[For a different perspective on this topic, see this post.]
OK, so let’s start with the “bad news” in relation to the LDS Church’s latest initiative in relation to “Mormons and Gays,” Love One Another: A Discussion of Same-sex Attraction. Because if this “bad news” is as bad as it gets, we have very, very much to be encouraged about.
The bad news is. . . (drum roll). . . The Church is not changing its policies or doctrines in relation to same-sex relationships or same-sex marriage. Is anyone really surprised by this?
Now, let me explain why — from my perspective as an excommunicated but testimony-bearing gay Latter-day Saint — this is not actually bad news at all. If the Church’s policies and doctrines could be changed simply because the Church’s leaders don’t like them, or think they will garner bad P.R., or insert reason here, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a church I would want to belong to. If I want to belong to the Church, it is because it is the Lord’s Church. Not Boyd K. Packer’s church, nor even Dieter Uchtdorf’s or Henry Eyring’s or Thomas Monson’s church, but the Lord’s Church. I don’t want a church where church leaders feel authorized to make any changes they please, but where change results from authoritative revelation from the One whose Church it is, whose name the Church bears.
Elder Todd Christofferson all but said that he’d like to change the policy, and that he would if he could, and that it would be much easier for the Church if he could. The fact that he can’t is encouraging to me.
What the Church is changing is its openness to enter into as far-ranging and meaningful dialog as it possibly can. Here is the good news, and it is very, very good:
- The Church is inviting gays and lesbians (yes, they are using the “g” and “l” words!) to enter into an uninhibited, uncensored dialog. They have explicitly said they want this dialog to be “real.” They want to understand where we stand.
They do not want to censor the dialog. They’ve made space for this by saying, in essence, “We don’t claim responsibility for nor do we necessarily agree with everything that is said here.” They’re also telling the general membership and local leaders to, in essence, brace themselves to hear opinions that they are unaccustomed to, that they disagree with. If Church leaders intended to fudge or suppress or censor dialog, they wouldn’t be saying things like that.
Bottom line: The Church is saying loud and clear, with full, official imprimatur attached to the statement: “We are ready to gather, listen to, and evaluate new data.” This is very, very good.
- The Church is modeling a non-judgmental approach to this dialog. This web site acknowledges the depth of pain caused by the Church’s positions on this issue, and by the lack of understanding of homosexuality on the part of the general membership and on the part of the leadership. They acknowledge that good people have left and are leaving over this. They acknowledge point blank that damage has been caused by, for example, pressuring individuals to marry heterosexually.
There is no hint in any of this that those who have left the Church, those who’ve divorced when mixed-orientation marriages failed, that those who’ve made choices that have taken them out of the mainstream of the Church have done any of these things in bad faith.
Yes, they are upholding the standard, but they’re in essence acknowledging the problematic aspects of that standard, and they’re opening themselves to hear our stories in all their messiness and complexity.
Without judgment.
- The web site recognizes us as multi-faceted, complex human beings who share common values. It stresses the importance of finding common ground.
This is the beginning of the end of an LDS Church in which LGBT members and their families and friends can be viewed as “other,” as beyond the unconditional love of God.
For over seven years (since October 2005) I have been active in my LDS ward as an openly gay, excommunicated man who is in a (now 20+ years-long) relationship with my legally married husband Göran. My experience is that the Saints want to love me and want to understand me. They also want to stay true to their faith. Mormons love easily. And what this web site — and all the declarations contained within it — does is give unfettered permission to love. To enter into an unhindered relationship. In the wake of this new initiative, no Latter-day Saint can any longer claim to excuse themselves from the hard work of loving and trying to understand their lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender brothers or sisters for fear of giving the impression that they “condone the lifestyle.”
The Church has never said more clearly: We want you to associate. We want you to dialog. We want you to withhold judgment. We want you to welcome and to include. We want you to work harder to try to understand.
