Mormons and Tolerance of Homosexuals

 

I was asked if Mormons couldn't just chill out with the gay thing. Of course, the question asked was meant to speak to the acceptance of gays into the Church.  It's a good question that I believe we should all be asking ourselves.

To go on with an understanding that we all are trying to understand each other we have to define terms. 

Definition of gay for Mormon purposes. Agree or not, like it or not, there are two categories of Homosexuality for Mormons.

• "Gay and living the lifestyle" which isn't the best definition but the one that actually comes closest, and:
• Gay people who are not currently having same-gender sex and could be - in theory - eligible for temple recommends. We aren’t going to be talking about the second group but those who are gay and living life as such - again, not a great definition but there you have it.

One last must. We need to agree, for the sake of discussion at least, that the Savior Jesus Christ is at the head of his Church. If we don't agree to this as a base then the following will not make sense.

There are two issues here. The first issue has two parts:

Part 1- How we Mormons treat people who are not cut out of what has become the standard cloth - those that smell of cigarette smoke, have visible tattoos, pink hair, come-and-get-me heels - anything that is not of the norm. Gays fit that description. Should members accept gays into their church and worshiping circles?  My answer is a resounding “Hell yes.” Why is this even a question is simply beyond me.

Part 2 - Are gays welcome not just theoretically into the Mormon Church from a policy viewpoint - from the very standards and rules set by the Church? 

• They can attend sacrament meeting but can't take the sacrament. 
• They can't hold callings. 
• Their children can't be baptized until they reach legal age.
• They are considered apostates.

The simple answer is, no. This is what many members would like to see changed or altered or refined - whatever the wording is for policy adjustments. And my understanding is that the way this is currently defined these guidelines are not doctrine but policy – which, in theory, could be altered. This is what happened in the seventies concerning blacks and the Priesthood. Having questions about the civil unrest that had been happening for years, Spencer W Kimbell went to the Lord in prayer and asked about the blacks not being able to hold the priesthood. He received an answer to his prayer - a revelation that said that this policy, whether official or not, was to be changed. 

And it was. Who is to say that this current policy is or isn't a policy that could be changed.  I don't believe that there is any harm in asking.

I myself would like us Mormons to be more welcoming of everyone.

What can't be changed and why not? 

As far as I see, the law of chastity is not going to change. It is core doctrine to the Church of Jesus Christ.  All members are expected to not have sex outside the marriage bonds. Currently, no orthodox religion allows for same-sex marriage. I could be wrong on this, so if you know something please comment.  

This could present a simple solution. All Mormons would have to do is change their definition of marriage to allow for same-sex marriage in the temple. It currently has no say in civil marriage, so that is not the issue. The nation has done it. Other countries have done it. So why not the Mormon Church?

Let me tell you why. Like the law of chastity, which is doctrine and not policy, the definition of marriage is doctrine and not policy. It, to my understanding, will not change. In order for it to change there would need to be word handed out from the Savior himself. 

The Church of Jesus Christ believes that the authority of Jesus Christ is premier. It is the reason for the church being restored. His authority is needed to change any of his doctrines. Blacks being allowed priesthood, clarification of the church's name, church facilities and use of tithing funds, cutting church times down to two hours from three, (down from five-ish when I was younger) - these are all policy issues. 

I believe that the Savior is at the core of the Church. I also believe that we church members have issues encouraging tolerance and love for all. Mormons will have to change either the law of chastity or the Mormon definition of celestial marriage - meaning temple marriage. And this will require an about-face in doctrine which, we believe, is the Saviors call to make being as this is his church organization. 

Doctrine is not ours to change.

I write under the name Cal Thompson.  I am an orthodox member of the Church who is gay and sealed to my wife in an LDS temple. I hold an LDS temple recommend and do so honestly. I state this so that you understand my POV.

It's official: Mormons can be gay!

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865665577/Mormon-and-Gay-LDS-Church-launches-page-on-official-website-to-help-members-leaders.html


So have you seen this? 

Almost four years ago, the Mormons posted its website mormonsandgays.org and invited LGBT church members to "Stay with us." Stay in the church they meant. Stay while we figure this whole thing out.

How many have, I wonder? 

Well, I have. Of course, I was staying right here way before the invite. That was a decision I made an awful long time ago.

Today, LDS leaders have added to that thought. The site has been re-launched to "provided greater clarity and emphasis on the sensitive issues related to sexual orientation complete with changes to its name and location and significant new content."

The "new and improved" site can be found on the official church website, lds.org.

"The site is part of the official website of the church and what is on it is just as official as everything else that is on that website, and that's a change," said Elder Von G. Keetch, a general authority and executive director of the church's public affairs department.

