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.

Chapter 8 - Big Gay Mormon Book

                                                     I got lost on The Road Less Traveled, 

or  Options for the SGAttracted, 

or  The Chapter where Julie lets Calvin tell the Helga story

This is chapter eight of the Big Gay Mormon Book that I am writing with a friend.  I am a gay Mormon and she is the parent of a gay Mormon.

“The Church is for all members…All of us, single or married, have individual identities and needs, among which is the desire to be seen as a worthwhile individual child of God. …The clarion call of the Church is for all to come unto Christ, regardless of their particular circumstances.    - Howard W Hunter

Calvin:  My younger brothers believed that their massive IQ’s were far over and above a regular board game so they combined several of them to create something that they felt resembled a challenge for their dazzling, sometimes dizzying intellect. The game was rather convoluted with many levels.  It featured exotic places, characters and tons of possible scenarios. I only ventured down into their lair once over the holiday and didn’t let go of the iron rod (the stair rail) just in case. All I really remember was marveling at how funny our teeth looked under a black light.

Does anyone think that their mortal existence is going to be any less complicated than my brother’s basement adventure?

In a chapter on SGA options, we need to acknowledge the thousands of choice combinations available. There are different categories, levels of commitment, personalities, social networks, spiritual beliefs. As if that weren’t enough, there are degrees of sexuality as per the Kinsey scale.

I am not in a position to judge any of them. Neither are you. Nor is it our job to. My point is that lifestyles, which I might not consider for my own life, are being lived out by others. What a blessing it is that we all have options and agency at every turn. All of us.

Julie: As a mom, I have certain expectations that I want my son to fulfill, expectations that for now may not be very realistic. Getting past that I need to realize that there are lots of places between perfection and damnation. If he’s not in a temple marriage, maybe a committed relationship is better than multiple sexual partners. It’s not exactly what I think is best, but maybe, for now, it’s better than it could be. And there are so many choices to go and decisions to make.

Calvin: In looking at this subject, we tried to consider as many different possibilities and options for the Mormon with SGAttraction as possible to show that there are as many styles of living as there are bodies and souls. Here are a few descriptions we came up with – many you may recognize.

SGA and Church Membership

Member in good standing - Active

Member in good standing - Not active

Dis-fellowshipped

Excommunicated

Voluntary name removal

SGA, and Church Activity; Faith

Believes and attends regularly

Believes and attends sometimes

Believes but doesn't attend

Does not believe and does not attend

Does not believe but attends anyway

SGA and Relationship Status

In SGA relationship

Single but seeking SGA relationship

Desiring to remain single, Celibate or not

Desiring to suppress homosexual feelings/behaviors and seek a straight relationship

In a straight relationship but unmarried

Straight Marriage with intentions of making it work

Straight Marriage without intentions of making it work

Public Knowledge (Closet Status)

No one knows.

Very private, out to very few.

Only best friends or internet strangers know
Out to non-members, but nobody at Church knows a thing
Out to some nonmembers, but in the Church they are only out to priesthood leaders -seeking their counsel
Out to everyone at Church, or “Out” in general

SGAttraction in the Mormon Church is not a cut and dry deal. Franklin Roosevelt expressed it by saying, “There are many ways of going forward, but only one way of standing still.”

Julie: We acknowledge that there is diversity in the homosexual Mormon world, and what works for one may not work for another - as many options in this world for homosexuals as there are for heterosexuals.  My friend from college has several children now grown up and living their own lives.  Chatting with him on facebook he expressed anguish that his homosexual son was not living the life he wanted him to. He asked me what I would do in the same circumstance. I reminded him that he had another son who was in the same circumstance and as a parent, he had dealt with similar behaviors with this older son. “But that misbehavior was with girls” he responded. Morality, not sexuality was the issue. 

Options become somewhat limited for both homosexuals and heterosexuals when they decide to follow the teachings of the prophets. It is not referred to as the straight and narrow without reason.  The desire to have a family is divine. The need to share one’s life with another person is inspired. How we go about accomplishing these is up to us.

And still, as a parent (still Julie talking) I would hope that my son would strive for a healthy homey, domestic situation regardless. Gay or straight, I would like him to be worthy of the priesthood.  If not that, then I would like him to pray and attend church. If that is not happening, then I would like him to have some stability and limited partners.   A moral core and limit of one pack a week?  I just want what’s best for him, and as a mom my standards are high.

