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.

Posting the heck out of the day: The LDS Policy Adjustments

The recent policy adjustments from my church (Mormon) have had me in tears. So I took it upon myself to research the issue and drown my sadness in Diet Coke. 

I pretty much drown everything in Diet Coke.

Here are a few points I would like to make that I have recently learned, or reminded myself that I learned long ago based on information readily available.

The LDS church does not seek to drive wedges between family members. I would not remain a member of an organization that did.

No child can get baptized without the approval of their parents. This has been the case in the Mormon church for some time, at least since the mid 80's when I was a missionary in Central America. By the same token, nor can a married adult be baptized without the consent of their spouse. A child from a polygamous family cannot either.

There are groups of people and areas of population where the LDS church treads very carefully so as not to put the safety of the native people in jeopardy. Take, for example, the proselyting in communist countries, or of Muslims. There are cultural differences that make it deadly for those in some cultures to convert to Mormonism/Christianity. Policy's that have been in place for some time are an issue of safety. 

The LDS church has a responsibility to all those who choose to be baptized. Those who are considering becoming a member of the LDS church should not have to choose between their membership and having a place to live or food to eat. They should not have to make a choice between their religious beliefs and their family. 

The only way same sex married couples would be able to live as their son or daughter believes as new members their parents should live would be for the couple to split up, and that is not what the LDS church wants. No prophet of god would ask that any child, or anyone in a culture that would harm them,  to have to choose between their family and their religious beliefs -- though some have made that choice.

Regarding the referring to same-sex married couples as apostates. Apostate is a strong word that we associate with anti-Mormons who cause pain to members of the church both in modern and ancient times. The current, accepted definition is thus: A person who renounces a religious or political belief or principle.

Same sex marriage is at odds with the purpose of the church. It is possible to be gay without being considered an apostate. I am generally not considered an apostate – at least not by my bishop or stake president. But for a Mormon to marry one of the same sex would be considered generaly to be a renunciation of belief, an act of defiance – for lack of a better word. Dissenter, maybe? A subversion? That action would buck key issues of LDS belief and would be a step toward apostasy.

Second is the issue of judging and being judged. Judgment is not mine. Judgment is not yours. Judgment is His. And sometimes he delegates judgment to his servants. No one else.

A point I would like to make: People are being treated individually. This is not a blanket that covers anyone to shield them from the light. Bishops and stake presidents/mission presidents have been instructed to handle any exception themselves. Personally. This requires meeting with those involved who wish to be represented.

Are there extras that have to happen for any child who is in a home where the heads of that home are considered to have apostatized from the church? Yes. There may be extra steps they would need to take for other reasons as well. I myself had extras I had to do in order to marry my wife because I am a gay man. 

We are treated like individuals.

I must tell you that I am feeling much better about the recent events after I studied a bit and kept an attitude of prayer. While I grieve for those who are hurt by this action, I rejoice in the fact that God is just, and that His judgment will be fair and will be made out of love for us – with our best interest in a mind that is infinitely more complex than ours.

Day after quarterbacking - a silly sports metaphor for something very serious

Yesterday afternoon I quickly posted the breaking news as soon as I could type. It was not because of any journalistic responsibility but because I was shocked, hurt, anxious, angry, aggravated -- a lot of other 'A' words -- and so full of differing emotions I thought I would explode.

Usually I seek out a few people on these type of issues who I trust before I publish my opinion --  just to make sure that I am not expressing a moronic opinion or at least that that I have my facts straight. I did check my facts but I didn't get a chance to speak with many last night. I just blew it all out in print.

Today I feel much the same way as I did yesterday when I first saw the report. The only difference is that I am breathing now.

I am sad for our children. I don’t know how I am going to explain this to my adult kids if the case should present itself. I don’t know how to speak of this to fellow members, or non-members, or in-active members – or even ex-members who have been hurt by LDS policies/procedures in the past. I have written this religious/gay Mormon blog under a pseudonym for years, and this topic is so hot that I am thinking about taking the week of work to research and inform.

(Like I am not sitting at work writing this now)

In trying to make sense of this: I understand that the policy on those who are vocal against the church has always been to treat their children with care – assuming that those children are interested in being part of the church. I didn’t think they were required to move out of the home -- as the adult children of gay married parents are being asked to do now. I haven’t wrapped my head around this yet.

