From a comment to XGW today:
…I feel this information might be important:
The Mormon/LDS Church has published on their news-web a pseudo-interview with two high-ranking authorities and an anonymous PR (internal) person.
Summary:
1) The Mormon Church does not believe in conversion therapies.
2) The Mormon Church does not believe heterosexual marriage is a cure for those afflicted with same-gender sexual identification.
3) Those with gay tendencies need to live a celibate life like any single person.
4) Those with gay tendencies (it is a behavioral thing) can be assimilated fully (except to be called on as a Bishop) in the workings of the church if they are celibate and do not act on their inclinations.
5) The support of the Federal Marriage Amendment is a political reaction to gay equality actions and should not be construed as being anti-gay.I note several things: They avoid using the term: same-sex and use: same-gender. As for #1 above: NARTH and Evergreen has been and still is tightly aligned with the LDS Church. #2: This is a major and radical departure of what they told their gay members for decades. #4: Any gay person with any thoughts of being accepted in the mainstream congregation is a fool if they think they will be treated as an equal. They would never put a gay man in charge of any Boy Scouts troop or have a gay man teach in any Sunday School. Basically, a gay person is welcome to warm the seats in the pew and pay tithing but do not expect any other responsibilities/duties within the Ward.
Analysis and constructive criticism are welcome — especially from individuals familiar with Mormon belief and practice.
From church newsroom website:
I understand this to mean that the church neither endorses nor opposes therapies generally, but vaguely opposes abuses.
I was sent to a LDS social services psychologist (he worked with Evergreen at one point). The therapy was paid for and endorsed by the church. Conversion therapy involved hypnosis (which the church opposes), aversion therapy, masculine acting, prayer and hymns, and eventually I was offered a shock therapy, which I declined. A friend, who later committed suicide, married because of pressure from the church.
I find that the idea that church supports the FMA because of moves toward gay equality disturbing. It is like saying we are going to hurt you because we don’t want you to share the same position in society.
Constructive criticism? When you have the resources of a church like the Mormons with their influence in politics and preaching from multitudes of pulpits do we have any affect with our tiny voices outside the thick granite walls of their temples? The concerted march to bring inequality via legislation to a segment of society is not going to be fought with simple constructive criticisms. Would the Nazis take “creative criticism” from the Jews?
Did the Mormons make an iota change in their attitudes towards the homosexual community when a bunch of radical(?) gays demonstrated on the campus of privately-owned BYU? No. It probably has made situations worse for the semi-closeted gays at that university. And, yes, I know it’s hard to understand what semi-closeted means. You are either fully closeted or fully out. It is like being semi-pregnant? So try to understand there are some students at BYU whom you might classify as semi-closeted…(but I will not go into that here.)
In this case constructive criticism is futile. Even having a dialogue is worthless except for only placating ourselves when we have a venue to vent.
The Saints of the LDS Church are heavily motivated by peer pressure. Unless you live in this culture you do not understand the nuances with the visible signs you are wearing temple garments. You probably do not understand the ramifications with having a lay clergy and how church courts are implemented in an ad-hoc manner. Even taking the sacrament on Sundays is a public show of your worthiness and can cause murmuring in the halls of their churches. You wonder how notorious polygamist Warren S. Jeffs could have such control over his people. He learned it from the Mormons. Peer pressure is a great motivational tool.
So, you can maybe try to understand why there are an inordinate number of married Mormon gay men. I know my good Mormon friend is married because he was told to conform or be ostracized. It happens a lot. As Aaron, above, knows.
And Elder D. Oaks (a very successful former lawyer) knows the past policies of his Church in this regard and perhaps is laying the foundation for defense in a court of law. He seems to claim the LDS Church never formally endorsed the alternative-therapies and never advised their gay males to get married but realities are a bitch…aren’t they?
As a member of the LDS church with a gay family member I notice a wide difference between rhetoric and practice. It’s a rare gay man or lesbian that has not heard incredably homophobic remarks in church services, either over the pulpit or in Sunday schools. Even if this is what my church is saying right now, it is likely that the practice at the individual congregational level is far more harsh than Oaks and Wickman make it out to be. While a bit dated Janice Allred’s organization the Mormon Alliance has a number of case studies that go into personal experiances of gay mormons…and there are a number of gay mormon blogs, Buckley Jeppson’s husband has a excellent response to this on his. The majority of Mormons are simply homophobic by default, I wonder if many even question their reactions.
It is difficult for me to comment here as I know very little about Mormon culture and community. I do know that my gay friends who were raised Mormon seem to have a greater difficulty in reconciling their orientation than do others.
