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.

BYU is not invited into the Big Twelve. And it's all because of Gays

BYU is not invited into the Big Twelve. It's official

Before anyone bursts a blood vessel, no team was invited to join the Big Twelve.

Publicity stunt?  Pressure from the "bigs" in broadcasting?  Who knows.

On paper, BYU looked good - huge market, travel well, competitive in football and basketball, national attendance records at home and most impressively, away -- all on the cougars side. 

The one minus was the honor code. Yes, the honor code - that thing that for years made BYU stand out from the party universities. That badge of honor that kept blue chippers from signing at a stone cold and dry program -- may have been what stood in the way of BYU being invited to the Big Twelve. BIG SURPRISE!

Looks a little gay ...

So not a surprise. The honor code was reported by SB Nation as being discriminatory "against LGBT students and victims of sexual assault, which makes the issues all the more difficult to fix because they run more deeply than merely with the school itself."

Quotes by SB Nation are in italics:

"Hell, student-athletes can't even wear a beard at BYU" the article continued. "Are beard-wearers discriminated against, then? Can a school have any kind of behavioral code, anymore, without claims being brought against it?"

Again, this is SB Nation: "The answer is that, yes, in fact, beard-wearers are being discriminated against and while that type of discrimination may seem benign, it’s not, because it’s only one small example of larger and much more dangerous discrimination happening at BYU."

"So the larger answer is that, yes, a school can have whatever type of behavioral code it wants, as long as it doesn’t discriminate against students, especially students in communities that already suffer from an incredible amount of discrimination from other elements of society."

Just for the fact checkers, BYU Honor Code decries premarital sex - opposite gender or same gender. This is the homosexual behavior that the code speaks of. One can be gay and attend the university. However, the same standard applies for all students. There is no premarital sex allowed.  Frankly, I don't know if a person married to one of his same gender would be allowed to attend the university. In the honor code there is a qualification that a student must be active in their church and attend regularly. I suppose that if that criteria is met then such a student would be allowed into the school.  And the law would be the same for him or her -- no sex outside of marriage.

I am not blindly supporting the honor code. It does mention that handholding and kissing is not permitted by those of the same sex -- hand holding and kissing not necessary being precluders to premarital sex.  However, any straight couple sitting on a bench at the Marriott center who is snogging would be asked to stop or leave the premises. So it would be interesting to hear from someone with actual same-sex-snogging experience here. 

Moving on...

"And if the behavioral code serves as a reporting barrier for sexual assaults, then it is not acceptable and needs to change to follow federal guidelines. That’s not an opinion, that’s the law." SB continues.  I don't understand what is going on with sexual assaults, so I will comment on this later.

um, hum

Is it the law?  Has the SB Nation not heard of religious freedom?  BYU is not an open school. It is not subsidized by tax dollars in any way. It is a private institution, and private institutions run by churches invoke religious freedom. They have the right to set standards. They have the right to say no beards, no short-shorts, no drinking, no sex outside of marriage for anyone gay or straight. And go to church.

"The Big 12 should avoid the potential for future scandals and decline to invite BYU into the league until such a point at which the school can reform the Honor Code to be inclusive of LGBT students and properly follow Title IX guidelines in dealing with victims of sexual assault" says the article.

Let me add another suggestion.  BYU should find a way to thrive in the world of college football without lowering it's standards. If that can eventually be done in the Big 12, then congratulations.  If not, then move on.  BYU has the freedom to set honor code standards.  They have the right to deny us entrance into their club.

Does BYU Sports need their club?

Are Mormon gays invisible?

When I was younger and skinnier I used to dream that I was invisible and because of that I could go anywhere I wanted to go without being seen.

The first place I thought about going as an invisible being was a men's locker room. After a couple of months with that scenario, I moved onto visiting a bank on equally a regular basis, but those were always one/two.

At different times, everyone has
 a different idea of heaven

So, is this a dream come true?  I am a gay Mormon man and by being such am I invisible or am I just a nothing?

I ask because I am here. Here is my hand and it's attached to the rest of me. I do exist. Saying that there are no gays in the Mormon church is misguided at best.