I have read that those children of 8 years of age would have to get permission from their parents to be baptized. Yes, that could be painful. But is it any more painful than requiring that adult children of same-sex parents only be baptized if they have moved out of their home and renounced their parenting?

In trying to step back and be objective -- I generally feel that everything happens for a reason. I also believe that there are reasons for things that we can’t see, or understand or even imagine.

My friend, John Gustav-Wrathal -- one of the people I try to connect with before I make an idiot of myself -- reminded me that things got better for everyone including the LDS church after the mess that was California's Prop. 8. And I see that this is true.

Maybe -- possibly -- the reason for this is something like this: Mormons will have to take a stand.

• Luke-warm will no longer cut it. 
• Will I stay true to what I know? 
• If I don’t know what I have pretended to know, am I going to do what it takes to have a knowledge? 
• Will I choose to forgo what I know for what I think I know? 
• Can I voice an opinion to something I believe as an attempt to instigate change and maintain my belief in the Gospel/church/divinity of Jesus Christ? Can I do this without creating personal or public derision that is at least as bad as what I oppose at the moment?
• Do I believe that the prophet speaks for the Lord?
• Will I ask for personal revelation?
• Will I still treat all people with respect, and love them for who they are regardless?

This is a quote from Eliza Partridge Lyman resonates with me. Her husband was on a mission in California and had left her with "no flour nor any way to get it". She wrote, "Jane James, the colored woman, brought me two pounds of flour, it being about half she had."

Another friend I try to read before I post said this: 

"Our God is a God of miracles. Expect them and learn to see them. Love everyone, for each of us is intended to heal and to bless each other, to be the miracle in another's life. Don't assume that the present moment of hunger is permanent."

I believe this with all my heart.

No Fun at Home? Just kill him!

A freshman at Duke recently posted a concern on his Facebook account. Brian Grasso, who plans on studying Global Health, recently saw a graphic novel on his syllabus and decided to refuse the assignment.

Better on Broadway... apparently.

It's not just that he decided not to read the book and refuse the assignment, but that he decided to post his reasoning - which turned his decision into into a national discussion.

"I don’t believe my position will limit my exposure to essential lessons in history, philosophy or literature," he states. " I assume that having to view graphic images of sex for a class will be rare. If it does happen, I will avoid any titillating content and encourage like-minded students to do the same. And I believe professors should warn me about such material, not because I might consider them offensive or discomforting, but because I consider it immoral."

Grasso claims that the issue is not homosexuality or any LGBT issue. He states that in his research over the graphic novel he found that it contained pornography. He decided to take a stand on moral grounds without an eye to any political standing.

"I recognize, of course," he states, "that Christians on campus and throughout the country have an important responsibility, too. We need to learn how to dialogue across differences. Over the past couple of days, I have received many encouraging messages from a new friend, who considers herself bisexual and a Buddhist. She and I became friends after she saw my Facebook post. Instead of criticizing me, she asked me to explain my beliefs. I, in turn, asked her to explain the Buddhist perspective on sexuality. This is how diversity is supposed to work. We each shared our perspective, and walked away from the conversation with a deeper understanding and compassion for each other. That is what college is really about."

He says nothing of the negative comments that follow his essay in the Washington Post - and they are plenty. He gets called gay and stupid. He is told to go find a quiet conservative college. He is labeled as a homophobe and a bigot.

One comment caught my eye:

"I've never met Brian Grasso, but based on what little I do know (his picture and these paragraphs), I can tell that he's flaming."

I am appalled, and unfortunately am not surprised that I am appalled. Is it not possible anymore for anyone to decent or disagree with the norm without being skewered?  It's not just his opinion that is being questioned, but his right to it.  His very being is called into question.

Another comment made suggested that the public should check to see if his email is on the Ashley Madison list. These comments are along the same lines of established and intellectual retorts as "Oh, yeah!"  and "I know you are, but what am I?"

Sometimes I am embarrassed for humanity in general. This is one of those times.

Was this the real battle?

I feel now, and have always felt, that gays should have the same rights under the law to enter into a marriage contract as anyone else does. When marriage is something that takes place in a courtroom, every citizen of the country has the right to sign a contract with anyone else. Here is where I get to say, "This is America, buddy", and sound like a redneck.

I am a politically moderate gay Mormon married man -- just so you know where I am coming from. I firmly believe that the Supreme Court of the United States made the correct decision on the recent gay marriage case correctly.