I will take the word of those who tell us that regardless of the statements of the leaders, the actual congregations are not so accepting of same-gender attracted persons. I don’t doubt the experiences that you share.
Nonetheless, I applaud this apparent shift in the official position of the church. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is now disassociating itself with reorientation therapy, I think that is a welcome step in the right direction. Even if this new language is only empty words, it is preferable to the church championing the sort of “therapy” that they have encouraged in the past.
Cowboy, I was seeking constructive criticism of your comment.
My criticism of the LDS leadership and membership is a bit harsher: Like prototypical Pharisees, they play word games while prettifying their unrepentant sin. I’d allow them some credit for sincerity if they immediately embarked on a churchwide reform program.
I was an “active” Mormon for about two years between 1983 and 1985. When I got married, I joined my spouse’s church.Early last year, I asked to be removed from the membership roles because I’m a male-to-female transsexual. I signed request letter as “Autumn Sandeen,” telling them that was now my legal name. Every piece of mail I received in the process of withdrawing from the membership roles came addressed to my previous male name. My comment is that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS Church) was very disrepectful to me in intentionally not addressing me by my legal name. Given my experience, I can’t imagine the people LDS Church stakes or wards being respectful to people who publicly identify as gay or lesbian who also publicly state an intent to remain celebate.
Yes, Mr. Kincaid, it is a step in the right direction. I’m not encouraged they will embark on anything of significant reformation, Mr. Airhart, except to push the FMA forward at all costs. It’s an edict from the Prophet and there is no debate on this issue. The Lord has spoken.
This minor change in Mormon hierarchy’s attitude towards gays has put some LDS in a quandary now how they should handle their gay saints. If they cannot be repaired then what do we do with them? I feel a palpable ebb of feelings where most Mormons wish gays would just leave and never darken their chapels. The gays are just collateral expense in the Plan of Salvation as they interpret it. As per: Elder Wickman’s comments in their newsblurb. To wit: being gay is just like having a temporal physical handicap. Learn to live with it until the next life.
How very ____________________ of them. (You may fill in the appropriate word for me.)
It has been oft said to me: there is life outside of the Zion Curtain. I am not apt to run from problems or have someone tell me where I should make my life but I understand why a few people find isolated cabins in the mountains and become hermits.
Zion Curtain: Anything outside the theocracy of Utah. Which also includes a good part of Southern Idaho and Western Wyoming.
(And, yes, I’m listening to the soundtrack of Brokeback Mountain as I type this.)
As cowboy pointed out, the peer pressure is very great in the Mormon church. Luckily, I never cared about that pressure. Members will gossip and spread rumors if someone does not take communion. People will not communicate or sit next to you if they think you did something wrong. When I came out, I told the bishop and no one else. By next Sunday, the whole church knew. People would not talk to me or sit near me. People hid their kids from me. I became the boogey-man. Many family also quit going because people would no longer treat them fairly. My best friend told me in no uncertain terms that if I left the church and did not change, he would no longer talk to me (funny thing is that he did not marry–and he is as much an outsider as I was. He is now 38). When I left, I completely left the church. I did not believe in it, and I had no interest in it anymore. It was the best thing I ever did. Many Mormons will push the truth of the church by insisting that the fruits of the gospel are shown in the members. I never saw it. I could go into story after story about rape, adultery, hate, greed, etc. (BTW monetary fraud is very common in the Mormon church–people are frequently approached with pyramid schemes and other hair-brained ideas). Years after I left the church, my sister was in institute (a college class for Mormons) in another town. The members in the class were discussing a missionary who had left the church after the mission. They attributed all kinds of evil goings-on with this former member. Turned out it was me they were talking about, and they actually had false stories and rumors about me. My sister was horrified by their actions and left permanently. I think it is funny–I became the boogey-man monster of the church around here.
I am very sad though about something I have seen. I participated in Affirmation years ago, and person after person believed that someday the prophet would gain knowledge and allow gays into the church. They really believed one day it would happen, and they would be accepted. These people were some of the most hurting, pained people because their sexuality and religion were so at odds. I couldn’t stand seeing such delusional people all the time always teetering on the mental edge. I am glad I divorced it completely.
I am a believing Latter-day Saint who happens to be gay. I think that the only way that the Church will change it’s stand on this issue is twofold. First the numbers of gay and lesbian LDS who are coming out has been overwhelming to them. Tremendous social and even legal pressure will be the only way that they will begin to change policies regarding gay and lesbian members. During the late 19th century the federal government put tremendous pressure upon the Church to change its policy regarding polygamy and that pressure is what affected the final change.