Glibness aside, the doctrine that was stated last week in a relatively obscure conference (and I know it will become doctrine) validated what I have always felt to be true. I have even spent much of the last five years writing a book with that concept at its core.

The reason a general authority in the LDS church said that there are no gays in the LDS church is because gay or bi or anything that is not "Man/Woman" is a state that does not exist in heaven and didn't exist in the preexistence -- which explains the reason for Mormons to hold onto the Proclamation on the Family as a standard.

Based on that new (old?) information, a same-sex marriage could be performed here on earth, and when the next life came around, the couple would be mismatched. No sarcasm or cynicism -- just a mismatch.

However, if one experiences gay feelings from one's birth -- as I do and have done -- it's hard to imagine that things could be any different.  I am gay, and I am a Mormon. If one has ever had these feelings or acted on them and has created relationships based on one's homosexuality, then it will feel as if one's very foundation is being ripped out from under one.

The general authorities have always stated that homosexuality didn't quite fit in the church -- if "fit" is the right word. They didn't always have the answers as to "why", and the speculation around the topic was sometimes comical. Regardless, they have always said "no".

Let's open this up a bit, because you may remember my saying that I am gay and I am a Mormon which seems to contradict what Elder Bednar said: Alcoholism is not a state that existed in the pre-existence, yet there are alcoholics in the LDS church. Depression is not something that was a part of our lives in the world that was before we came here, but look around you. Abuse was not something that happened in the pre-existence, yet there are abused and the abusive here on earth -- and in the LDS church. There are many conditions here on Earth that did not exist in the life before we came to Earth and will not exist in the after-life.

There exist here on earth conditions and possibilities that were brought on by our allowing Heavenly Father to send us to Earth in all imperfection to make choices and to be tried and tested.

The gospel of Jesus Christ is given to man as a tool to return to Him. The general authorities of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day are here to guide us with His word, and we are allowed freedoms to act and to choose. The fact of the matter is that our limitations, physical characteristics and challenges do not define our identity -- hence, the comment that there are no gays in the church. We are much more than the proverbial sum of these parts.

BTW, the Gospel was not given to us as an excuse to judge others or place others below us. Anyone who believes that the gospel gives us the authority to put anyone in a predetermined place is mistaken.

God has given His children the ability to overcome earth life and all that separated us from Him.   There are things we don't choose.  But we can choose to follow the Savior. This latest info from David R. Bednar fits in with that concept, even if it may not have been well thought out.

No Gay Mormons?

I don't have time to do much editing, but I wanted to get this out there.

David A. Bednar says there are no gay people in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints because, essentially, there are no gay people.

Keep reading.

Speaking in Chile last week during a Q and A for a regional conference, Bednar was asked, “How can homosexual members of the church live and remain steadfast in the gospel?”

Bednar replied, “I want to change the question,” as Raw Story's David Edwards first reported.

He then explained his theory, one held by the Church, that no one is actually born homosexual (or bisexual, for that matter) but rather, God gives people challenges they are to overcome, homosexuality being one of them.

“There are no homosexual members of the church. We are not defined by sexual attraction,” said Bednar. “We are not defined by sexual behavior. We are sons and daughters of God. And all of us have different challenges in the flesh.”

Frankly, I agree with him on principle.  I have been championing this for years.  However, I am a gay Mormon and have written as such for those same years. The fact of the matter is that we humans do self-identify by many different methods and sexuality is one of them. 

Bednar, and I love the dude, is trying to give an advanced course in the pre-existence to a group of reporters who haven't passed Mormon 101. There is an internet out there -- leaders of the Mormon Church. Use it to get proper messages across in a timely fashion with impeccable referencing. 

Or is such a thing necessary. 

Regardless, the era of speaking from your heart to a select few members of the church in a local meeting and have it stay local are over.  Open the floor to everyone. 

Back to the story: He then went on to recite the church's stance that homosexual love is only a sin if it is expressed sexually -- nothing new there.

“Simply being attracted to someone of the same gender is not a sin,” Bednar continued. “There are many members of the church who may have some manifestation of that attraction. They honor their covenants, the keep the commandments, they are worthy, they can receive the blessings of the temple and they can serve in the church.”