The Choices For LDS SGA

Julie: Not many of the options mentioned are compatible for a LDS/SGAttracted individual to worthily hold a temple recommend. Would you be more specific about what options are realistic to meet both personal and spiritual needs of a SGA

Calvin: The word “agency” would seem to at least imply that those SGAttracted have options.  One of my favorite television commercials of all time was for a fast food chain known for its not-so-fast food.  It starts out at a fashion show held in lovely Yacksburg Siberia inside a drab but spacious warehouse.  A working-class woman, Helga is the model while the Master of Ceremonies, in a high Russian accent, announces “Is next… evening vear,” at which Helga poses in a simple cotton grey dress with matching babushka.  “Is next, swim vear.” Helga has traded babushka for a multicolored beach ball and tosses it around still wearing the same cotton work dress. 

“Is next, Sunday-go-to meeting.””  She is still in the very same dress only this time with a bible and a fly swatter.  The idea was that the people had the freedom to select what they liked – but that there was nothing to select from.

Those SGAttracted, like the citizens of Yacksburg seem to have limited options. Most of life, for all of us, is about a set of limited choices. But taking it one choice at a time opens up opportunities never dreamed of. 

Julie:  I’m sitting here writing at my computer and I suddenly feel thirsty. I have the option to get up, go to the kitchen and get a drink or to not get up, go to the kitchen and get a drink. Once I decide whether to get up or not, a whole new set of choices open up. If I do get up, what beverage will I choose to quench my thirst, and if I don’t get up, what child will I call to go get me that drink?

Options of Living – brought to you by Julie’s sudden thirst

Calvin:  I believe that gays who have had or wish to continue some sort of a relationship with the LDS Church tend to fall into one of the following categories.

I can do as I have been taught in the church to do.

I have never been able to justify dropping or ignoring my testimony of the church in order to indulge my SGAttraction – even when I was in the middle of indulging. I discovered first hand about cognitive dissonance, feeling uneasy because I was trying to hold on to conflicting thoughts simultaneously.

 In order to completely accept one of the ideas (am I gay or I Mormon – as if they were mutually exclusive), I had to ignore the other; either I really wasn’t gay, or the church was not true. Some in my position have reduced or eliminated such conflict by denying or their past experience and testimony. I could not. And though I became adept at justifying my sexual behavior I got even better at simply creating my own world where both were possible and I didn’t have to choose. 

I couldn’t throw the blame on church leaders or on my parents – though I would have loved to throw it on my parents. There seems to be a logical statute of limitations for blaming my life choices on others.

Once I realized that what I was was not sinful and that the SGAttraction behaviors could -- in theory -- be overcome or maintained, I no longer had the need to blame others for my personal mess. I didn’t need to justify, as did Aesop’s fabled fox, that the high hanging, seemingly unattainable grapes were probably sour or otherwise distasteful. I had received a spiritual witness of both the churches veracity and my SGAttraction. For me, the choices from then on were clear, or clearer than they ever had been.

The second option is to choose to deny or to discredit, minimize or ignore the importance of the church and/or its teachings.  

At one point I tried to pretend that I had been brainwashed, that I was too young to be responsible when my religious opinions formed or were formed for me. I thought that I had obtained real, practical experience that overrode my upbringing. 

Another technique I employed that I have since seen in others was to begin selecting the principals taught in the church that I chose to continue to invest in/believe in: Going to church, yes, tithing, no, being kind to others, yes, chastity, no. 

And then there is everything in between. There are so many other options that I just call them, “and the rest,” including…

●One can live with the dissidence. I do it, but I know it’s wrong; I do it, I’d rather not think about it;     

●He can live in a non-monogamous or multi-partnered gay life.

●He can live something in-between outside of the LDS church - visiting at will.

●He can enjoy a relationship with a SGAttracted partner while maintaining a belief in and keeping relationships with the LDS church open however limited it may be (no callings, temple attendance, or priesthood use). Blogger land if full of these men who love the church and their SGA partners both.

Now we throw a stick into it.

●He can enter into heterosexual marriage, being committed, with full disclosure. 

(While there are many options after this, I will not include them as we, in this book, are not promoting marital infidelity or dishonesty in any way.)  All of these can be done with various degrees of honesty and integrity. And all of these can be done with various levels of church activity.