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a static organization and in final revelation will have to be given before any solid changes can occur. To date the Church has taken a defensive posture regarding gay and lesbian people.
One way that I believe that the Church has created a defensive posture is through the creation of the Proclaimation on the Family. That document is filled with teachings that are already found within LDS scripture. It is also a document that is a directive on family governance and not a treatise on the science of sexual orientation, etc. Unfortunately there are those who think that it is the answer to all of these questions. It is not. Many gay and lesbian LDS people suffer because of the inner conflict some of the teachings often create.
What they do not consider is the fact that the Church can still maintain its standards while at the same time allowing gay and lesbian people their full equality. Just recognizing us as sons and daughters of God who are equally loved by God as God’s heterosexual children is a huge step. The denial (denying us our innate orientation) is a huge problem for gay and lesbian LDS and their famillies. It tears families apart and causes more pain and heartbreak than they realize. The pure fact that the Church has taken a fear based posture toward homosexuality is why they continue to get the same results as they always have. That is gay LDS suffer from depression, anxiety and other mental problems and in some cases even suicide. Then there are the spouses (especially the wives) who are like sacrificial lambs on the altar of promised change for the gay man who enters into a marriage with them. That’s a problem that they will eventually be forced to deal with. The policy is that marriage should never be used as a means to “cure” homosexuality, however, it is what is done and not necessarily what is taught that is the bottom line. Evergreen is all too often used in this way although Evergreen does acknowledge that at least some parts of orientation could be genetically influenced along with a person’s environment.
Evergreen has helped some inviduals get to know themselves, their boundaries and more about basic therapy work-outs (psychotherapy) than any other organization within the Church. Evergreen is a far cry from the old experimental ways in which things were done (i.e. electric shock and aversion therapy). I really feel that the Church leadership needs to be more exposed to the real scientific findings and the real life issues that we deal with (including the many successful relationships that are grounded and monogamous) as opposed to the rhetoric and the stereotypes (i.e. “the gay lifestyle”) that are very demeaning to gay and lesbian people. I do not blame gay and lesbian LDS people and their families for being angry with the Church regarding these issues. It is very frustrating and tragic coming from an organization that is so Christ centered as the Mormon Church is.
Also when the day comes in the business/corporate world that homophobia will not be tolerated the Church will have to deal with this because most LDS people (especially men) are involved in the corporate world. The Church (as an institution) wants to be liked and wants to have a positive image in the world. If homophobia and discrimination is not tolerated then the membership of the LDS Church will have to come to grips with this reality and make the connection between society and Church life.
I feel that it is a stubborn pride that keeps the Church in the space it is in as opposed to praying, looking outside the proverbial box and praying for creative and profound ways to handle this issue without compromising the Church’s core values.
The LDS Church has an immense amount of good to give it’s membership and society in general. If that good can be translated into gay and lesbian households (through the Church dropping it’s fear based approach and through acknowledging its gay and lesbian members for who they are) that will be the day a paradigm shift will have happened and that will be an immense blessing to society in general. I truly believe that the Mormon Church can do this without dropping its core values. Society in general has a long way to go as well in order to help this change to occur.
Benjamin, I appreciate your comments here, but I have one question. You point out the pressure by the feds on the polygamy issue–revelation was gained, and the policy changed. If revelation is dependent on social change and government pressure, is the revelation God sent? It seems a contradiction to me.
I also do not see how the church can ever change on the policy. If the highest level of heaven can only be acheived through marriage and procreation, gays can never acheive that. They will always be lesser than.
Aaron, the only way it would be clear is if you believe that the government is God, and that mentality has existed, often with disasterous consequences. :p
The support of the Federal Marriage Amendment is a political reaction to gay equality actions and should not be construed as being anti-gay.
…as opposed to calling us “afflicted”. Don’t think of us as being anti-gay because we oppose same sex marriage…rather, think of us as opposing same sex marriage because we’re anti-gay.
So…we can assume then that the church isn’t telling parents to send their gay kids to conversion therapy now? But…what? Celibacy therapy? Prevention Of Sin Therapy? Make you fear and loath your sexuality and yourself so much you’ll never be able to develop a lasting and loving intimate human relationship with anyone ever in your entire life therapy? I guess that’s progress. Hey…let’s hear it for the end of conversion therapy!
…we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses.