Many people will howl about the Church’s insistence on upholding the current policies and doctrines on same-sex relationships and marriage. But I assure you that it is this insistence on upholding that will actually more effectively enable the dialog we need to happen. Upholding the policy is the best possible way to encourage the fearful and the unsure to take the steps forward that need to be taken. It will reassure them, as it reassures me, that this is the Lord’s Church, and only the Lord is authorized to make changes.
In the mean time, the Church is openly acknowledging its members’ and leaders’ past failures to love as fully as they ought to have. And it is doing everything it can to encourage them to do better.
That’s where you and I come in! And this is where the news gets best of all.
If you have been longing for transformed understandings and change within the Church around this issue, now is the time to step to the plate. The Church is asking (begging? pleading?) with us to enter into an unfettered (though respectful!) dialog. Our status as excommunicated or ex- members does not matter. Our same-sex, single, or heterosex relationship status does not matter. Our experiences, our hopes, dreams, aspirations, faith, pain, love, who we are, what we know does matter. Church leaders are officially signaling they want to hear it. That’s what they’re telling us.
I know many are inclined not to trust. Many of us have been burned too many times. If this initiative just makes you mad, if there’s a voice in your head saying “blah, blah, blah,” I understand. I understand if you feel unsafe and just want to walk away, to take cover a bit longer until it looks truly safe.
But for myself and my house. . . The Spirit is telling me that this is the moment we’ve been waiting for. And I’m here. I’m so here for it. And I hope that all of you who have suffered, if you need to sit it out, that you can begin to find solace from afar, if that’s what you need. But I also hope as many of you as possible can feel encouraged enough to maybe come back to the table and try again. That’s how life moves forward. Trying again.
One reason I am convinced this is not just window dressing, not just talk, is because of the many conversations I’ve had in the past year — with members of my ward, and with faithful members in other wards in my stake, with missionaries, with my bishop, with my stake president. I’ve been having many amazing conversations. And these deep, far-reaching discussions were already taking place even before this initiative was unveiled. This initiative will lend legitimacy to the conversations that have already been happening, and it will open up many, many more. I am certain of it.
So many people I know want this to be solved by magic, by fiat. That’s not how it works. The Lord guides his Church by revelation, but if you study the history of how revelation happens, you’ll see that the Holy Spirit works to get fields tilled, to get seeds planted, to get water and sunshine and growth before the full fruit can be unveiled. This is a good thing.
And it’s also why I’m glad that this initiative reassures us that the doctrine is not changing. That’s the Lord’s way of telling us he has a work for each and every one of us to do. Wounds still need to be healed. Hearts still need to be opened. Stories still need to be told. Understanding still needs to be transformed. And the Church is officially saying, “Let’s take a step closer to that, not further away.” And we are privileged to have this work before us.
–John Gustav-Wrathall
http://youngstranger.blogspot.com
[For a different perspective on this topic, see this post.]
I’m better for knowing John and Göran personally. :)
I’m not nearly so optimistic that decisions in church policies are based solely on revelation from God. Much like there are scriptures I see as personal opinion and not inspired, I see men in leadership past and present who are influenced by cultural prejudices and their own personal flaws. I know people are fond of saying the church is perfect; it’s the people that aren’t. IMO, the church is the people.
The church isn’t perfect. But this is a step in a better direction.
Interesting and thoughtful perspective, John. Thanks for sharing. I join you in your hope for increasingly constructive and compassionate dialog.
I am not impressed. When I heard about the website this morning I was positive and encouraged…but then I saw the videos and read the text. Nope. Can’t go there. I don’t have any “horse to tame” as Christofferson talked about and I was not moved or touched at Quentin Cook’s tears. If he thought us (gay people) to be humans with dignity based on his experiences with AIDS patients decades ago, I don’t think he would have led the charge to annul existing marriages and prevent future gay unions from occurring as part of the Proposition 8 fiasco. The website is a PR move from a church that finds itself on the wrong side of history (again) and they are now trying to recast themselves as kinder, gentler, bigots.
