I can remember my first day of grad school at the United Nations University for Peace in Costa Rica as though it were yesterday (and if that University name doesn't scream 'institute for the liberal hippie', then I don't know what does.) I walked onto campus 7 months pregnant, but it wasn't my giant belly and growing kankles that were weighing me down. I had a burning secret I was hiding as if I were Chris Cornel at a Justin Bieber concert: I was a Mormon. I understand how cowardly this sounds, as I am fully aware of the scripture Romans 1:16 that Christians are supposed to valiantly wear like a badge;
"For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth..."
Believe me, this scripture has haunted me in my everyday interactions with non-Mormon friends, because the truth is that I am often ashamed of my Mormon identity. Before I expound on this, let me give a little context as to why I started grad school as an undercover Mormon.
I entered a Masters program in Media, Peace and Conflict studies in the wake of California's Proposition 8, which deemed only marriage between a man and a woman as constitutional and valid. As I mentioned before, the University for Peace is an extremely progressive school filled with burgeoning world leaders and intellectuals (somehow I slipped in). Everyone knew what Proposition 8 was-and more direly for me-knew which institutions had vehemently supported the constitutional amendment. The LDS church's stance during the Prop 8 campaign has been the single most difficult issue for me to reconcile, and honestly I still can't say that I understand or support it. Being a new student in a liberal University, I didn't want my colleagues to automatically assume that I was prejudiced against the LBGT community upon discovering my Mormon identity, as portrayed by the media. I was indeed ashamed of being a member of an institution that had ardently opposed an issue that was, to me, a question of civil rights. I was even more ashamed to be associated with those few but loud members of the LDS church who misinterpreted an already confusing message to justify harassing the gay community.
Another issue that led me to keep my religious identity under-wraps was the LDS church's reputation for historical racism. I know that the present-day LDS church allows men of every ethnicity to hold equal rank and status, as in 1978 President Kimball of the LDS church finally received revelation that all eligible male Mormons were allowed to hold the priesthood regardless of race, lineage or ethnicity. I also understand that prior to 1978, many church members felt that withholding priesthood power from a specific ethnic group was unjust. Still, this does not negate that without a deep understanding of Gospel Doctrine, the LDS church appears to have been historically discriminatory against black people. The University for Peace had many students from African and Melanesian countries. I didn't want my friends to think that I would discriminate against them once they learned of my religious background.
One of the most heart-wrenching moments of my Mormon existence occurred 5 months into my grad school program when I discovered that I had been both right and wrong to conceal my Mormon identity. I had just recently "come out of the closet" in a class discussion on whether the burqa should be banned in Europe. I stated my opinion on the right to maintain religious tokens, mentioning that I wore sacred undergarments and would zealously defend my right to do so. As the words "I am Mormon and I wear sacred religious underwear" slipped through my lips, pangs of fear and relief washed over me. "Oh my gosh, they're all going to hate me and think I'm a bigoted racist homophobe!", I thought in concurrence with the release that comes after holding your breath through a long tunnel. "I don't have to keep it in anymore".
A few days later, my friend from Ethiopia approached me with tears in her eyes, calmly and sincerely asking whether I thought she was inferior because of her skin color. My friend explained that she knew only a little bit about the LDS religion, but she had learned that Mormons believe that black skin was a curse. With tears in my eyes I told her that I thought she was one of the most intelligent and beautiful people I had ever met, and that her skin color made absolutely no difference to me or the institution I was a part of. Later on, Rivs did his best to rationally explain the historical Judeo-Christian tradition of God consistently bestowing and withholding his authority based on lineage, birthright and promises. But the heart of the conversation was explaining that to be honest, we didn't know why priesthood powers were withheld, but when the 1978 revelation came about, most members of the church wept with joy. The entire discussion ended in tears and the assurance that we don't have all the answers.