“It is when we act on the inclination or the attraction, that’s when it becomes a sin,” the elder continued. “We do not discriminate and we are not bigots. We extend Christ-like love to all sons and daughters of God.”

Bednar's comments come just a few short months after the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles announced that Mormons who are in same-sex relationships, even though legal, are to be considered "apostates," subject to ex-communication, and their children cannot be baptized, or become members of the LDS church until they turn 18.

So, what is the answer to the origional question? How can homosexual members of the church live and remain steadfast in the gospel?

Answer: By following the commandments.  "They honor their covenants, the keep the commandments, they are worthy, they can receive the blessings of the temple and they can serve in the church."

A positive experience -- The churches clarification of policy concerning gays (you know the one)

Yes, I have a bias and I seek to confirm it.* My bias is that the LDS church teaches people to be Christ-like to others, and that the policies of the church are to protect members; to provide the ordinances and information that will allow those who choose to be members the best chance to return to the presence of Heavenly Father.

As per many confirmation bias, I look for things to support my stance. There has been much representing the other viewpoints, and I have been looking out for more information. This experience was recently posted in Facebook. Yes, I understand the sketchy nature of faith promoting rumors, but this was proactive -- and it left me with another vantage point. Separate vantages have always proved necessary to pinpoint truth.

"I am a gay man with full custody of my children. I was invited to share the afternoon with my stake president and a general authority Seventy. After hearing the comments, positions, and beliefs of the GA, I would like to offer what little reassurance I can give to those affected by the recent policy on LGBT members and their children.

"Things were said in confidence and off the record that I am not able to share publicly at this time, however I will say that if what was said is representative of what is on the horizon, there will be a much brighter future for all of us affected.

"The comments he made were the most affirming, understanding, and compassionate things I've ever heard from a church authority in relation to LGBT issues. He was unequivocal in the disagreement of certain attitudes, actions, positions and teachings formerly perpetuated by other church leaders.

"When I expressed concerns about being on an apostate list and my kids being asked to disavow and not affiliate (per temple recommend question) he was able to calm my fears and anxiety and reassure me that this would not be asked or expected--even if I am living in a same sex partnership.

"He listened. He understood. He loves. He did not judge or condemn. He assured me that he was not alone amongst other leaders in his views and approach. 

"I realize that this is vague but he sincerely wants to maintain contact with me as things progress in my life and I don't want to betray his confidence. He asked for patience and hopes for change. He was clear that homosexual behavior is and would continue to be considered "sin" for the foreseeable future, but held out hope that changes in the way that LGBT individuals and families are dealt with is very possible.

"Knowing that I want to find a partner, he hugged me and invited me to return to activity in the church community if I ever felt inclined to do so. This was stated without any hint or suggestion that it would preclude my being single or celibate.

"I am in awe of the Christlike compassion I was shown."

So, what do you think? Could there be truth to this? 


*Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or mysidebias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.

Leaving in droves?

Gay Mormons and those who support gay Mormons are not leaving the church in droves as is being posted on Facebook.  At a recent rally in SLC fewer than 1,000 signed a petition to have their name removed from the church records of the LDS faith.  

Now, I look at those 1,000 people and I feel horrible for the hurt feelings, pain and suffering these - and others - have gone through and are continuing to go through. I have been in a few of those pairs of shoes, and I am currently dealing with my own issues inside and outside of the church.

While these thousand people are humans worth more than casual consideration, 1,000 people from various states of membership and church activity does not constitute a mass exodus. So, add those 3,000 from the lawyer we read about and then double that. That's 8,000 ish. There are still plenty of gay Mormons not leaving  the church. 

I am one of them.

The scriptures predict -- or prophesy, that there will be those who choose to leave Christ's church. If it isn't over this, then what tasty tidbit will cause more than thousands to leave?

I will not be leaving the church, and I can bet you there are more difficult times coming. The distinction between those who believe and those who do not will become even more cavernous.

Those who have had a problem with the church will see this as an opportunity to take action. There will be those currently on church records who have not seen the inside of the local LDS meetinghouse in years.  They will use this as their reason to leave -- and I understand where they are coming from.  Many of them will be belters. Facebook will be full of them. 

While I don't agree with them, I have family and friends who are belters, and they are still my friends. They make fun of me for following blindly and I make fun of them for finding the reason they have been looking for all along. We are still family and friends. 