I was in the wave of gay members who were cast out by Salt Lake City when they canceled the gay outreach fireside in Los Angeles in the 1990s. I then went through both propositions (22 and 8) here in California, having to drive by ward members on the street corner who protested my civil rights…civil rights that they then voted to remove. A slick website with hand-picked apologists who will dance, do, and say whatever they are told will have not sway over my views of the church, its current members, or leadership. What will sway me is individual action from the members or leaders who seek to undo the damage they have done and to start treating gay people as equal human beings, which in fact, we are. I never thought of my god as being a bigot or someone who discriminated against people based upon their sexual orientation or gender…and this is one reason why I left the church: their doctrines did not fit my life. Since I knew my life was true and correct, something had to give, and in my case, it was the church.
The church will continue to sputter and falter until it can come to terms with its past errors and find a way to include people rather than exclude them. Also, the church has no interest in an honest dialogue. Gay members have been here from the beginning and have been readily accessible. The people on the website were vetted, groomed, and their messages were approved for publication. I will not go so far as to say that they are not real or that their experiences are not valid (they are real and their experiences are their own) but I can say with strong conviction that their experiences do not represent the average GLDS man or woman’s experience. What I took away from the website was that the church leaders simply want people to be a bit nicer to the sinners…but to still make sure that we know we are sinners and that we need the church for happiness. That message doesn’t ressonate with me at this point in my life. I am proud of my Mormon heritage and shall always remain Mormon-identified but I will never again call myself a Latter-day Saint because their values are too different from mine.
John,
When you say,
You are implying that all the statements and policies and actions that have been made by the church so far with respect to homosexuality have been authoritative, revealed, and even more, of Jesus Christ. That, as this site says **even now** — your marriage is “yielding to sin,” that your sexuality is a mortal test (one which you are, by the way, failing). On the bright side, your relationship with Göran may, at best, be good practice for what this site says **even now** will be your future eternal marriage to a woman.
Since I’m open to the idea of a church being led by authoritative revelation (although I’m not sure if the LDS church fits that criteria), I’ll buy that such a church would be preferable to a church whose leaders feel self-authorized to make any changes they please…
BUT
I’m finding it hard to believe that what’s holding the church back is an authorized revelation, that what’s keeping things in the status quo is the will of God.
I mean, like the Priesthood Ban. Given the two alternatives: that the ban was ordained of God for a time, but then eventually, it ceased to be…or that the ban was an example of people getting in the way…I would take the second option. Not for the people’s sake, but for God’s.
Ren – Of course there’s a human factor in the leadership of the Church… I think there’s theological space for that in the way the priesthood governs the Church through delegation of authority. God basically says to us: Here’s a job I’ve got for you to do. Now use your agency to do it. I’m not a believer in the notion that literally every move a Church leader makes is dictated by God. So of course that leaves plenty of space for human error. I believe that’s how God intended it. Otherwise, how would we learn anything??
I agree with your statement that the Church is the people.
The presence and content of this website and any movement in the direction of compassion and acceptance of LGBT people by the institutional Church are encouraging. At the very least, it may help some families be more accepting of their LGBT children. But I feel that your post is too apologetic and too willing to give the Church the benefit of the doubt on a topic about which the Church has had a very troubling past. If these men are in tune with God, then why are they not receiving answers for what they admit to know so little about? Why do they vest higher moral authority in a few Biblical scriptures about same-sex interactions than in professional and clinical research on homosexual attractions and relationships? The APA seems way more enlightened on homosexuality than the LDS prophet of God. I find the Church’s approach very un-inspiring, especially pertaining to its discussion of sin in the context of gay relationships. It seems stuck on defining sin as something contrary to a set of orthodox dogma, a very Old Testament approach if you ask me. Wouldn’t Jesus be more likely to recognize that loving, consentual same-sex relationships can be edifying and deeply rewarding for gay people? How can that be sin? Who is it harming?
Andrew: I think it’s an open question as to whether the 1978 revelation ending racial restrictions on the priesthood was to reverse a previous revelation establishing the restrictions (there’s no historical evidence of that) or whether it was to correct an error instated by Brigham Young (the fact that Joseph Smith ordained blacks to the priesthood hints at that as a possibility).