After the discussion with my friend, many of my University friends began asking me to clarify their views on Mormonism. Much of what I was asked were the questions I was afraid of ("Do you think I'm going to hell because I'm gay?", "Are you a polygamist?" "Do you think black people are inferior?" "Do you think women are subservient to men?"). In that respect, I was glad that I had formed real relationships with my classmates before revealing my religious identity. That way, I thought, they would feel more comfortable asking me tough questions about my beliefs. Concurrently, I realized that had I come out loud and proud with my Mormon-ness right from the beginning, I would have had the opportunity to clear up some misconceptions about the LDS church long ago.
When it comes down to it, belief in a religion with a somewhat negative reputation can be a burden to bear. This puts a whole new meaning to "bearing a testimony". I often think that this life would be so much easier if I didn't have to bear the weight of religious conviction, if I could just go through life believing what I felt was true without the occasional contradiction of religious creed. I wouldn't have to feel inadequate for being 'ashamed' of my religious culture. I wouldn't have to defend a religion that I often don't understand with the words "I can't really explain it, I just believe it". I wouldn't have to feel doubt and sorrow bubbling inside me when friends ask "how can you support an institution that opposes my right to love and marry who I want?" I wish that the burn of the spirit (as rare as the feeling is for me) didn't cut so deep to my core, making it impossible to shirk the burden of belief.
On the other hand, I wish my belief in the gospel was strong enough to disallow contradicting issues from rocking my testimony. I wish that my faith was so unwavering that I could ask scrupulous questions without the lack of answers causing severe doubt and bouts of unbelief. I wish my faith was strong enough to satiate my quest for truth, because I often feel as though I haven't found it in its wholeness.
If I could fill the holes in my testimony with liberal views, I wouldn't feel so tormented. I would be satiated knowing that both my worlds had been reconciled. But when it comes down to it, some things just don't add up. And I guess that's where my faith comes in, as meager and weak as it is.
Maybe I was wiser than I give myself credit for when I tattooed "Only Faith" to my wrist at age 16.
Oh Steph, you're speaking the words I've thought, prayed, and worried about ever since I was old enough to define my own testimony.
ReplyDeleteYou're entirely right, that a testimony has so little to do with what you say and so much more to do with how you interact with yourself, your god, and others. Sorry to pull out my Buber in public, but if you really understand treating other people as an I-thou, then you really don't have a problem once people get to know you.
Given that Jess and I have both been involved in the LGBT movement on the edges of Mormondom, its so frustrating feeling like I can't reconcile my views on the loving Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ that I know with the way I see things happen in the world around me.
I have heard people's written accounts of being part of the Church when polygamy was introduced, and that for them, while they were never actually asked to take part in it, they had to deal with the turmoil that came from seeing their friends & church leaders doing something that didn't just seem contrary to the law, but just plain wrong. Its been a century and a half... So its easy for me to look back on that and say "I don't believe polygamy was wrong, but I can understand why it was important at the time despite the problems." Maybe in 150 years we'll look back on prop8 & stuff and say the same thing.
Until then, I'll simply rely on my faith that I cannot deny the feelings my Heavenly Father has blessed me with, even when I don't understand why my Church is doing the things it is doing, the way it is doing them.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteMatty, I am just curious-- how do you see polygamy as being important?
DeleteWhen I joined the Church in London ,as a young teen ,I had 2 friends,sisters,who were also recent converts. They were black,but sis not seem to have problem with the Priesthood question.I think that that gave ME added faith ,the fact that they were Ok with it,faithfully believing that their Heavenly Father was in charge and all would be made right one day. We went together to get our Patriarchal blessings. Some years later,when the new revelation was revealed-both of these faithful young ladies served missions. They were a great example to me. There are a lot of things that i do not fully understand with regards to certain Doctrines,but i do have the faith that our Prophet would never lead us astray,that the gospel is true,it is a good way to live and if we truly follow the example of Christ,we would be a lot more accepting of other peoples' lifestyles.