A Quick Experiment For The Bold Of Heart Concerning Choice For the LDS SGA

This isn’t playing fair, but I am going to ask you to do something. If you had to pick the three top options for your child or brother, for your dad or best friend, which would you choose?  And, no, you can’t pick just one.  Consider this an experiment in unconditional love.  Go back and look at the list and pick the top three in their order for someone you love. 

Do you see the problem?  Try to fit them into the church or into your life if they use their agency and select any option but the first, or the one you agree with.  Does your loved one still fit into your LDS life?      

Julie: As members of the LDS church and as a couple sealed in the temple, my husband and I have been taught over and over again the importance and responsibility that comes with the gift of one of Father’s children. We know that we must raise them with care, teach them the gospel and do everything within our power to get them back home; we aim for that goal and define our success by that objective.

The problem with this perspective is that, like the straight and narrow road we are trying to follow, there isn’t much wiggle room for our children. If they don’t choose a temple endowment, church activity, obedience or a heterosexual relationship, then it doesn’t matter what else they choose, because it won’t be enough for us, and we will lose them.

But what if the choice isn’t between going to church and not, what if the choice is between doing drugs or smoking? Getting drunk on Friday nights or an occasional glass of wine with dinner? Or how about anonymous SGA sex at the club or a committed monogamous relationship with someone of the same sex?

Not so simple is it? We certainly don’t want our kids strung out on cocaine or trying to drive drunk, but could we live with the alternatives? Could we view progress for what it is, even if it isn’t as complete as we wish it would be? And could we sit back and be happy for a responsible son, holding down a full-time job with a like-minded life partner? What if they chose to adopt a child? Are they still in the family picture?

These aren’t easy questions for me to answer, and they may not be for you either. Seeing our children settle for less than their potential, even if that less is better than they were before feels like a cop-out, and accepting the situation, for us, feels like giving up. Sometimes in our efforts to help our children be obedient, we become their worst enemy. We push and prod and nag our children right out of the church and worse yet, right out of our lives.

Calvin: Latter-day Saints often think in terms of black and white, good or bad, wrong or right.  Most of our loved ones don’t live that kind of life.  If we are honest, most of us, though we try, do not live that kind of life either. Often the more personally involved we get with our fellow mortals the more we are aware of combinations and degrees--not “shades of gray” necessary, but different points of view and unique perspectives with each choice, each bout of agency having its own set of consequences both here and in the world to come. We widen our view to include all those we love.  

Answer the dang phone, people

I feel compelled to find a way to explain the recent adjustment to LDS church policy. I don't represent the church, but I am a believing member, and I have family and friends who are as well.  

I also have family and friends who do not in any way believe like I do. In fact, it always blows me away when I think about just how different our belief systems are - and we are still familiar and friendly. I hope to continue that.

One of them reminded me that "Friendship that insists upon agreement on all matters is not worthy of the name".

I once wrote a mother's story about when she had been a bit abrupt with her small child after she found him playing in the road in front of the home. The theme was that this mothers actions may have appeared to an outsider to be mean and un-provoked. How dare she swat that kid on the behind and scold him. It sure didn't seem like a Christian thing to do. However, the mother was trying to teach the child to stay out of the road for obvious reasons. She was looking at the big picture. 

It’s a lovely story, but it doesn’t quite work in this case. There is a better one.

"What would Jesus do?"

There is a biblical account of our Savior and how he treated different ethnic groups... well, differently. He personally spoke to, taught, and ministered to all groups. However, He very clearly included only the Israelite people as members of His church, the Church of Jesus Christ. 

The policy to baptize only Israelites was not a new policy, but one that had been around for years before Christ’s birth. He continued the policy. Several people have tried to make sense of the policy that excluded non-Israelite's from being members of Christ's church, but there is no information that clarifies or explains. Later, it was revealed to the prophet, Peter, that the then current policy of exclusion should be discontinued. If he knew the reason why, he did not explain it to anyone who wrote it down - not that I know of.

This current policy adjustment at first look (even a second look) appears to exclude children of same-sex couples just as the policy in Christ's time excluded non-Israelites. It looks like that because it does exclude them. This could be due to custody issues or harmony-in-the-family issues --as has been explained on-line by several Mormon apologists that are smarter than I am. 