I would think the first step in ending the abuses would be to accept some measure of responsibility for helping create the climate in which abuses were pretty much inevitably going to happen.
But…what are “abuses”? They didn’t have to give specifics, just draw a principled line, and it looks from this like they didn’t even do that.
I had a friend (I don’t know what has happened to him) who came to me because he had heard stories in the church that I left because I was gay. He told me that he was struggling with being gay, so I told him the gamut of things he could do both church and nonchurch related for help. Perhaps I should never have referred him back to the church because he became very screwed up. His mother told him she was horrified that her son would ruin her reputation at church. He was sent to church psychologists and Evergreen. He was even sent to a place in Utah that would tie down his hands at night for fear of masturbating. When he got back, he was so screwed up. He did not change, but he was terrified of sexual things and was disowned by his parents at that point. He quit eating and going to the bathroom because when he went to the bathroom, he thought it would be akin to gay sex. Eventually he had to be hospitalized because he got so ill from this practice. After spending time in a psychological facility, he tried having relationships with males, but his fear of sex meant that a relationship would never go anywhere. All his boyfriends would dump him (to be fair, one boyfriend tried for a year, but he could not even feel comfortable kissing). Last thing I heard was that he moved to a town away from everyone he ever knew to start over, but I don’t know what has happened since. I hope everything is worked out, but he was screwed up by family and the church.
His family blamed me and thought I converted him homosexuality. The funny thing is that he came to me about it (I had not talked to him prior since he was four–I was seven). His mother would write letters to him telling him that I was evil and the worst person she ever knew because this happened to her son. She even said she wanted to kill me at one point. Funny thing is, I was the one who gave him bad advice to talk to the church about it (well, I did tell him my experience and other avenues). Maybe I should have told him to leave the church completely.
“The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on.”
The BYU conversion programs spanning decades in the last century were all dictated, sponsored and run by the Church (BYU = Church University, you just can’t get away from that.)
In regards to BJ’s comments above, you do not have to go back as far as polygamy to see an example of the church’s divine edicts bowing to social pressure. Anyone hear of the Civil Rights Movement? Does anyone else find it odd that God gave the green light to admitting our African-American brothers and sisters just as the political climate was changing and they were going to be getting some REALLY bad PR on the fact that their congregations were so, shall we say, homogenous?
But here is the thing: Sure the LDS church may some day admit Gays and Lesbians into their ranks, but I will feel the same towards the new Homo-Saints as I do about the Saints of Color. I will pity them. Who wants to be a part of an organization that is so self-serving and hypocritical? And how can such a self-serving organization claim to be directed by divine authority?
As a Mormon you are told that God is eternal and unchanging. If you believe that He is going to change opinion on polygamy (remember, you could only attain the highest levels of the celestial kingdom through practicing this) or the admission of people of African descent (Blacks could not be baptized in the church until the later half of the 1900’s) or even admit sodomites and lesbians (who were not as badly trashed in the old testament largely because women were not perceived to actually have free will at the time) into the fold, then you must make peace with the fact that God is not all-knowing and that morality is just sort of a relative thing.
“We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied” (D&C 134:9).
As far as FMA goes, the church needs to practice what they profess to believe and stay out of the political arena. If it were not for the fact that the USA has a relatively good history of allowing religious minorities to do what they want (provided they are not harming themselves or others), well, odds are good that it would still be legal to kill Mormons in Missouri. Which brings me to another point: You belong to an organization with a long history of persecution because of what you believe; yet you feel comfortable persecuting others for believing differently then you. WHAT IS THAT? Regardless of how the Mormon Prophet and/or the Mormon God view gay marriage, there are religions out there that do sanctify same-sex marriages.
Rant over!
PS – Grew up Mormon. Knew I was gay at 14. Kept my mouth shut and my penis in my pants through college (I lived at home, pity me!) I love my fiancé and hope to someday marry him legally.
Dream on, Benjamin. Just ain’t gonna happen. Besides, why would any self-respecting gay person even want to be affiliated with an organization that has shown their brothers and sisters a tremendous amount of contempt in the past. Time to come to the same conclusion I did years ago, we just aren’t their demographic.
“The support of the Federal Marriage Amendment is a political reaction to gay equality actions and should not be construed as being anti-gay.”
That sentence makes no sense whatsoever. If it is a reaction to gay actions, it is by definition anti-gay.
It’s like saying “if the liberals support bill 1234 then we oppose it, but we aren’t anti-liberal”. Yeah, you are.
And yeah, Mormon church, you ARE supporting the FMA because you’re anti-gay.