ReplyDeleteOften I am unsure for what reason we are asked to do things, or why, in the church. But my personality, in the end says, "it doesn't matter Why." So, in saying that I really enjoy that YOU ask why? It makes us all stop and think for a moment. Especially about topics like, Prop. 8.
ReplyDeleteIf you could see me sweating bullets right now because I know what I am about to say, but I'm afraid to say it because it could be taken a VERY wrong direction, You may laugh at the scene or encourage me onward as this seems to be your quest through this blog. I do promise to do my best to fully explain, and I hope I can adequately share my thoughts and see what you think.
I voted with the Church through proposition 8. While I do not care what ANY other human beings sexual preference is, or who they have grown to love- who am I to say that Ellen and Portia can't get married? Who am I to say it's "wrong" for them to love each other? Well, again, I don't care that that is their preference, even though it is much different than mine. But I did vote the way that I voted because to me, that vote was a boundary.
Think about this with me for a second. Proposition 8 passes, and every LGBT couple out there have equal rights to be married, openly they can be in love and hold hands on the streets without the harsh looks or vocal discrimination. They, as a couple would have ALL rights that a man-woman marriage do. They would be equal partners in this journey called life. Doesn't sound so bad, right? In my opinion it's not.
But, what happens when Jo-Blow of the TV show, "Sister Wives" is like wait...? LGBT's now get to live the lifestyle they chose, yet I'm not allowed to marry MY 5 wives? What the heck! And what happens to the men out there who grow up attracted to much younger women? I'm not talking legal age separation. What happens to the 40 year old who is attracted to the 12 year old, and guess what? SHE loves him too! Why can't they get married? The LGBT and the Polygamist get to marry who THEY want, so why can't I marry my 40 year old Man? What about those born attracted to animals? I won't even go into that one for fear of taking this scenario too far. That is not my intent. NOR is it my intent to suggest that people who we label as pedophiles in this Country, possibly compare to people who participate in genuine, loving, supportive and happy relationships, no matter between a man and woman or otherwise. My hope in saying all of the above is to show you the reason why I agree that marriage should be kept between a man and woman. If for NOTHING else than to establish a guideline in a world that IS so sick and twisted, that a human being, CAN take his passionate love of an animal to court and ask that it be okay to become ones spouse. This is the most difficult paragraph I have ever written, Steph.
I am very much like you in that some of the best friends I had ever had, were gay. "They" are normal, wonderful, out going, handsome, gorgeous, amazing, talented individuals like anyone else out there that you may find. I hate so much, the difficulty those individuals have when "coming out" in a Society that tells them they are wrong, different, sinners, and then they are furthermore told that they aren't allowed to be married and sealed in the Temple to the one that they love, with a document that makes them as equally married as you and me, even though on ALL other counts, they have kept every commandment and lived a worthy life. What a terrible life that must be!
I want to ask you Steph, if you were a judge in the courts, where would you draw the line? If you were a Heavenly Parent, where would you draw the line? In a world that...
keeps twisting all that is good and fair and true, and doing it with the attitude that, "I want to because I say it's okay and Screw the world because they don't agree with me." What would you do? Why not polygamy? It's just one man, getting his mac on, but actually SUPPORTING, the 5 women he LOVES, and all of the children that they have created! Why not them? They aren't asking anyone else to agree or disagree with the life style. They just want the same rights as everyone else. Why not them too?
ReplyDeleteAll of the above was written to suggest that it's not so much the intricacies of who "I think" should and should not be married. My view is that, marriage between a man and woman was set up by a divine and loving Heavenly Father. One whose purpose is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. That is something that has a large part to do with procreation. That's what a whole lot of this life is about. We are being tried and tested every second of this life and every second counts. Every decision counts. I stand by Heavenly Father, the church, and I stand by my testimony that He would not lead us astray. He has laid down the law and that's the way it has to be. Men are able to create earthly laws, but if we always bounce those laws off of the guidelines our Heavenly Father has set, I imagine that we can get pretty close to how He would run things if all decisions were up to Him. I am grateful that he gave us agency and that he allows us to question why things are the way they are. He gives US the choice to support the laws set forth. I for one find it healthy to go against a law once or twice just to figure out "why not" for ourselves. I think it's amazing, the individuals and many different character types he has placed among this Earth, with many more yet to come. I LOVE that I get to read your blog and then ask the same questions you have. I admire SO much your bravery for posting on these topics and i hope that you can find the truth that, there are a lot of people just like you (me, minus a tattoo and a rockin Mohawk)even though I am a conservative.