I am not required to support it on Facebook (though I do). I don't have to like all the rainbow photos (though I got to tell you that I am pleased for my friends who feel validated this week and wish them all the happiness in the world.)  If we have put the federal government in a position where they have to regulate marriage and marriage licensing, then everyone has the right to marry.

The bigger concern for me has always been of freedoms in general. I am not interested in forcing my moral code onto someone else, and I will not have them force theirs upon me.  Some things just feel wrong, and I would fight that fight until my fingers bleed.

The real issue is not that the government gets to regulate marriage for all, but quite the opposite. The government should not be in our homes and in our bedrooms. The fight, the issue we should have been fighting for is not the regulating of marriage but in putting marriage back in the hands of the people.

I support the right of two people to marry and I support the right of a pizzeria to cater any event they choose. I also support the right we have to attend the wedding or patronize that pizzeria – or not.

Where we go from here.  

First things first.  Congratulations to all the new married people. 

Next thing, and I believe the very next thing: There will be those who will use this week’s ruling to aggressively pursue religious institutions who choose not to marry gays -- which is exactly why several religious institutions have been engaged in pushing for personal and religious freedoms protection in courts of law. (Ah, who am I kidding.  I am talking Mormons and Catholics.)

The same morality that conservatives used to exclude homosexuals will now be aimed at those who do not share their personal beliefs. 

Your religion doesn't allow gays to marry?  Take that.

The SCOTUS answered the question in the right way but we should have been asking a different question. Our focus should have been wither we want the U.S. government to have a more say in anyone's marriage? 

What we have done is given the government itself a dose of Viagra. This ruling that we asked the supreme court to make has effectually enhanced the power of the federal government and lessened ours. The feds get to make the decisions now, and it shouldn't be their call. The final say should have been the peoples. 

We should have been trying to restrict government from having more than limited say in the marriage between two people. 

And now, the real battle starts.

Transgender and the LDS Church

I look out for articles that effect Mormons, Mormon gays and Mormons who know gays. Acceptance and kindness are the general issues here.

 I must have missed this when it happened in January. Here is a link to a story titled "A Mormon Leader Signals New Openness on Transgender Issues. This Could Be Huge" by Taylor G. Petrey on Slate. Below the video is a small part of what Petrey says.

(The video is of a dude who answers questions on being transgendered.  I found this interesting and found the responses very warming. Bravo for Bruce Jenner coming out with her story,  People are talking, and that is a very good thing.)

"In a rare interactive interview held at the end of January, high-ranking leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints fielded questions on LGBT issues. Church members flooded the moderator with queries about how to navigate the tension between supporting family members and friends and following one’s conscience on LGBT issues when it is at variance with current church teachings."

"One question dealt with transgender identity, and the response by Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, one of the highest-ranking church leaders, was the most significant—and under reported—statement from that session. A mother said, “I have a transgender son who came out to us about a year ago. … I hate having to fear what retaliation [from church leaders] I might have for supporting him … I think we as members need that assurance that we can indeed have our own opinions, support our children, and still follow our beliefs.”

"Oaks responded:  This question concerns transgender, and I think we need to acknowledge that while we have been acquainted with lesbians and homosexuals for some time, being acquainted with the unique problems of a transgender situation is something we have not had so much experience with, and we have some unfinished business in teaching on that."

"Oaks’ tone was conciliatory and optimistic. A leader of a church that is famously conservative on gender and sexuality issues expressed some reservations about current teachings on transgender issues, anticipating that more experience might lead to changes. Here and elsewhere, rather than retrenching, the church is showing subtle signs of evolving some of its paradigms on gender and sexual identity." -- Taylor G. Petrey

Letter from a dragon mama

I don't get a lot of religious information form the Huffington Post, but I do get interesting tidbits about Mormons and Gays and the perception of both.

Today the HP published a letter from a Mormon Mom who is "taking a stand for all the gay kids in our church".  I encourage you to read it.  I can't say that I agree to all of her opinions of the Plan of Salvation -- but I can say that any error she makes is in favor of her child and others like him, so more power to her... and them.  Us.

Here are a few excerpts:

"... If I had previously entertained any doubt that sexual preference was a choice, those doubts were completely erased as I held my sobbing teenager that night in the kitchen, as he chanted over and over, "I just want to be normal, go on a mission, get married, like everyone else." And all I could think of was, "What kid in their right mind would choose ridicule over acceptance, would choose to be a pariah in his own religious community?" I received a firm conviction that night as I held him in my arms, that this was my beloved child and that our family would rally around him and support him, and we have."