Is this a test of faith?  No, I do not believe that this was created to be a test. It will have that effect to be sure. Or, maybe everything is to test our faith and our ability to be kind even through extreme differences. I don't know.

Here is an excerpt from a blog with an interesting POV:

"Todd Richardson, 31, an out gay man who belongs to a ward in New York City, said the policy, “broke my heart,” adding, “this hit me harder than any other one thing.” Richardson said his community is accepting, but that “the church has never been affirming by any means.” The current situation has proven difficult for him: He plans to get married and start a family, and the church’s decision has made it clear how hard that will be. He told me that this is the first time he’s ever really questioned leaving the church."

"But Richardson is choosing to see the church’s decision as a hurdle, rather than an exit point. He prayed on what to do, he told me, and said he “got this profound feeling that this is a hard thing, and for whatever reason that it’s happened it’s been allowed to happen. And the savior is asking me if I’m going to walk way… and I decided that I’m not going to.”"

"Christian Harrison, who lives in Salt Lake City, also described a deep connection with his faith. Harrison told me that he grew up within the church, and that it’s been far from easy. “I was called an abomination growing up,” he told me over the phone. “I’m used to having people that I revere as men of God hurt my feelings.” But these interactions with clergy didn’t prevent him from having “a lifetime worth of spiritual experiences that are too sacred to share.” These experiences, he said, have “knit my soul to this church.”"

"For Harrison, the misguided opinions of LDS leaders aren’t reason enough to stop doing the spiritual—and charitable—work of the Mormon church. That work includes fighting for change from within the LDS. He’s concerned that if people abandon the church in protest at this time, only its most callous members will remain. “When the tender hearted all leave, where does that leave us? Where are we as a faith if we scare off everyone that is sensitive to the needs of our minority groups and those that are vulnerable?”"

Here's another quote:

"Einbender fears that he and Mickelson, despite their ward’s sympathetic bishop, will be excommunicated. There’s “a lot of local leadership that have no desire to excommunicate anyone,” he told me. The Handbook gives local leaders enough autonomy to allow them to look the other way from gay marriages if they choose. But, he said, it’s not that easy to find a gay-friendly bishop. Bishops aren’t permanently placed within a ward; they swap after five years. So finding someone who won’t excommunicate you is a gamble—as Einbender says, “bishop roulette.”"

It’s possible to practice as an excommunicated Mormon. John Gustav-Wrathal, a senior vice president (along with Richardson) at Affirmation, a group for LGBT Mormons and their allies, was excommunicated in 1986. He’s participated in the church as best he can: He attends prayers, participates in charitable missions, sings in his ward’s choir, and describes himself as a “believing Mormon.” Like the others, he feels accepted within his congregation.

Gustav-Wrathal told me that he left the church when he was excommunicated, but returned nearly two decades later. “I am very compelling, very powerful personal spiritual experience.” Gustav-Wrathal told me. “I felt God telling me that it was time to go back.”

At the end of the day, the gay men who are sticking with Mormonism don’t believe that the church leaders have the authority to dictate their relationships with God. As Harrison told me, “This is my church."*

*Excerpts from: "Meet four gay Mormons standing by the church that wants them out" by Danielle Wiener-Bronner on FUSION

For those who want to know more - Concerning the LDS Policy Adjustment

Here is some feedback I read concerning the policy adjustment released last week. This response was on my Facebook feed and I permission to re-post. I believe this shows the heart of both of these members. This excerpt if from a person who had set an appointment recently with her bishop:

"First of all, the policy is true to the wording that was reported. (My) bishop opened up the email from headquarters and we read parts of the attachment together... 

"A little background: He said that he got the email about the policy this week which said basically, here is the updated policy for the Handbook, there will be training on it later. The Church did not have time to train its leaders before someone leaked it...  As of Sunday, they still have NOT BEEN TRAINED on the reasons, motives, and nuances of the policy, so it has been left up to local leaders to interpret this new policy according to their limited understanding.

"So, here's what my bishop thought the policy said: 

"He thought that the policy to restrict baptism would only apply to children of gay parents who are living with them full time and have full custody. I let him understand that it does NOT say that and the lack of clarification from headquarters is extremely painful to mixed-orientation divorced and separated families like mine. 