From the Salt Lake Tribune: The site is "really good," says Ty Mansfield, a marriage and family therapist in Utah County. LDS officials "were trying to walk a sensitive balance between doctrinal fidelity [the teaching that heavenly sanctioned marriage is only between a man and a woman] and trying to convey a sense of empathy, compassion and outreach."

What he likes about this new mormonandgay.org is that the personal narratives are not just about a single individual, but include other voices with each video — parents, siblings, friends, bishops.

"These are broader stories that encompass a constellation of people, a network," Mansfield says. "It provides a nice sense of the community and relationships we each need."

This is being heralded as a huge step forward.  In reality, I don't know how big it is.  But, for me personally it is significant. There is no way I am going to condemn it for not being bigger -- more of a "lengthened stride" kind of thing.

"The 'Mormon and Gay' title makes clear that someone can be both Mormon and feel same-sex attraction or identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual. Mormon and gay," said Elder L. Whitney Clayton, senior president of the Quorums of the Seventy.

Yes it does.  And that has been my push for years.  There is such thing as a gay Mormon. There will be no more of this "you have to choose" crap that we have been dealing with both in and out of church.

I am gay.  And I am every bit as Mormon as the next guy. 

"We're going to give an example of what people can do as a parent, as a sibling, as a loved one, as a church leader or ward member to support and love and encourage people who deal with same-sex attraction to keep the commandments and find the peace the gospel brings." - Elder Clayton

I appreciate the continued effort by my church to state that fact publicly. We, on this site, have been saying the same thing for years. Years.

Still, it kinda feels more than a little bit good to hear it from above.

Hand holding and other sins at BYU

I have spent part of the last few days arguing whether the holding of hands is an intimate form of expression -- meaning sexual – meaning that a Mormon man shouldn’t hold another man’s hand.

 

After a day of deliberation in which I have watched the presidential debates (!), read about human on human abuse, seen video of buildings being blown up and children covered in blood, I have decided that I am sick of arguing whether a human should hold another humans hand or whether a meaningful look between those of the same sex could be construed as a breach of the BYU honor code.

Now I support the honor code and BYU's right to establish one. If one signs the admission form, he abides by the code. The end. However, I reserve my God given right to state an opinion as a TBM, a gay man, a temple recommend holder, and one who went to BYU -- one of the most positive experiences of my puny little life.

The only moment of joy that has come in the last 24 hours I have spent deliberating this question was watching online as people came together over a common foe -- a boa constrictor that crawled out from the hood of a driver’s car while he was parked at a stop light.

Suddenly, everyone at that traffic stop banded together to combat a snake who posed a threat. It didn’t matter who the driver was, or his race, sexuality or political stance. That snake was just way to close and the group stood together and took care of business -- albeit behind a broom. (Not so great for animal rights folks, but a great day for people coming together.)

So where did I come-out on the holding hands issue?

As the witch said to the baker and his wife Into The Woods, "Who Cares!"

I have seen prophets of the living God hold hands. I have heard tell of apostles kissing each other and hugging tenderly. Hand holding in and of itself is not sexual. On my mission I witnessed many men putting their arms around each other to share an umbrella in the rain, or huddling under a small blanket. I would have loved to have given my missionary companion a hug and to have held his hand to tell him how much I loved him and admired and appreciated his hard work that day.

Culturally we LDS are a mess. In the grand scheme of messes, ours could be a relatively quick fix. But while we are messed up, we are banning simple gestures like hand holding because we don’t understand the intent.

I can't imagine Christ denying the lady -- with her own pure intent -- the experience and the blessings of washing the His feet and drying them with her hair.

And, parenthetically, who are we that we have to understand someone else's intent? May I express tenderness or feeling of any sort by holding someone’s hand? Please? May I have your permission?

Denying anyone the right -- dare I say -- to be affectionate, to express a normal and everyday (hopefully everyday) feeling is silly and a waste of our collective time. Let the kids hold each other’s hand -- for God’s sake. Maybe we should worry about the bloody child, the homeless in our neighborhood, or supporting and defending those assaulted at BYU.

Or, at the very least, minding our own business.

And, in light of the recent information on BYU law enforcement, I am compelled to state that I am the biggest BYU-phile there is. I alternately bleed either royal or navy blue – often at the same time.

And I am asking publicly for my school to change how we treat victims at Brigham Young University whether we agree or approve of their behaviors or not.

No is still no – even if it’s in an outfit that shows “more skin than the honor code allows.” We are the Church of Jesus Christ. Please, let us act like it in all things.

Do you agree or disagree? Please feel free to leave a comment. I will respond.