I want her on my side

"...He is learning to discard the shame and self-loathing that his religious doctrine and culture imposed upon him all those years. I am hoping that he can finally see himself as I know God sees him."

"...Here in my community people have been incredible supportive, including a fabulously affirming bishop and an incredibly well-educated and enlightened stake presidency, but the doctrine remains the same. And young gay Mormons are dying to get to heaven where they hope life won't be so cruel."

"... They will not become straight in the next life...*  I will fight for love and acceptance. For compassion and Christ-like understanding for these valiant souls from their fellow saints and the community at large."

"Perhaps then families like mine will not feel torn between a church they love and a child they would give their life for..."

* I contemplated just not quoting this sentence.  I don't agree.  My own experience has told me otherwise. I would like to speak on this at another time, but feel free to comment and I will include your thoughts in the next posting. Even with a difference in a piece of doctrine I applaud, support and promote what she stands for.  

Do Mormons have the right to discriminate?

I am sure you have heard by now. Several general authorities, who are leaders of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints called for legislation that protects “vital religious freedoms”.

After you have read this, move over the site and see what was actually said. Don’t Google the fake news channels to see what someone thinks about what was said and why the church is wrong. That is like listening to a Ute fan describe the good points of BYU co-eds.

The LDS Church also said it would support legislation where it is being sought to provide protections in housing, employment and some other areas where LGBT people do not have protections Here are three key points from that press release.

1) The Church supports “fairness for all” including LGBT people while protecting key religious rights

2) People are being publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss because they have raised their voice in the public square, donated to a cause or participated in an election. This is just as wrong as persecution or retaliation against LGBT people.

3) The church seeks a balanced approach between religious and gay rights.

The church also admitted that this is a highly polarized discussion and that neither side, politically, may get all that they want. As per the site “We must all learn to live with others who do not share the same beliefs or values". This seems very straight forward

It is crucial to point out that the LDS church was not calling for changes internally to the Law of Chastity, a requirement of the LDS church for full membership that discourages sex outside the bounds of marriage, nor were there changes to the status of gay marriage within the policies of the church. There was no shift in doctrine.

Some people are claiming that the LDS church is looking for special privileges and rights. I spent parts of two days arguing this on a Facebook site. The gentleman I spoke with was smarter than I and he used troglodyte in a sentence which was impressive.

Here is a statement made on social media sometimes in the last two days, and I will paraphrase:

"By extending special legal protections toward a group one can belong to by choice, (the Mormon church) society effectively allows anybody to choose to receive the benefit of the special status granted to that group."

If this statement is true, then what is the special status that will be allowed to Mormons or any other religious group if such a bill is passed?

The law would support the free exercise of religion, prohibit any infringement of freedom of speech, or infringement of our freedom of the press. It would also prohibit interfering with the right to peaceably assemble.

Sound familiar? It was adopted on December 15, 1791 as one of the ten amendments that constitute our Bill of Rights. Which brings us to these two thoughts.

1) So, why are we re-establishing the amendments?  I'm not sure, but it is all the rage. Laws have been created that make crimes against certain groups worth more time in jail than the same crime against your standard Joe. Maybe we, as a society, need reiteration of current laws in order to have significance. If this is true, then that doesn't bother me. Lets re-ratify them all --  as long as it means that we are treating people with love and respect.

2) Why is there a loud contingent of social media that do not support the idea of religious rights as recently stated by the Mormon Church?  

I don't know this either, but me tell you what I think. "They" will not support anything that allows the church to publicly state standards that do not appeal to the majority or to their sensibility. 

There is a huge issue with tithing. There are people who do not want to be forced to pay it. Others are not OK with the law of chastity, and if the Mormons have that standard and they do not want to follow, they are opposed to it. Not allowing non recommend holders to witness temple ceremonies is another.

Then their are the big ticket items. Women not being allowed to hold the priesthood and subsequently not being allowed into many leadership roles. Huge. And gay people, sex, chastity and not being able to be actively gay and be in full membership. Huge issue.

Yes, this is over simplistic and is a generalization.   

So, Mormons hitching their issue to the gay rights star?  I don't have a problem with it. Rights for all, I say. At least someone is getting hitched.

Today's Mormon/gay made-up news is brought to you by...