"We talked about my son, who is 8, but is not ready for baptism yet. Even though he would qualify for baptism today under current policy because he lives with me most of the time and his gay dad is not married/living with a same-sex partner, I told him that in the future, it is a distinct possibility that he will live with his father who at that time may be married or have a partner he lives with. Would my child be able to be baptized if that were the case? He had no answer.... He said he would inquire about it. 

"I told him the pain that I had about not allowing a child to participate in passing the sacrament, attending temple trips, and participating in the priesthood as a youth in the church if he were not to be baptized. I told him that my son, who already will feel singled out because his father is gay and his parents are divorced, will be subject to even more isolation if he isn't able to be baptized and participate in his religion as his peers do THROUGH NO FAULT OF HIS OWN. 

"The bishop emphasized that under the new policy, there IS a pathway to baptism available to children of gay parents through the First Presidency. I told him I felt is wrong that in order to be baptized, my child would have to have "special exception" when almost every other child does not. 

"He THOUGHT that the requirements for baptism for a child of a gay parent was an either/or situation, not BOTH, namely that a child of a gay parent would have to: 

1) Accepts and commits to live the teachings and doctrine of the Church, and specifically disavows the practice of same-gender cohabitation and marriage... 

2) The child is of legal age and does not live with a parent who has lived or currently lives in a same-gender cohabitation relationship or marriage. 

"He didn't think that my son would have to be 18 to be baptized. We read the sentence preceding that paragraph and I could tell he was confused that I was right. 

"We also talked about my concern about gay marriage. He knows that I support gay marriage and he had specifically asked in previous bishop's training whether or not someone who was seeking a temple recommend should be denied that if they feel that way. The answer he received was, no, that person should not be denied a temple recommend. 

"So, here's the question. Why would a child (well, an adult at that point) be required to disavow that practice if a temple-recommend-holding member is not held to the same requirement?  

He said that Elder Christofferson's video to the press (which I corrected him on and told him it was to the church's PR dept.), clarified many of the questions, but I when we reviewed some of them, it didn't. 

"For example, why is having a child who grows up in a gay household unable to choose to be baptized even if his parents fully support that child? In our case, my son's dad would fully support him if he chose to be baptized. I would too. 

"Why does the church assume that those gay parent(s) would be antagonistic to the church and wouldn't be open to receiving home teachers and visiting teachers if the child were to receive a name and a blessing? Once again, the church is assuming an us vs. them mentality about LGBT families. That simply is not the truth. 

He mentioned that this policy is not new, that Elder Christofferson compared it to the way we treat children of polygamists, at which point I burst into tears. We treat polygamists even more harshly than LGBT people. Our policy towards them is equally as painful, if not more so because polygamy was officially sanctioned by the church in our history and is still such in our scripture. 

"The Bishop had great compassion for me and I felt loved and listened to. That is a true gift in a time of panic. Once the panic subsides, I have every hope that these policies will be clarified. "I love my Mormon community AND my mixed-orientation family."

I published this because it is from a Mormon who believes in the church who is actively trying to get more information and understand. And because her bishop is working with her in every way. I will continue to post from sources that seem to be accurate, truthful and pro-active.

Regardless of opinion or stance - Love to all.

Click for churches official response

No married gays or their children. Why?

Before I freak out on the topic at hand, let me reaffirm my stance, in a brief rant, that the Deseret News is stuck in the mud. Once again there was a story to be published in a way that an unsavory moment or series of moments for the LDS church could have been avoided or at least tamed -- and they let other news agencies not do their job for them. Sad. Shame on the DNews.

Now the story. KUTV news reported about two hours ago that the LDS church has clarified to its leaders in the official Handbook (Number 1) for leaders to use in administering in the church, that being in a same-sex 
marriage is considered a form of apostasy.

Usually, this handbook is available only to bishops and stake presidents and other leaders of the church in higher positions, and I respect that. However, this is 2015 and info is readily available to all -- and we all know this. Where is the PR department of the church when it is needed, and why can't pro-activity be the new norm?  I digress.