What matters in relation to the Church prohibition on same-sex relationships is that leaders perceive it to be doctrinal. Given that fact, it seems unlikely that — whether the perception is right or wrong — change could come about without a revelation.
In any event, I would want Church leaders to seek divine revelation in relation to such a matter. My understanding of the way the Church works is that we are expected to work hard to come to our own understanding of things — to seek light and knowledge according to our best lights. Then, we seek revelation from God.
If that’s the way revelation works, then the Church opening up a sincere, thorough-going, inclusive dialog on the issue of homosexuality is a necessary first step. In fact, it would be wrong for us to insist that a revelation could/should occur before that kind of attempt at deepening our understanding had taken place.
Chris and Ben: Your responses are understandable. Many individuals inside and outside of the Church will probably respond to this initiative with extreme caution.
What I think is worth pointing out is that we do have a number of seemingly precedent-setting statements here. The Church is acknowledging previous fault. It is acknowledging good faith on the part of LGBT individuals and family who take issue with official Church teaching. It acknowledges the depth of the difficulties created by the Church’s position. It calls for a non-judgmental approach to those who have chosen paths outside of the Church-approved paths. It is emphasizing understanding, empathy and dialog on this issue to an unprecedented extent. I don’t see pointing any of this out as apologetic.
Since I’ve already seen extremely encouraging signs of movement in the Church at the grassroots level well before this initiative, I suspect that these Church statements will have the effect of accelerating a process already well under way. It’s simply impossible for me to be jaded about this… Though I understand why many are jaded.
Chris – maybe by “apologetic” you mean my belief in the necessity of obtaining a revelation in order to revise doctrine or policy. For me, that belief goes to the core of what I understand it means to be a Mormon.
John:
From 1993 through 1998, an outreach fireside was held here in Los Angeles for gay and lesbian church members. It was an inspiring group not only because of the gay members who attended but also for the local church leaders who put everything on the line to make sure that they were meeting the needs of the people they were supposed to love and care for. I was moved but their compassion and love and when the former stake president attended my wedding in 2008, I was honored in a way that is hard to describe. The fireside was canceled by Church leaders in Salt Lake City because they couldn’t have a successful gay outreach group while fighting against gay rights in Hawaii and Alaska. Canceling the Los Angeles outreach meeting reflects how Salt Lake really feels about gays and lesbians, including you. The website is a ruse to get people like you and me to trust the church and to believe that they (the leaders and members) are really interested in our well being. The reality is that the church has an image problem that it is trying to handle and this is the strategy that they have come up with.
As I have posted in other forums, I think it is especially rich that they took one of the leaders of Proposition 8, Quentin Cook, and are trying to portray him as someone who cares about gay people. Why not play his remarks from the church fireside in 2008 where he encouraged everyone to vote for Proposition 8 along side his video on the website?
I was also put off by the references to “sexual preference” and this idea that I chose to be gay and that they want to love me even though I am going against god’s plan and am not as cool as they are. The sad part is that I really had hope when I heard the news this morning and I truly wanted the website to be a resource–it isn’t, and I think the website has more potential for harm than good. I call BS on them.
I can appreciate much of what you write, and especially appreciate your perspective. You are a serious pioneer. That said . . .
How can we have an authentic and meaningful discussion about LGBT issues without using the words “gay” and “homosexuality”? Sadly, everything on the new website is still framed in the context of “suffering from the affliction of SSA.” You mentioned the use of the “L” and “G” words. I didn’t see this. I heard “gay-oriented” once, and that is it. Why is there a need for such qualifiers and “euphemisms,” even in supposedly authentic yet unofficial personal narratives? So Orwellian.
You also characterized the site as the Church openly acknowledging its leaders’ past failures to love LGBT people. I also didn’t see this. And I don’t think there will be the necessary cultural change until this happens. What I heard was them blaming the folks in the trenches. To use a rough analogy: the Church has never really condemned past official statements and practices that were racist, and that’s left us with so much baggage. if they continue to just blame the members for intolerance and homophobia, they are to some extent sanctioning the worst of what prior leaders have taught and said about homosexuality. That is not leadership.