CNN reported yesterday that the Mormon church is in a battle and that it wants to call a partial truce.  "In exchange" they say, "the Mormon church wants gay rights advocates -- and the government -- to back off."

Well, ain't that a great lead to a story. Unfortunately, the truth doesn't read that way at all.

What actually happened was that the leaders of the LDS church pledged continued support for anti-discrimination laws for the GLBT community -- and then compared these laws to those that protect the rights of religious groups.

The "new campaign" as per CNN, repeats language from a website the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints launched in 2012 encouraging members and non members alike to be "more accepting and compassionate toward gays".

The church made clear on that site and in a public announcement in 2009, that it opposes gay marriage and insists on its right to set its own boundaries within church-affiliated charities, schools, properties and businesses;  Read, continued stances on no gay marriage and attendance requirements for its world wide temples.

What was new-ish to many was the LDS churches stance on religious freedoms. Elder Dallin Oaks, a member of the church's Quorum of Twelve Apostles stated:

"When religious people are publicly intimidated, retaliated against, forced from employment or made to suffer personal loss because they have raised their voice in the public square, donated to a cause or participated in an election, our democracy is the loser."

"Such tactics are every bit as wrong as denying access to employment, housing or public services because of race or gender." Elder Oaks cited several examples on Tuesday, which included:

1) The mayor of Houston subpoenaing sermon notes last year from pastors who opposed an equal rights ordination. The subpoena was later dropped.

2) Public pressure placed on a LDS gymnast to step down as an Olympic liaison in 2011 because he had supported California's Proposition 8.

3) Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich was forced to resign because he had donated money to support the passage of Prop 8.

"It is one of today's great ironies that some people who have fought so hard for LGBT rights now try to deny the rights of others to disagree with their public policy proposals," said Elder Oaks.

To be clear, Tuesday's announcement doesn't change any church doctrine -- including its opposition to gay marriage. It was simply a reiteration of policy it had established in 2009. The timing seems deliberate to coincide with the start of a new Congress and new legislative sessions nationwide, which is a smart move.

Others are speaking up as well. Southern Baptists and Catholic bishops have recently joined the international conversation to support national laws that aim to protect religious freedom.

"We are suggesting a way forward in which those with different views on these complex issues can together seek solutions that will be fair to everyone," said Elder D. Todd Christofferson, a member of the LDS churches Quorum of Twelve Apostles.

Sen. Jim Dabakis, of the Utah State senate is openly gay. I only mention this because this of course directly affects him as a law maker and a member of the LGTB community.  He sighed "Amen," to the church's -- shall we say "historic" announcement.?  Let's do. Historic.

"I am proud that the LDS Church has seen fit to lead the way in non-discrimination," he said. "Now, let's roll up our sleeves, get to work and pass a statewide nondiscrimination bill."

A good thing?  Yes. It's the right thing to do, and I believe with all of my heart that the members and the leadership of the LDS church aches to do the right thing. It (again) acknowledges the GLBTs as people worthy of respect and love.

Out of the blue? Unexpected?  The church is "backing off?" No. But we -- like CNN -- appreciate a little drama.

Room for gays in the church?

I am always looking for answers to concerns and questions that I hear being asked by fellow Mo-homos.

So when a friend posted this, from last general conference, I read it again -- having heard the original.  Oddly enough, when I heard it the first time, I felt that I could send it in an Email to several people I knew. I thought of my neighbor in a previous ward who had been offended at something that was said in the foyer at church. I thought of members of my family who have not been active in years.  

This time, however, it seemed more of a personal statement aimed at me. I thought of members of my family who have not been active in years. I thought how easy it would have been for me to walk out the doors and leave the church and my Mormon life behind.  Here is what I read...

It is wrong to assume that Mormons who leave the faith “have been offended or lazy or sinful,” a top leader told members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on Oct. 5 during the church’s 183rd Semiannual General Conference.

“It is not that simple,” said Dieter F. Uchtdorf, a counselor in the LDS Church’s First Presidency.

Some have “unanswered questions about things that have been done or said in the past,” Uchtdorf said to a Sunday crowd. “We openly acknowledge that in nearly 200 years of church history — along with an uninterrupted line of inspired, honorable and divine events — there have been some things said and done that could cause people to question.”

“To be perfectly frank,” Uchtdorf said, “there have been times when members or leaders in the church have simply made mistakes. There may have been things said or done that were not in harmony with our values, principles or doctrine.”