Exactly! Mr. Kincaid. In spite of my esteemed Senator Orrin Hatch chronically referring to this amendment as the Marriage Protection Amendment it is still anti-gay. They are adept at cleverly shrouding the anti-gay marriage amendment with defensive adjectives. But I truly believe in Orrin’s minds and in most other Mormon thinking: the FMA is a defense reaction against the mean, radical gay-agenda activists.
Monaural says: …But here is the thing: Sure the LDS church may some day admit Gays and Lesbians into their ranks, but I will feel the same towards the new Homo-Saints as I do about the Saints of Color. I will pity them. Who wants to be a part of an organization that is so self-serving and hypocritical? And how can such a self-serving organization claim to be directed by divine authority?
What about Saints who are your family?
Which makes taking vacations with my family interesting. Do I pity them? How do I react when conversations turn to church and related activities in my presence? Do I chime in with the examples of hypocrisies you cite? My family has learned to avoid talking about churchy things when I am around.
I guess I should take my seething anger and morph it into some sort of pity towards my family.
Do they not know me? Am I not the decent man sitting next to you with ideals, hopes and desire for happiness they aspire to? Do they categorize me as handicapped? And since I’m family are they just to tolerate me?
I cannot reconcile the logic. How can we co-exist? They are part of and support ($$$) an obviously anti-gay Church and its dogma. So, at what point do I demand some respect?
I just smile a lot. (Thanks Monaural.)
Aaron, thank you for your thoughts. There are two (among others) great websites that people can refer to regarding gay people reconciling their Faith with their Orientation. One is Reconciliation found at http://www.ldsreconciliation.org. The other one is http://www.ldsfamilyfellowship.org.
Regarding the Highest Degree of Glory and Exaltation, the book is still open on that one. Generally speaking Exaltation is to enjoy the same kind of experience and consciousness that God does. What that is the Bible and the other books only hint at. The Temple has evolved since the days of Joseph Smith and Joseph left it that way on purpose. The basic genius of the structure remains intact to this day. How the message is conveyed through the art of the experiential drama of the Endowment ceremony is a creative and evolving process. The “Sealing” ceremony (where couples and their children are linked to them in a family unit for eternity which goes from generation to generation) has changed over the years but the general principle remains the same. There is even one section of the Doctrine and Covenants (the marriage section 132) which says that there is more to be revealed on the topic. That “more” was never given as of yet. One of the greatest books I have read about Joseph Smith (Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling by Dr. Bushman) says that one of the reasons he entered into polygamous relationships was because he had a passionate love of children and had a deep, deep sense of loneliness and isolation so he wanted as many families tied to him as he could take care of. His relationship with his own family was a story of deep love, sacrifice and painful loss (through death and the hatred and violence of those who hated his family). He wanted these relationships to continue on into eternity and to find fulfillment and meaning there. He wanted this same thing for everyone who was willing to do the work that was needed to make it possible. He was bold to severely question the protestant ministers who told him that was not possible that marriage and family life could not exist in eternity. He was bold to say that was not at all what Jesus Christ was all about and that anything was possible through Him and that all things (all loving relationshps) could be made eternal and everlasting through Christ, that Jesus was and is not a selfish God. Also that our fulfilling relationships here were only pale reflections of what they could become in the next life. But Joseph was about doing all possible to create heaven here on this earth and bring heaven down to this place. There is no evidence whatsoever that Joseph Smith was homophobic. He never spoke on the subject but if you read the book entitled Same Sex Dynamics Among 19th Century Americans: A Mormon Example by Michael Quinn you’ll see that Joseph was all about male bonding, comradery and love and there is even some evidence that he acknowledged the love between two men who lived in Nauvoo, Illinois, and apparantly owned property together there. This is mentioned in detail in a book entitled Out Of The Bishop’s Closet by Antonio A Feliz. All loving, fulfilling relationships in this life and all heartfelt desires were eternalized by Joseph. Families back through the ages, friendships, closeknit loving communities (what he called Zion), etc. were all eternlized by Joseph and he taught that this was what the Gospel of Christ was all about and I have no doubt that Joseph would not have been adverse to eternlizing loving same gender relationships. He just did not have the hangups about those things like many LDS leaders have today. That truly reveals a core part of what Joseph Smith believed and taught.
My argument (with regard to the LDS scriptures and doctrine) has to do with the fact that the Church’s approach to its gay and lesbian members is not working and it has not worked since the 1950’s. Prior to that the issue was not really on the table since most of society was in complete denial about homosexuality though the percentage of gay and lesbian oriented people was most likely the same as it is today.