I wish Joseph Smith were around. As a guy that was quite cool with experimenting with family and sexual norms, he would have whipped out a revelation in 15 minutes that provides a way for gays to fulfill the measure of their creation. Meanwhile, today’s Church leaders will lead from behind for another generation.
Maybe you would like to join my event on the Sunday before Christmas? If you don’t want to join, maybe you know someone who does. Thanks. https://www.facebook.com/events/506104906068806/?fref=ts
The author claims that through this website, the LDS Church is acting “without judgment.” I call bullsh!t. The site continues to pass judgment on gay people as sinners. It continues to judge homosexuality as a “horse to tame.” Even using terms like “same-sex attraction” and “sexual preference” reveals a judgment of sexual identity as transitory, changeable, optional and condemnable. Slick PR cannot begin to atone for the damage done, the lies told, the families torn and the lives lost.
Heather,
I love your response to the new website and I so appreciate that you are encouraging other gay members to accept the olive branch, so to speak, and give the Church a chance. I genuinely believe that this is a positive beginning to creating a more open and loving place for all of God’s children.
I’m also encouraged that the new website will impress upon the general membership that this is an important issue that needs to be addressed, whether or not you currently know someone who is gay. That we have all been instructed to be more civil, and less judgmental is critical to the success of moving forward.
I can only speak for myself, but I realize that I am often awkward in the way I communicate about the issue, but that my intentions are good. If we will choose to perceive the intentions of one another as genuinely good, then we will be more willing to allow weakness in our lack of communication skills on this topic.
As my mother always said when I was growing up: the street runs both ways.
Bravo!
John,
I am not aware of any revelation opposing gay membership or gay marriage. There is even a scripture in 1 timothy 4;3 which says that forbidding to marry is a sign of apostasy in the last days. I don’t think it would require a Revelation to change.
You say the Church wants to hear from us, is there a way to convey our views? There is letter on LDS.org.au that the Area Presidency wrote to all Australian politicians, opposing gay marriage, it asks for comments on its page. Does the site you refer to have an opportunity for feedback as you seem to infer?
Geoff – Actually, one of the first things I looked for when I saw the new “Mormons and Gays” site was a place where people could submit personal stories… Where people could actually engage in the “dialog” the Church was inviting on line and in real time! Unfortunately, I didn’t find anything of that nature on the site itself.
However, there are numerous dialogs taking place in numerous forums — Mormons Building Bridges (on Facebook), Circling the Wagons, and the Far Between Project (sponsored by the Empathy First Intiative). These are all places where individuals are invited to share their perspectives as LGBT Mormons or as family, friends or allies without limitations.
Also, many of us are approaching our local church leaders and asking for more formal Church dialogs — for example by sponsoring firesides or other educational events. Nothing is stopping any of us from taking these kinds of initiatives, and the Church website seems to be encouraging dialog, so why not give it a try?
You also characterized the site as the Church openly acknowledging its leaders’ past failures to love LGBT people. I also didn’t see this. And I don’t think there will be the necessary cultural change until this happens. What I heard was them blaming the folks in the trenches. To use a rough analogy: the Church has never really condemned past official statements and practices that were racist, and that’s left us with so much baggage. if they continue to just blame the members for intolerance and homophobia, they are to some extent sanctioning the worst of what prior leaders have taught and said about homosexuality. That is not leadership.
Amen.
When you look at the same site on LDS.org.au there is a little feedback flag. I left feedback about a letter sent to Australian politicians opposing Gay Marriage, and was told it was being forwarded to the member of the area presidency who wrotre it (an American). Not had his response yet.
Is there on the new site any indication that those who don’t agree with the opposition to gay marriage will not be punished? Or anywhere else?
Perhaps if you send your feedback there he may send it to Salt Lake, or remove the feedback option.
Finally got around to reading this post and am so freaking excited. Ready to swing away!