I hope that my thoughts came out as clearly as they were in my mind. I hope that no body feels attacked or put down. I hope that wrong conclusions were not made in my opinion of bestiality to same gender marriage.
I just believe that we HAVE to, we MUST have, a guideline in this world.
I am so sorry I was too long winded to publish all of that in one post :/ Sidebar, my CAP words were by NO means yelling at you, LOL :) I just do that to emphasize my word. I don't yell. Sorry about that! Much respect!!!
Thanks so much for your thoughts Ashley. I'm so impressed how you can disagree and express your beliefs without passing judgment.
DeleteI understand your point (my mum has expressed it before :-). Sill, I don't feel that society has the right to limit two consenting adults in their choices in love. It's of course different within the institution of religion, where churches should be free to define union and marriage how they see it. But outside of religion, consenting adults should be free to love and marry.
Just my opinion, of course!
Steph,
ReplyDeleteFirst of all: I love your blog. You are a very talented writer and your posts are always sharp and clear; not for a second am I “lost in translation”.
Second, I’m glad you started “Mo-hawk Mama”; Some months ago I sent you a facebook message regarding Mitt Rommey’s campaign and alleged historial racism in the LDS church, but I’m pretty sure with all the traveling, school, Harper, home, etc, etc you missed it.
That day in class at UPEACE was groundbreaking for many of us. For many months now I have been picking at the idea of a spiritual side of me. Off course I’m not religious in the sense of being part of a religion, but I want to “dig deeper”. I don’t know if that makes sense, but I just wanted to thank you for sharing your journey.
Peace (standard MPCS hippie salute),
Maria Victoria
Thanks MV!
DeleteI remember you writing me a while ago, and I also remember wanting to take my time and answer your questions thoughtfully. Then I forgot. Maybe this blog was a subconscious response!
I hope the blog can answer some of your questions, although I'm probably not the best example of a Mormon. :-)
I hope you and your love are happy and well!
Hippie salute to you!
Ashley-whoever you are,I agree with you!
ReplyDeleteHi Susan, I have not have the pleasure of meeting you but I've seen you in MANY pictures and you, like your daughter, are gorgeous and look like one of the happy Souls on this Earth. :) My name is Ashley Todd Ostler. I was able to grow up for a couple of years with the Puzey family as associates, neighbors, and church mates when my family moved to Hermiston. :) I love your Stehpanie's honesty and her mind, and I love that she askes the questions I just kind of comply with because I don't think to ask why... Susan, I also enjoy your comments and posts. I hope you are having a wonderful Summer! Have a great, relaxing, Sunday as well :)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSteph,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your Blog, I'm excited to be able to come and read. I hope I can get here more often than I think I probably will.
I consider myself to be moderate. I'm definitely a liberal when I am in Utah, but not so much anywhere else. Being LDS I too have some concerns about "Mormon Culture", but I have found that the Doctrine is pure and logical. Mormon Culture often is where we find misunderstanding, hatred, and ridiculous exaggerations. I however find the doctrine to be pure.
In relation to marriage, this is definitely a touchy subject. I have seen the pain and heartache that many LGBT people go through as they struggle with society and how they can fit in. I also have a strong belief in the concept of marriage. One of my favorite explanations for why it is important for the LDS Church to stand behind Marriage between only a man and woman, comes from a book by a Gay LDS young man. The book is called "In Quiet Desperation".