So what will work for the Church? Gary and Millie Watts (founders of Family Fellowship) have come up with some very great Ideas. I might add something else. That is that every person deserves the chance and opportunity to be loved and form a bonding and loving relationship and to also raise a family if they so choose. Even if the Church cannot embrace that a same gender relationship can be an eternal situation (I believe it can be but I leave that all up to God to figure out) at least they have the possibility of accepting the relationship for this life and leave the rest up to God. That way two people (a same sex couple) can have the opportunity to create a relationship that can not only be a tremendous blessing to each other but to their extended families and society in general. In addition children (especially adoption) can be raised in these same sex households. I honestly believe that some day something like this could happen in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints but only as society (generally speaking) evolves in this more stable and what I see as a healthy direction.
There are even some Bishops and Stake Presidents who see this as a possibility. I have met them personally. I have even heard that there are some General Authorities (leaders in the higher levels of the Church) who are at least thinking about these things. The old gaurd, however, is digging in its’ heals. They won’t live forever however and change will happen one way or another.
What makes me frustrated when I see a sort of self-righteous posture that some leaders and a whole lot of members take toward gay and lesbian issues. That is not progressive and I feel it is completely at odds with the message of Jesus Christ.
3) Those with gay tendencies need to live a celibate life like any single person.
“Gay tendencies”
-They judge the sinner first by redefining their intrinsic sexuality as the expression of it so they can’t be held ‘liable’ for judging the “sinner.” It’s genious. Despicable, but genious.
“Need to live a celibate life like any single person.”
-There’s NO comparison. Among other things a single person would at least have HOPE of finding love and thus having happiness in their life.
-The Federal Marriage Amendment is their lynchpin. As long as they can keep same sex marriage illegal they will be able to define us as promiscuous sexually immoral “lifestyles,” and thus unworthy of marriage. Think about what they’d lose without that ‘chicken-or-the-egg’ roundabout.
“Less than” to them means “less than nothing.” They will be satisfied with nothing less than us having a lifetime of misery, and without that, there goes all your propensity for depression, alcoholism and suicide statistics too.
5) The support of the Federal Marriage Amendment is a political reaction to gay equality actions and should not be construed as being anti-gay.
-Of course it’s not anti-gay… Try it like this:
The support of the Federal Human Intelligence Amendment is a political reaction to dog equality actions and should not be construed as being anti-dog.
I don’t know why they don’t just try and tell us to “lie down and roll over.” Oh that’s right, why would we respond to that command when we’re too stupid to even realize we’re inferior.
Cowboy:
“What about Saints who are your family?”
I actually pity them too, but not in the same way that I pity the African American Saints or the Homo-Saints that crave acceptance by the LDS Church.
I pity them that they are so patently clueless.
I pity them that they feel bad when I don’t visit them often because they do not realize that they do not want ME to visit, they want the version of me from 10 years ago (back before they knew I was gay). Then I feel especially bad for them upon the realization that the version of me that they want so much to come out and visit with them was, in fact, fictional.
YIKES! They actually want me to be someone that never really existed! Isn’t that the greatest display of disrespect?
I don’t think that they get the fact that even when I was the perfect, tithe-paying, scripture-reading, seminary-attending teenager, I was secretly lusting after boys and, once my initial (and thankfully short-lived) crisis of conscious was over, I was OK with that. No, I was not having sex at this time. I did not need that drama, but I knew that sex would eventually happen, and was looking forward to it.
Monaural
Aaron said, “I also do not see how the church can ever change on the policy. If the highest level of heaven can only be acheived through marriage and procreation, gays can never acheive that. They will always be lesser than.”
How does the Mormon Church treat heterosexuals who can not procreate (maybe the man’s sperm count is too low or the woman had to have a hysterectomy due to cancer)? Why should the treatment of gay people be any different?
And does the Mormon church approve of non-traditional ways to procreate (surrogate mothers, sperm donation, etc)? Because if they do, they should not have a problem (IMO) with gay people employing these methods in order to have children (if they would approve of heterosexuals doing these same things out of necessity).
I agree that the Church is unlikely to change unless the society it exists in becomes MUCH less homophobic, but I am sure that it was also once unthinkable that Mormons would change their stances on polygamy and racism, so I prefer to be optimistic.
But I agree that gay Mormons (and the people who love them should) should probably not stay in the Church and wait patiently for change, but should get out ASAP for the sake of their own safety and sanity, as such radical change is unlikely to happen overnight or any time real soon.