If you look at the policy -- and you may need to wipe away a few tears to do so -- it allows these children to be baptized with intervention from the priesthood leaders, who will look at each case individually to insure safety for the child. It’s a big picture scenario. It is also a scenario that includes the distinct possibility that god knows more than we do. No decent man would have thought this up on their own. I believe the General Authorities of the LDS church are, at very least, decent men.

It boils down to this. This policy was adjusted under the direction of the prophet. Does the prophet speak for God, or not? Is the Savior leading this church or not? If he is, as I believe, there is faith and compassion involved -- faith that He leads his church and has everyone’s best interest at heart; and compassion to all everywhere regardless of their belief, political involvement, religion, age, sex, nationality, race, or --fortunately for me, IQ.

Are children being punished for the sins of the fathers? 

Suffer the little children to come unto me, and keep them safe from all danger.

First, it is not my place to identify same sex partners as sinners. There are judges in Zion and I am not one of them. 

Second, no. Children are not being punished. But it appeared like it when I first read the news. It seemed like someone was saying "Go ahead and get married to whoever you want.  Now take this...!"  I am sure that is not the case.  But there is a consequence for actions in and out of the church -- clearly -- for same-sex marriage as far as family is concerned. Creating personal conflict between a child who wishes to be baptized a member of the LDS church (which is crystal in its support of family and man/woman marriage) and parents in a same-sex marriage is not prudent for anyone – mostly the children.

Additionally, there may be custody issues as well. All that is needed is for one parent to agree to baptism, as has been the case for years. If there is a disagreement concerning the baptism and one parent agrees over the wishes of the other parent, that parent may sue over custodial interference and change the custodial status.

Bringing it home

I received a letter from someone who had been invited to a child's baptism this weekend. My friend does not want to support the LDS church because of this policy. Regardless of my own belief, I support my friend and his decision. I believe that he is taking a stance because he cares. I would encourage him to support the child regardless of his personal belief concerning the child's religious affiliation. Would he support a child being baptized into the Seventh Day Adventists or Catholic church -- whose policies he does not agree with either? Sure he would. 

One last thought:  

A saying on a church bill board said, "Don't care how tough you think you are.  When a two year old hands you a toy phone, you answer it." 

Regardless of policy perception, answer the dang phone, people.

Letter to the head marmoho (Married Mormon Homosexual)

In the first place, I am not the head Mar-mo-ho, but I have been at it for longer than the head marmoho and I am definitely a vocal marmoho. This letter is a good read.  Feel free to comment appropriately.

Cal,

I really appreciate your blog. As a gay man that finally came out to himself and his wife two years ago, I have been riding a roller coaster of emotions and feelings. Some days the pendulum swings towards Ty Mansfield and Northstar, and other days it swings towards Elton John and Ru Paul (Okay, the Elton John is a big exaggeration, but I think you understand what I am saying.)

What I have enjoyed about your blog is that you seem to align with many of the thoughts and feelings that I have come to over the past little bit. I don't see happiness choosing a path of being "authentic" (there are those quotes!) and leaving my family, especially with the quality and caliber of gay men that I have encountered. On the flip side, we have been separated for a little over a month now, and I feel that she would be happier in her life without me, and with a man that loves her fully.

Also during this time I have come to an uneasy truce with the church in my mind. I realize it is led by men, who are fallible and are not perfect. It is hard to rectify that with the gospel, which is infallible and perfect, and I still struggle with that. I guess I can deal with that on my own, but what I am looking for comes from questions and impressions that come to my mind during my reading of blogs about the wives perspective of being married to a gay man.

We have been married for 14 years now, and have had many trials and struggles, a number of them can be tied to my being dishonest about being gay. I still struggle with the fact that she wants to be with me, and feel like she is doing it out of a sense of duty or pity. I know that whether she stays or goes is ultimately her decision. She struggles with my refusal to renew my temple recommend, she thinks it is because I must be unworthy, when in reality I cannot justify getting a recommend when I don't believe I would be where I am without her as a mask (meaning that it is just by appearances that I can answer all the questions with a yes, but in my heart I know that I wouldn't be married to her if I had been initially honest with her, nor would I probably be an active member of the church.)

Anyway...thanks for what you write, yours is the only blog that has made me feel that I am not totally alone out here in an already lonely gay Mormon world.

After reading this letter I was impressed to comment that there are many men in the church that feel like they are not what they appear to be.  On the outside they try to look confident and secure with their beliefs, where inside they are struggling with their testimony, or with an addiction.  They may have marriages that are going through difficulties or deal with children that are less than perfect. Most of us feel inadequate in some way, or that we are not what we appear to be. Many of us deal with problems daily -- problems that we would gladly exchange for having to have daily dental work. But we put our socks on and tie our tie and go to church and smile.

Interesting his comment on being authentic.  It's a good word. I have been accused of not being authentic, or true to myself by many in the lifestyle.  Frankly, how would anyone else know which part of me is the true me, and whether or not I am being true to myself?  That would be an issue between those me and those closest to me, and my God.  

Where I stand on being gay and being Mormon

"Keeping the commandments in the face of opposition" was supposed to be the title,

because I recently heard a decent talk given in sacrament meeting by a man that I respect. 

This by itself is news. (Not the respect issue but the decent talk issue.  I know, I know -- One only gets out of it what one puts into it) With gathering infrequency am I privileged to hear the like. 

His remarks were based on a conference talk from the spring of '96 by Elder Neal A.Maxwell who said that we must be careful who we listen to and emulate. 

Boy did that get me going.  I immediately thought of many of the MOHO bloggers that I feel have gone off the deep end -- the ones I do not look for information or advise.  The longer I thought about them, the more I started thinking about what I myself was writing about and what information someone reading would take away from reading my writings.

Based on that process of thought, I feel it is time for me to re-address my stance on all things gay and Mormon.

A gay Mormon man trying to being clear concerning his beliefs -- on which this blog is based.

I am not thrilled with the conservative moment to rename issues to fit conservative beliefs.  Therefore, I use the words gay and homosexual with abandon that borders on reckless.  The name that really got me going early in my life was faggot, and I will never be comfortable using that name on anyone.  Queer?  It's OK, but I don't use it.

The terms same sex attraction or same sex issues, or anything same sex seems like the conservatives way of being political correct -- only on certain terms that they get to define, and I am not interested.

Unlike many religious conservatives, I acknowledge that homosexuals and and gays exist.

I do not believe that they (we) picked from the sexual preference catalog, what they (we) wanted to be attracted to. I pick art supplies from a catalog, not my sexual preference.

I do not deny them (again, us) the right to live their own lives and make their own choices - a privilege that I expect in my own life.

I understand the LDS churches stance against letting gays marry in their temples, which is where the gay marriage push will end up. Mormons, due to the First Amendment protecting free exercise of religion -- a right we all share -- get to set the criteria for entering their temples. 

The law of chastity is very clear, and Mormons believe that they have a prophet who speaks for the lord.  I believe that we have a prophet who speak for the lord.  I also believe that the Proclamation on the Family speaks clearly what LDS believe, and I believe it as well. Because of it's forthrightness, I sometimes cringe when a gay friend reads it, and I sometimes try to find a softer way of interpreting it.  But the bottom line is that it rings true to me regardless of my political stance.

I am gay

I do not think that I am gay, nor do I feel that I am gay.  My knowledge is based on years and years of feelings, understandings, desires, and, yes, I will say it -- behaviors.  I have had spiritual confirmation that I am gay.  Based on my understanding, I have also had confirmation that if I act according to my knowledge and try to keep the commandments, I will have the opportunity to be complete in spirit, mind and body.

Believe me when I say that I understand the issues involved in the gay lifestyle - an iffy term.  I am not ignorant, nor am I turning a blind eye.  I spent years living as a sexually active gay man.

Not incidentally, I am a Mormon. Though I was born into and reared in a Mormon family, I am Mormon by choice. I am not, as some have suggested, lazily taking the path of least resistance.

I understand that being Mormon or being gay is not the norm. Being both is even less so.  I do not care.

I choose not to involve myself in to anything anti-gay or anything anti-Mormon.  I have too much respect for myself to engage in such nonsense.Nor will I argue with gay Mormon friends I have who are living together or who have married. I love them deeply.

I have chosen to live as a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who lives the law of chastity.  I do not have sex with men, nor am I seeking sex with men, or waiting for the day when having a sexual relationship with one of my own gender will be allowed in a chaste life.  I have decided that obeying the commandments is more important to me than fulfilling my sexual desire, and I cannot follow the commandments and live as a sexually active gay man.

Yes, there is more. 

I have also chosen to marry a woman who understands my nature and my desire to remain a worthy, card caring priesthood holder. When I married, I  wanted a family, and the way things were going, that wasn't going to happen.  Finding a lady that was willing to accept me for me was God sent. I also found someone I wanted to be with for as long as I could conceive, someone who expected me to act responsibly and supported me taking my power back from wherever I had sent it.

Gay, married to a woman, values a temple recommend, no lying or duplicity, allows others the same privilege.  I feel the need to say that last part again.  I allow others the same privilege.

One more twist: I am not publicly out, though most of those in my close circle understand where I stand.  I do not live in one manner and support another.  I am the same religiously/politically on both fronts. There is no difference in how I live and how I write.

I choose to present this blog under a pseudonym in order to protect my wife and family.  If someone were to "out" me (and it wouldn't be hard) I might be uncomfortable for a time, but I would get over it.  My wife has feelings, however.  How do I discuss my sexuality as a married man without discussing hers - which is no ones business?  I do not want to see her hurt.

Just to be clear.

Fundamental blessings and the gay man

"In the great journal of things happening under the sun, we, the American people, find our account running under date of the nineteenth century of the Christian era. We find ourselves in the peaceful possession of the fairest portion of the earth as regards extent of territory, fertility of soil, and salubrity of climate."

"We find ourselves under the government of a system of political institutions conducing more essentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty than any of which the history of former times tells us."

"We, when mounting the stage of existence, found ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamental blessings. We toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of them; they are a legacy bequeathed us by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now lamented and departed, race of ancestors."

"Theirs was the task (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and through themselves us, of this goodly land, and to uprear upon its hills and its valleys a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; 'tis ours only to transmit these — the former unprofaned by the foot of an invader, the latter undecayed by the lapse of time and untorn by usurpation — to the latest generation that fate shall permit the world to know."
"This task of gratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, and love for our species in general, all imperatively require us faithfully to perform."

"...I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is even now something of ill omen amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country — the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions in lieu of the sober judgment of courts, and the worse than savage mobs for the executive ministers of justice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it now exists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be a violation of truth and an insult to our intelligence to deny."

Abraham Lincoln
Speech given at the Young Men's Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois
January 27, 1838

On My Honor

BYU HFAC - Home of the Flames

As reported by CNN, Brigham Young University officials in a Thursday press conference stood by the Honor Code offices decision to dismiss a standout basketball player on the Cougars' highly ranked men's team, saying they are treating him as they would any other student.


Officials did not specify why, nor would they confirm rumors to the cause of this students suspension during a press conference Thursday.


However, the non-Mormon friendly Salt Lake Tribune was quick to cite "multiple sources" that the sophomore violated the honor code and went on to name the spicific alleged infraction. (True to form, the trib can be counted on for anything salacious or slanted away from the church or church members who want to remain members.


The BYU honor code, for anyone housed under a rock, includes requirements for "modest, neat and clean" dress and grooming; abstinence from alcohol, tobacco or illegal substances; any sexual intimacy Hetro or Homo; prohibits members of the opposite sex from going in one's bedroom areas; and regularly participation in church services, either Mormon or another faith.


I was a student at BYU back in the mid ninety's.  I had friends kicked out for honor code violations. Just recently I blogged about several MDT men from BYU that were “let go” so to speak from their student status and had applications made for them to the U. Frankly, there would have been grounds for me to be so released when I was a student at the Y, and I could have been joined by at least 40 men that I knew of personally and factually.


Last year, another predominate sports man was let go – and it cost the football team dearly. He was repentant, he volunteered the information to the code enforcers. He was consoled and strengthened, and was still kicked out.


Many in my position, being SGAttracted (gay to anyone else) will say that BYU is unfair, or inconsistent. I do know that they try to follow standards and guidelines universally. They often fail. In my case they didn’t have the information, and I wasn’t going to give it to them. There are many honor code violators at BYU.


They are not the majority, however. And the fairness of these guidelines should not be judged solely on the opinions of those who choose not to live by them.  And while there should always be mercy, as is the nature of Christ’s atonement for us, there should also be justice, as is the nature of Christ’s atonement for us.