BYU -- Land of opportunity for a gay Mormon

This was the first real gay essay I ever wrote. It was bold for me and a little salacious though that was never my intent. I turned red as I looked through it again an hour ago. It was my first real attempt at aggressively taking charge of my life in writing, and I thought it was time for a re-visit.
Most everything I know about the gay lifestyle I learned at Brigham Young University. I don't blame the university. I don't blame the people I met there. I saw an opportunity that hadn't presented itself before -- one that I had apparently been looking for for quite a while -- and I made a choice.

It's not like there was a class or a club - though I hear there's one now with its own Facebook page. There wasn't a paragraph of my "Welcome to BYU" pamphlet that included gay as part of the Cougar experience. My first gay interaction as a consenting adult was with a guy I met when I came to Provo for higher education.

The Smith Field House was the place. I sat on a bleacher completely unanimously and watched guys play. They smacked each other, they ran each other over. The grabbed each another and wrestled. They touched each other, and I thought I would pass out on the spot. It wasn't just that young men were enjoying each other. There was something more to it. There was so much familiarity.

Later I figured that these intense relationship had to do with missions and same experiences and in guys usually a part of a minority suddenly swimming in guys who believed like they did; An instant brotherhood. 

I wanted to be one of them. They were contemporaries, my Mormon friends -- or guys I wished were my friends -- who looked at me (if they looked at me at all) as some guy doing homework in the bleachers.

At the end of my first year at BYU I discovered that the men's rooms were the places to meet guys who were looking for... whatever I was looking for. There was graffiti that pointed the way, and some of the writing on the wall made it really clear what the author was looking for.

So I sat there and waited for some signal from the guy in the next stall. I got all the signals I wanted, but I didn't know what to do. I figured it out quickly. We were all fast learners.

There is is. That's how I started. In a men's room at a church school. I was a fool more than a naive. Regardless, I became a regular.

It wasn't until months later that I heard that guys were picked up, and by that I mean that they were arrested or kicked out of school when undercover cops made their own kind of contact. I was lucky. Later, I was experienced enough to know when I was being played. So I didn't find myself in that horrible position of being outed as it came to be known, by an undercover cop.

I once was caught by someone I figured was a professor who interrupted a beginner in a tryst. I just sat there looking at my shoes until he left. I couldn't bear to look up at the man scolding me for fear that I might be recognized or that I might recognize him.

Once I made a connection with a guy. Looking over the stall I recognized him as a fellow music major who was a friend of mine. I was horrified. I believe to this day that he recognized me, though there was never an acknowledgement. This was my first obvious foray into leading a double life.

You would think that these few experiences would have kept me "clean and sober" as it were, the fear of getting caught, would discourage me from involving myself in the behaviors.

No. It didn't make me do anything but to be smarter and careful and look for other places to find what I wanted -- and there were plenty of other places.

You find what you look for. Down deep I don't know what I was looking for at that time. But I found it at BYU

I R chipper

I received this e-mail and I thought I would answer it on the blog:

I really enjoy reading your blog.  Among the moho blog authors I've read, you stand out as on of the more "chipper".  I see a lot negative self-examination among mohos (myself included) yet you seem maintain a very positive attitude despite what some might see as trying circumstances,. Do you agree?

If so, to what do you ascribe this? The gospel?  Your faith?  Prozac? (You mentioned it in some blog entries.) Other?  All of the above?

I hope it's not an offensive question.  I ask as a peer who has much to be thankful for and knows better, yet feels life is pretty much a waiting game at this point.

Thanks!

-A reader

I have been told this before, that I am a "happy guy". I think it is due to that fact that I am... get this, a happy man.  I have dealt with a lot of stuff and I have come out on top so far.  

This is not to say that I don't look at things I have done in the past and cringe, and want to pass out from embarrassment or shame.  

If they show a video of my life, someone is going to have to severely edit this motha' before general audiences sit down for a viewing. I could end up being the Harvey Keitel of the afterlife.

There were easier ways...

I have really screwed up.  And maybe that is why I smile.  I have seen the other side.  I see a bit of it everyday still, and I try to walk past it to something different, something of my choosing.

I have chosen to give up stuff in exchange for other stuff that I wanted more.  The choices I made set well with me.  I feel good about them.  And while I am feeling pretty good about choices I have made, I also feel good about letting others make different choices without trying to convince people that my way is the only way.

Frankly, if you have read a little of my writing, my way is a little bizarre so you might want to try it another way to arrive at your own, unique and joyful result.

There were days I spent around bathrooms and locker rooms at BYU, or waiting for someone to pick my up from the police station -- or on a good day being in priesthood meeting with all the real guys knowing that I would never really fit in.

Well, I fit in just fine, thank you, and I am pretty happy about that.