God is perfect and his doctrine is pure, he said, but human beings — including church leaders — are not.
The German-born Uchtdorf, dubbed by several Mormon commenters as “our Pope Francis,” urged those who have left the LDS faith to come back, even with their doubts.

“It’s natural to have questions — the acorn of honest inquiry has often sprouted and matured into a great oak of understanding,” he said. “There are few members of the church who, at one time or another, have not wrestled with serious or sensitive questions.”

Regardless of one’s circumstances, personal history or strength of faith, he said, “there is room for you in this church.”

Is it a right to marry?

I started writing this several months ago and thought better of it.  I am not one to fight "against" something as opposed to being "for" something. And I am a card carrying member of the LDS church and I am proud to say that. However, I am now rethinking my rethinking of this post. I will allow you to judge it for yourself. Please comment if you have something to say.

Two weeks ago, on November 4, several Mormons of the US Senate voted for the passing of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) protecting homosexuals in the work environment.

 

A week later, several local stakes of the LDS church in Oahu Hawaii were read instructions in their weekly Sunday meetings in regard to how to go about taking action against local legislation that would secure civil marriage rights for homosexuals in the state.

 

Mormons received what is considered a revelation from God concerning sexuality in the form of the "Proclamation of the Family".  Let me be specific: I consider the Proclamation on the family to be a revelation.  With that in mind, I have made the following correlation:

Mormons believe that is is NOT okay to discriminate against celibate gays, but it IS okay to discriminate against gay people that are sexually active?

I have watched the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- my church -- in our dealing with people who are different.  Gays would be considered different, a minority, a segment of the population of Mormons and non Mormons alike, though I believer that the percentage of Mormon gays in higher than outside of the church.

Felons would be considered another minority. So would smokers, or black people.  The French. Pepsi drinkers. People still sporting a Dorthy Hamel hair-doo. 

Aside from a natural curiosity, an "I-am-staring-at-you-because-you-are-different-from-what-I-am-used-to" sort of a thing, my experience of us Mormons is that we are more accepting of those who are different -- as long as they are sitting on a pew (read: trying to follow the Mormon way of life). 

Homosexuality is not the numeric norm.  But if a gay man came to priesthood meeting, his nice shoes really wouldn't stand out from the well-worn, black Stacy Adams utilitarian dress shoes the married R.M. next to him is wearing.  If his suit is well fitting and there is a little product in his hair, he can still sit by the man with a bit of dried baby formula on his tie.  He might even be asked to hold the baby while daddy searches the diaper-bag for wipes.

If he pickets general conference however, he won't be invited over for family-home evening. 

So, how do we Mormons treat sinners?  You know -- the people who are doing the things that we believe should not be done, like cheating on taxes or mowing the lawn on Sunday;  Shoplifting or having a democrat corrugated plastic signage on the front lawn.

What would we do with a gay couple in sacrament meeting?  

Often, when I see that we Mormons have politically mobilized to fight gay marriage rights, its because we believe that granting those rights will someday mean that our own religious freedoms are at stake.  Granting the right, or acknowledging that gay men have the right to marry -- depending on your belief -- will threaten LDS marriage and temple practices.  Many of us believe that he next logical step, after gays have the rights to marry, is that the LGBT community will demand the right to marry in LDS temples.  

Religious freedom -vs- civil rights?

I have seen supporters of LGBT marriage rights actually roll their eyes when the religious freedom card is played by Mormons -- me.  They tell me that losing religious freedom couldn't happen.  Then I open a history book and get a differing point of view.

Polygamy, anyone? 

The problem with bring up the anti-polygamy crusades by the United States government in the late 1800's is that Mormons have to admit that we believed, abit for a short time, that polygamy was appropriate for that time -- a belief we put much energy into distancing ourselves from. The U.S. government targeted Mormon polygamy and a short time later the practice was effectively eliminated from the body of the LDS church.  Could government action affect such a change again? 

Okay, so it probably wouldn't happen.

Are Mormon willing to take the risk that allowing marriage rights for all those pursuing happiness will also allow for government to affect their religious belief in celestial marriage that is only achieved in a temple by people following the law of chastity?

At the moment, no. However beliefs (not standards or morals) are changing at lighting speed. All this brings me to the following question:  Whether or not we agree with the morality of the practice, does anyone have the right to deny consenting adults the right to marry?