Screen shots posted this afternoon were confirmed to be an accurate representation of the document by a spokesperson of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. 

"Church handbooks are policy and procedural guides for lay leaders who must administer the Church in many varied circumstances throughout the world. The Church has long been on record as opposing same-sex marriages," wrote LDS Church spokesman Eric Hawkins on Thursday - about two hours ago -- and I quote from the KUTV news article listed below.

"While it respects the law of the land, and acknowledges the right of others to think and act differently, (the church) does not perform or accept same-sex marriage within its membership."

In a related major policy announcement, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints says that children who are living in a same-sex household may not be blessed as babies or be baptized as members. 

"A natural or adopted child of a parent living in a same-gender relationship, whether the couple is married or cohabiting, may not receive a name and a blessing," the recent (an hour ago) policy reads.

"Natural or adopted children living in a same-sex household will only be allowed to be baptized once they are 18, disavow the practice of same-sex cohabitation or marriage, and stop living within the household, according to the policy. Such baptism would still require the approval of the church's governing First Presidency."

So what is the big deal? Nothing if you are not gay, I suppose. Or if you do not love anyone who is gay. Or you are not a father or a mother. But if you are or if you do, this looks and feels ... I can't even find the words. 

This latest version of the handbook declares that members who "are in a same-gender marriage" should be considered apostates. And church leaders are expected to pursue church discipline for anyone who is determined to be an apostate.

So much for my saying that gay people are welcome into the church.

As you know, dear reader, our countries legalization of same-sex marriage gave many the idea that the church would allow gays of all sorts to be part of the church in some way. After all, there are monogamous, legal, gay couples who attend church as believing members. I know several. Are they going to affiliate with the church with their new status as apostates? Yes, we know that they can't use church facilities for their weddings or receptions. How many more doors need to be shut to them?

I still welcome gay people into the church -- and their children. And I am still a TB Mormon. I am a gay welcoming, TB Mormon who is trying to figure this one out. There is a reason for this -- like there is a reason for every challenge placed before us, and I will find out what it is.  

My faith is not shaken. Not even stirred. And yet, I have some homework to do. I am thinking of stepping stones.  Things got better for and in the church after what I call the disaster of Prop. 8. Maybe this is a step toward better things.  


http://kutv.com/news/local/lds-church-to-exclude-children-of-same-sex-couples-from-membership

Gay and Grateful

I made a decision some time ago that I was not going to pursue a further relationship with the gay lifestyle/way of life.  Gay and Grateful

Read: no gay sex. 

This doesn't seem to be the kind of thing one would make public and I get that. However, I started this blog years ago to deal with a subject that seemed to be pulling Mormons under and spewing them out.  In 2009 I decided to speak plainly.

Part of that decision was that I would not pursue sexual relationships with men, nor would I remain tied in more than a cursory fashion to those of my friends who did. I say "hi" and I am here for them if they need help, but we do not hang out. Part of that promise, sadly, became easier to follow through-with as several of my closest friends died of AIDS related illnesses.  

Most of the rest of those friends from the "gay-side" thought that, A) either I would be back after a quick conservative sabbatical, or B) that I was a weak minded freak that actually could be lead away on any silly whim and they cut ties with me. 

While I am sorry to say that I have lost friends I have to add that this has been an 18 year old whim.


It was like jumping of a plane with a parachute I hadn't packed myself and wasn't sure would deploy and save me from flatness -- a lovely way of saying that I didn't really know what I was doing nor was I certain what the result would be.

Since I made my commitment my life has taken turns - many frightening, many lovely.  I am not where I saw myself to be in 18 years, but neither am I in a wrong or bad place.  I believe that I am better off for the choices I made.  I hope my family feels the same.

Having "gay" as a part of me has given me a lot that I would never have developed had I bean born straight.  I believe that I am what I am today because of the challenges God gave me - all of them.  I believe that we grow from facing challenges head on -- when we own them, when we embrace them. 


I annotate this today because I am cleaning up Halloween decor from my front years and I am thankful for being able to hang a yellow florescent full moon and  a hundred or so plastic light-able jack-o-lanterns. I am grateful for to be able to take the grand children out and load them up with sugar. 

The month of November reminds me how much God has given me.  I am thankful for all of it.