handicaps we may or may not have. However, every time church policy and practice (whether official or otherwise) marginalizes or stigmatizes the life-long single sister (”she can teach Relief Society, of course, but we can’t have her as an example to the Young Women”), or the life-long single brother (”he’s a fine ward clerk, of course, but for heaven’s sake keep him away from the Boy Scouts or Primary”), then we’re losing references examples that will help us all get to the point where homosexuality doesn’t “stand out” as some special cateogry, as Rosalynde originally put it back in #16.
“The notion that homosexual feelings are not eternal is mere assertion”
How do you know that this is the case, Kevin? Are you sure? (i.e. if pushed are you willing to claim either inspiration or a compelling theological argument to that effect?)
It seems to me that sexual feelings of the type we are concerned with are an aspect of the body. Now why in the world would the Lord resurrect someone such that their bodies have an eternal impediment contrary to the plan of happiness?
Also, I agree that it is not particularly tenable that a person will crave nicotine, per se, after death. However, it is certainly possible that they will crave something to cover up the hole in their souls, or whatever spiritual weakness they resorted to drugs to mitigate. One of the advantages of keeping the Word of Wisdom is that you have to deal with your problems head on, leading to early solutions, and general strength of character.
Russel #74,
I agree that the logic of the analogy b/t homosexuality and being handicapped works for those who accept certain assumptions in the church (as I stated in the original post which you didn’t quote and later in #52). However, if we really want to make this analogy useful, and not come accross as prejudiced, we need to be clear about what we are analogizing.
If we are saying that homosexuality is like a disease, being handicapped, or being an alcoholic, I think that these analogies will either be increasingly unconvincing to modern LDS, or worse offensive to those who struggle with thier homosexuality and church membership, or even worse, perpetuate discriminatory behavior. To live one’s life thinking that you are disabled because of your sexual attraction is psychologicall damaging at the least. As I said before, these comparisons are widely discredited outside the church, and I think that they will become increasingly suspect inside the church as well.
If, however, we are analogizing the status of the homosexual in the church as comparable to other classes of people who cannot marry and must endure this burden, I think that we are on safer ground. The key difference here is that homosexuals are not compared to other “defective” groups as such, but they share a similar condition of a life of chosen celibacy. We compare life choices instead of ontological conditions. In this case, homosexuals don’t marry because they are sick, but because they choose to live a life inside the church. Handicaped people, single adults, and others outside the church are not expected to live a celibate life by the church, but those who choose to stay in the church do have that expectation.
I do think that one can find examples of both kinds of comparisons, but unforutnately the nuance of the latter is much more rare, and the danger of the former much underestimated.
I agree that the interviewer asked pretty good questions, even if I disagree that s/he asked all of the hard questions. But it’s worth taking a close look at the responses, since they aren’t as good as the questions.
From my perspective, the “hard question†that was asked is the last sentence in this section:
The beginning of a non-answer:
Any argument can be attacked as sophistry, including this one, but let’s lay that aside. So far, Elder Wickman’s “answer†boils down to “no harm, just definitions.â€
But perhaps that was just a preface. He continues: