The latest LDS-gay thing.

The current "thing" (I like current things -- especially when the thing is a change for the good) seems to be that gays are welcome into LDS church. Cool. One Bishop went so far as to call his congregation the house of friends.

Tangent: I am gay and I have been welcome in the church for years. Most people haven't advertised these personal issues until lately  - when every issue is Facebook-ed and social media-ed to death.

Fill 'er up

Let me state that again. Gay people are welcome to come to church. They are welcome to attend Sunday school and the auxiliary meetings as well as sacrament meeting. They are welcome to leave their kids at nursery -- like everyone else. Their teens are invited to attend young men’s, young woman’s, and primary as well.

One does not need to pass a temple recommend interview to participate in LDS services and activities. All sinners (keep yer pants on and keep reading) are allowed and welcome to come to the Mormon church. All of us are sinners. Therefore, come on down, every single one of you.

I am trying to look at this practically, and so I have this question: Will people come to church who aren’t looking for a temple recommend? The answer to that is yes. There are many in the church that are "active" in the day to day dealings of the church with out a recommend. There are many who need what the church has to offer without wanting to go to the temple. There are those who would like to eventually, but who are waiting to get their recommend signed on their own time. Some are'nt seeking one. Some choose to not follow the structure that would have to be followed in order to have their recommend signed: chastity, word of wisdom, tithing, regular attendance, or a number of things.

The message to the members of the church is that we accept all.  We invite all to come sit with us and worship the Savior. Whether or not one has a temple recommend is a deeply personal thing, and it is not my place or anyone elses to walk around and keep tally.

(As a FYI, there are jobs in the church that one does not need to pass a temple recommend interview for.)

Gays are welcome in the church. However, those who act on their homosexual inclinations are not allowed a temple recommend. In order for this to be clear, one has to understand that the LDS church differentiates between gay feeling and inclinations, and gay behavior.

Example: I have gay inclinations. I am attracted to men. I am gay. However, I currently -- and for the last 18 years -- have stayed away from gay behaviors.  I do not have sex with a man.

With this in mind, gay people are asked to follow the same structure outlined for everyone. A specific sexual orientation is not required, but being morally clean is.

It remains to be seen whether MoHo's, those so inclined and the sexually active, will choose to come to church. If they do, will they be welcomed?

I would hope so.  In my experience I always felt a little self-conscience when I was going to church as a disfellowshipped Mormon, or at times when I was actively not pursuing a temple recommend. Some may not feel welcomed. Our job, however, is to drop the judgement calls concerning others and to extend a hand to everyone.

Mormons thrill in the human experience -- a few gay LDS questions

I was sent a few questions from a reader. I don’t know if these questions were from a form somewhere or whether he authored them himself. The questions are his. The answers are mine.

Q#1: Mormonism presents a theological limit to full participation by LGBT people. When a member of the family comes out of the Mormon closet, what are the eternal prospects of a brother or sister who does not fit within what Mormons understand as God’s plan?
   

A: In other words, what's in it for gay people to remain chaste. I believe that LGBT people do fit into God's plan. I am a LGBT person. His plan includes all of us – even the ones that do not fit in with the majority standard.  But don’t ask me how.  I believe that God has a way and a place and a plan, but I do not know the entirety of it. I do know that if we act on the knowledge we have, follow the prophet, and ask the Lord for guidance we will receive instruction. With that instruction we will all be able to progress.

Q: Mormons are actually subject to the same growth and conflict as every other people of faith. Why doesn’t the church reflect that? 

A: I believe that the church as an organization does reflect that. It is becoming far more specific. For example, in 1969, Spencer W Kimball, who was an apostle and would soon be the prophet, wrote in his book The Miracle of Forgiveness (which is in the process of being phased out BTW,) that homosexuality was one of “ever deepening degeneracies” perpetrated by the deprived" This is a very general comment made by a man in a time when man didn't know what questions to ask. I would have known what to ask, but I was not in the right position to receive revelation for the church.  

I do not feel that I am a degenerate. I know how painful it was to hear that, to read it in my study with a companion while I was on a mission to which I had been assigned by... Spencer W. Kimball.

The church, the hierarchy of the church, the doctrine of the LDS church state that homosexual behaviors are as wrong as they ever were. Thankfully they do not say degenerate. However -- back to that specificity -- the church now makes the differentiation between the state and the behavior. The behavior is considered wrong. The state of being is not. I am gay.  I am not a degenerate.  I choose to behave according to what I feel is right, trying to be/stay morally clean.

Q: It is said that Mormon theology evolves in mysterious ways. It seems to evolve in tandem with shifting leadership in the Church’s upper echelons.  

A: Change is part of the human existence. Change may coincide with personalities of church leaders. Conference became a friendlier place with Gordon B. than it had been with Ezra Taft. Doctrine was still the same, but there was a different personality at the helm and a slightly different focus.

As a people our focus changes as well.  In the seventies we wondered about blacks and the priesthood and received clarification. Today we have different questions, and the focus in the church reflects that. We are in a different place than we were 50 years ago and our questions are different, and – dare I say it – more evolved.

Q: LDS Church Public Affairs has been credited with the development of web materials now used in the church. Public Affairs seems to be positioned to respond quicker to evolving issues in a ways that the Church’s ecclesiastical chain of command is not.

A: I do not believe that you can separate the LDS Church Public Affairs from the leaders of the church. LDSPA is led by the general authorities. They have called people and selected staff to represent the church.  Every word that comes out of the proverbial mouth of LDSPA comes from a general authority or has been approved word for word by a GA. LDSPA was created by the church to handle a changing society and the way in which it communicates. If there is a response given by the LDSPA, the odds are incredibly high that you are hearing the voice of a general authority of the LDS church.

Q: Why is it OK to be a gay Mormon in southern California and not to in Idaho Falls.

A:You can’t be talking about the Idaho Falls that I know. But I understand the question.

First, we need to clairfy. Are you talking about being with a partner and having a recommend at the same time?  Probably not going to happen. Or are you talking about gay people participating in the church?  It can happen. I am gay and I am in the church and I have a temple recommend.

I suppose it has something to do with the people themselves. The doctrine is the same from place to place, but the personality of the ward reflects the members. Are they more accepting of people and their differences in California than they are in Idaho Falls? Is that your point?  Maybe. There is much freedom handed over to local leaders who are pulled directly from the local congregations.

If not everyone is welcome in your ward -- whether you are in Boise or Boston, then do something about it. You are the church and you can exert influence on how your local ward acts towards their community.

.

My religion says "no"

My Mormon religion is very clear on it's stance that marriage is between a man and a woman. I myself believe that marriage is between a man and a woman - one of the reasons, I suppose, that I am a Mormon. 

Specifically, I am a card carrying TBM who is gay and is married to a woman - a rather cool woman if I may add. (There is just no short way to say that) 

The SCOTUS ruling on marriage equality made recently supports the stance that gays have the right to marry based on "equal protection under the law". The supreme court has decided that it is a fundamental right that requires protection by the U.S. constitution. 

I agree with their decision. I am not comfortable excluding those of the GLBT community from this right regardless of my personal religious beliefs.

My friend, John Gustav-Wrathall has stated: 

"The majority and dissenting opinions alike agree that marriage is a fundamental right that deserves protection under the constitution. But there are core differences of opinion on the question of what, precisely, about marriage is fundamental." 

It is clear that the institution of marriage has changed over the course of time, so an argument based on keeping the status quo is unsupportable. That would be akin to the government coming up with an approach of "because I said so". Has that ever had any credibility?

And if there have been any changes to the institution of marriage throughout history (and there have been) then keeping the status quo for it's own sake rings hollow. 

The question is whether or not those of the LGBT community should be allowed access to "marriage". Is marriage dependent on gender as the political right thinks, or is marriage the voluntary union of two consenting adults - as per the left?

Liberals see no reason for those in the LGBT community to be excluded from marriage or denied the right to marry. The conservative take is that liberals want new laws that change the definition of marriage as they themselves have historically interpreted it.

Our 14th Amendment guarantees equal protection. It requires. and we expect that SCOTUS will decide if the laws in question take away fundamental rights and freedoms. Who gave SCOTUS this power?  Why, we did. This has been established by the constitution. 

In this case, the LGBT community has been kept from an institution that has been historically reserved for Heterosexuals. A "yes" vote by SCOTUS has kept us from creating a group Americans without the rights that other Americans have - a minority group that isn't allowed the same privileges as their neighbors have. The court did its job and protected a minority group from discrimination. 

Now, if I may bring a bit of my Mormon religion into it. As I have stated, I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. I support the stance the LDS church takes and I support the right they have to take it. However, I cannot in good conscious force that opinion on others. Neither do I believe that the LDS church wants to force its opinion on others.

There are many things that our rights allow us to do. That doesn't mean that we should. For example, I have the right to speak my mind and picket the funeral of a solder with a tasteless sign. That doesn't mean that I should or that I am going to. But I have that right as per the constitution.

This goes back to the beginning for me - quite literally. Mormons believe - I believe - that we all fought for the right to make our own decisions. Getting married to one of the same gender is a decision. Whether I would make that particular choice is not the question. 

 I do believe that Satan started and will end by trying to destroy the family and I believe that this is part of it. And still, people should have the choice to decide for themselves. We can encourage, plead, suggest, beg, make public the proclamation (which is revelation form the Lord) in order to convince them to make what we feel is the right decision based on our knowledge, but in the long run, we all have agency.

Do gays have the right to marry under the law? Yes. Should they have that right? Yes.

Do I agree that gays should marry?  It just doesn't matter.

Blessed are the obedient

I have so many feelings this week concerning my LGBT family and friends. I support them in their personal endeavors and wish them and their families -- blood or other -- all the light and love that can be pored into their cups. You are welcome in my house. I will treat you the same as any other. (If you know me then you know that I should treat everyone a little better.)

I have LGBT friends in the church that have chosen to go a different direction than the one making headlines this month. They are not getting married to same sex partners.  They are members of the church in good standing. I fall into this boat.

I am trying to follow the prophet and keep my homosexuality in check.  I married a woman (with full disclosure) I felt at the time - and still do - that it was the right decision for me and my spouse to marry. I stand my my decision.  

I don't need affirmation from my friends, nor do my friends need my reassurance that they did the right thing. The Spirit of the Lord can give that confirmation. It is Him we should seek for guidance and direction.

This week I sent congratulations to my gay friends who will be getting married to their companions. I would also like to congratulate those in the LGBT communities who are Latter-day Saints and who wish to continue to obey the prophets -- prophets who speak for the Lord.

I don't usually quote people I don't know, but I would like to do so now. This gentleman has explained my thoughts better than I can come up with different words.  Here are his words that I have edited for space and clarity. He is a gay Mormon who has chosen to remain in good standing with the church - meaning that he follows the "rules".

"To straight Latter-day Saints who -- though with good intentions -- choose to publicly support gay marriage:

You mean well, and do your best to show love to LGBT individuals. But for us it can seem like you’ve ignored your LGBT brothers and sisters within the Church in favor of supporting those without. It hurts us when:

• Our brothers and sisters in Christ flood our feeds with symbols of a life we’re fighting to forsake. 
• People who don’t experience same-sex attraction take lightly the prophetic council that affects our lives and the thorn(s) in our side.
• When people we love try to show their love for us by supporting the voices that strive to undermine our eternal happiness with our Father in Heaven. 
• For those who are open about their same-sex attraction, it hurts when (our) friends (who have been spared this trial) side with those opposing Church policy.

Faithful LGBT members of the Church need Christ-like love and acceptance too. We need:

• Members who seek to cement our faith in the prophets and apostles.
• Members who will be brave and support unpopular policies set forth by the Brethren, not out of blind faith or bigoted arrogance, but out of pure testimony."  --Joshua M Butler

Having quoted this, I cannot tell you how important it is to have direction from the Spirit in all things. (This is not an arbitrary thought stuck in at the end of an essay.)

I am just going to have to come out and say it. I have gay friends who have paired with one of their same sex and they feel that they did so with the blessing of the spirit. 

A poor simile, but a simile nevertheless:

A prophet of the Lord was once commanded to kill a drunk in the street. Killing was against the law. The prophet followed the Lord and completed the task. The instruction to kill was not given to others, but to him alone. He complied with the will of the Lord.

One could say that Nephi murdered someone and deserves judgement. Or, one could say that because Nephi did as the spirit dictated he was not culpable, but obedient to the word of the Lord through his holy spirit.

I am not the judge of Nephi's actions. Neither are you. The spirit can confirm a correct action for an individual. He can be that specific. This begs the question:

Could Joe-gay-guy pray for guidance?  Yes. Could he be led by the spirit? Yes. Could Joe go the the Lord in prayer and say that he has decided to marry Bob, adopt kids and start a family?  Yes.  Could the spirit tell him yes?  Even though the general consensus is no,  could Joe be told that this was a good move for him? I would be arrogant to say no.

The Spirit of the Lord would trump my opinion, just as he trumped the opinion of the people in Nephi's time.  The world said "no" to murdering Laban. Yet the spirit told Nephi "yes".

I have made the decisions that I have made concerning my SSA based on my testimony and personal revelation -- subtle as it was. I was told to be morally clean and marry my wife. I was not/am not blindly following. God wants all of his children to have joy. I believe that God will bless the obedient with the righteous desires of their heart. I believe in following the commandments. And I believe in personal revelation.

Mormons already have a" no gay leadership" in place for Boy Scouts. Or do they?

The LDS church has a program for the young men aptly called...wait for it... the Young Men's Organization. Scouting is a key element to that program. 

Those in the program are asked to:

• Become converted to the gospel of Jesus Christ and live its teachings; 
• Serve faithfully in priesthood callings and fulfill the responsibilities of priesthood offices; 
• Give meaningful service; 
• Prepare and live worthily to receive the Melchizedek Priesthood and temple ordinances; 
• Prepare to serve an honorable full-time mission; 
• Obtain as much education as possible; 
• Prepare to become a worthy husband and father; and 
• Give proper respect to women, girls, and children.

All members of the Young Men are asked to participate in Aaronic priesthood and complete the Duty to God -- a goal-setting and achievement program tied to scouting that is supposed to help them make progress spiritually, physically, educationally, as well as assist with their careers, citizenship and social development.

The YM have been involved with scouting for generations -- as far as the US and Canada go. England has the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme. Scouting and the Mormons have gone hand in hand for some time. Here is why I am posting about scouting again.

The LDS church has has the practice of not letting known gay men act as leaders for the scouting programs. This is not a policy -- something written in the handbook -- but is a reality nevertheless. Known gay men are not called to work as advisers or leaders of the young men's groups. Someone in the comments says that he knows of someone.  I do not.

Last year the BSA ended its policy of denying membership to openly gay youth. The decision followed years of internal debate and had been seen as a milestone for the Boy Scouts of America.

The decision put scouts in tune with public acceptance of homosexuality, especially among younger supporters currently being courted by the organization.

Robert Schwarzwalder, senior vice president of the Family Research Council -- who is a conservative Christian group and a father of two scouts in Northern Virginia -- had stated (regarding the future of the BSA) “I think there will be a loss of hundreds of thousands of boys and parents.”

Well, there wasn't. Conservative leaders of scouting and right wing parents threatened to withdraw themselves or their boys, but they did not.

Current turns of events in Scouting indicated that as boys turn into men, they will not be asked to leave scouting. Will the LDS church grant openly gay men the same privilege?




It would seem consistent with the churches teachings to allow those with homosexual inclinations who are members of the church in full standing to serve in leadership positions with the young men.

Orange juice, bread and good fathers

I've posted this before, but I had to again. So, how is this for a love note?  I had to wipe my nose when I read this.  Of course, that could be due more to my killer spring allergies than an emotional letter from a father to a son that looks like was written on an envelope. No it's the letter.

What a kind, heart felt, normal, everyday kind of letter -- especially from a dad. It reiterates for me that there are kind, gentle, loving people in the world.  I strive daily to put myself smack down in the middle of that group.

My own father was not pleased with the news.  He told me he always knew but that he didn't want to get involved.

A father expects his son to be the man he meant to be, but let's his son find it on his own.. Here's to good fathers of the world.

Who do I believe?

A reader brought up a decent point. He stated: "Believing that you are doing something that will affect eternity is powerful indeed. It doesn't even have to be true so powerful is it."

Well, that does present a real problem.  I don't want to be doing something simply because I have convinced myself it is the right thing to do. Recently I found out that I am diabetic. Who in their right mind would give up sugar and shoot up twice daily if it wasn't to get something better? -- in this case, the chance to live.

As a child like millions of others, I believed in Santa. The Easter Bunny always seemed ludicrous, but I got into the whole Santa thing. Even when I was older I still sooooo wanted to believe. I created my own little reality where Santa was a man that was so busy that he instructed parents around the world who then acted as his agents to make sure that worthy children received the gifts they rightly deserved. 

That lasted a year. By then puberty kicked in and I was too busy thinking about other things to worry about Santa. I had been so sure about the Santa thing. But I was mistaken.

So, what if we are putting our whole heart into religion, the Mormon church and the teachings of the gospel and it ends up that Jesus was/is just a good man who tried to keep us from killing ourselves?  

Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that we in the LDS church who are also, by definition members of the LGBT community (read - gay Mormons) are functioning under a premise that is mistaken -- our own little "If we are good then Santa will bring us gifts" premise.

The premise is this; if we live a good life we will go to heaven. (We will define good will be as following the commandments as stipulated by the prophets living and written.) How do we find out if we are being taken or not? 

For me there are two things I consider. First, what was in it for Christ to ask us to follow him. He was not political. There was nothing physically or monetarily for him to gain. He got nothing but grief and ended up dead. What would have been his motive if He wasn't who he said he was? What He asked us to do was be kind, be honest, and to focus on the needs of others. Doesn't seem super logical that it was some sort of scam.

Second, in order to know that I am not off on the wrong track, I would need to know the answers to the following questions; Do I believe in God?  Do I believe that He knows more than I do and that he has power that I do not have? Do I believe that He wants what is best for me?

Now that we have the questions established, who do we ask?  Who has the knowledge of things from the beginning of time?  Not John Dehlin. No one here on earth. 

Mormons believe that the third member of the Godhead is the Spirit, the Holy Ghost. He will testify to us when we ask with real intent. He will answer us. We do not need to go through anyone else for personal revelation. Not John Dehlin or anyone else here on earth.

• I believe in God and that God has set standards.
• I believe that the prophets speak for Him to instruct us while allowing us the freedom to choose for ourselves.
• I believe that God is just and that he is in a position to judge.
• I believe that God's knowledge is more than man's knowledge and that his power is more than man's power.

If I believe these things, and I do, then giving up something for something better in the long term is doable.  

Are gays asked to give up sex?

I received the following question/comment and I thought I would share part of it:

Is it realistic to ask anyone to remain celibate and alone their entire lives with no hope or chance of loving someone in every sense of the word? Even straight members who are single have the hope that they might meet someone to marry. Women who were single for a long time have even ended up marrying apostles! One could even marry a non-member and still remain an LDS Church member in good standing. The Church does not completely ban straight members from expressing physical love, it just asks that they wait until marriage. It even allows divorce and multiple marriages. Until the same kind of thing is fairly offered to gay LDS members (whether in the temple or not) the vast majority of LGBTQ members will separate from the Church.

First off, thank you for reading and feeling like you can comment on this blog. Regardless of the language or the point of view you are welcome here. I believe as this writer does, that there will be some who will leave the church, or will not choose to become part of the church because of this LGBTQ issue. (Is it me, or does the acronym appear to be growing?)

The thought was underlined for me during Sunday's ward conference when my friend the Bishop referenced the of the story of the young man who had everything and asked Jesus what he needed to do to obtain eternal life. Jesus said…

19 Thou knowest the commandments,…

20 And he answered and said unto him, Master, all these have I observed from my youth.

21 Then Jesus beholding him loved him, …

Interrupting the story. I love reading this, that Jesus acknowledged all the the young man had done already to follow the Savior.

21(Continued) …and said unto him, One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, take up the cross, and follow me.

22 And he (the young man) was sad at that saying, and went away grieved: 

The man turned and walked away. It doesn't say that he left the church, or that he stopped following the commandments. It doesn't state that he became bitter and started an anti Jesus web site. It doesn't say that he would not be welcomed into heaven. It simply says that he was sad and walked away. 

He appears to have been living a type of life where the Savior may have been calling him to a position. He was definitely being offered something more than what he had -- something of great value that the world wouldn't consider a step up.

This young man at the time of the story decided that what was being asked was too much for what he thought he would get in return.  Today, we have the same decisions to make -- if we believe what the Church teaches -- and I do.

So, the question is, would I be a modern version of the Young Man? Would I give up something important to me because I had been promised something I felt was better? Would I give it up simply because I was asked to by someone I respect and revere? 

To bring this home -- right to my house -- I think that I would.  I know that I have chosen to follow the commandments concerning sexuality. I am doing what has been asked of me, as Calvin Thompson. I am a gay man and I am choosing not to have sex with men. I am married to a woman and I am faithful. I am giving up something valuable for something even more so.

President Joseph F. Smith said: No man can obtain the gift of eternal life unless he is willing to sacrifice all earthly things in order to obtain it”.

President Smith also taught: “… if he will bring his heart and affections into subjection to the law of God and to the principle of truth; if he will place his affections upon God, his heart upon the truth, and his soul upon the accomplishment of God’s purposes, and not fix his affections and his hopes upon the things of the world".

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.