In this book the author talks about marriage and the religious role it takes. Marriage is traditionally a religious ceremony. So for religion to assert their beliefs in marriage is quite appropriate. He talks about the difference between worship of God and worship of our sexual orientation. here is a quote from his book:
Just as we do not worship heterosexuality, so our salvation
is not based upon the mortal realization of it. The ideal
of marriage and family may not be realized in mortality by
some - or even many - of God's children for a variety of
reasons, only one of them being same-gender attraction. (p.
181 - 182)
If the church did not assert themselves in favor of marriage between a man and a woman as is part of the doctrinal beliefs of the church, they would be giving up their freedom of speech. To say that the church is out of line asserting their doctrinal beliefs and standing up for it, is not fair to the church.
Unfortunately some members of the church within the "Mormon Culture" misconstrued the intent and have begun to be hateful towards the LGBT community and that is wrong. Never has the church or the gospel said anything about mistreating other people. They took a stand on what they believe to be the proper way for marriage to be defined, not out of malice or spite to the LGBT community, but out of support for the doctrine of the church.
There is a fine line to be walked here because the belief of some greatly varies from the belief of others. Just because I don't believe the same thing as you does not mean I have to stifle my beliefs to be fair to you. In fact it would be quite unfair for someone to not voice their beliefs out of fear of going against someone else's beliefs. (Yes this is the same for within the church, it is unfair for the church members to stifle other church members who ask questions.)
I don't know if I got my point across in this post, but the main focus is it is a matter of seeing the humanity from both sides of very different beliefs and allowing for their opinions and beliefs without being hateful because of a dissonance with your own beliefs.
Hey Kekoa,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your input. I completely agree that we should respect all beliefs, as long as they are not hateful or hurtful to others. I don't think what I expressed in my blog was hateful to anyone, nor was it an attempt to call out gospel doctrine. I am merely saying that there are some things I personlly don't understand and can't agree with, and I'm trying to reconcile my divergent beliefs.
Once again, great writing on a timely and sensitive subject. Thank you for not dancing around any of it. You are a great writer and an even better person. I am happy you have "Only Faith" tattooed on your wrist because otherwise how would Tommy (Rivs) have gone from the pickle to the ethnology of tattoo?
ReplyDeleteI liked this quote from a recent interview with Aaron Sorkin "I liked the sound of our dinner table growing up, I really did, where anybody who used one word when they could've used 10 just wasn't trying hard enough. And I really liked the sound of somebody saying, you know, yeah, but have you thought of it this way? But look at it that way. But what if this? And, you know, arguments would keep getting turned on their side. And like I said, I didn't really have the stuff to be able to participate. But I have a pretty good ear. And, in fact, you know, I think that this, I hope, serves as an example of my relationship to the intelligence of my fictional characters."
ReplyDeleteI am grateful for the intelligent people in our family that stretch my mind and broaden my worldview. I wish we were all together eating Sunday dinner and discussing it with with our LGBT family members and friends while the musicians in the family perform.
Personally, I have nothing against the LGBT community and feel that they deserve to be treated with dignity and respect in and out of the Church. I don't think that I deserve to define marriage for them any more than they deserve to define marriage for me. If they want to participate in unions and give them a name that is fine with me as long as it does not limit my union or the institution through which that union was formed.
I am pleased that enough diversity exists within the Church that large groups of people feel comfortable sharing their concerns about the Church's stance on the issue of gay marriage, particularly Proposition 8. I am most pleased that in the coming years rather than being viewed simply as antiquated and backward, the Church will be viewed as the only institution that has chosen not to be entirely influenced by social trends and will be founded upon principles on which individuals, families, and nations can build.
With regard to homosexuals or pro-gay-marriage advocates in or out of the Church, I don't think it is helpful for them to assume that through political means they will change church policy on eternal principles and practices. While Mitt may be running for President, the Church is not running for election. Neither Jesus Christ nor Thomas S. Monson are checking with their pollsters to figure out what to say or not to say to win the swing vote.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am all for celebrating diversity. However, with regard to sexuality, although we have the opportunity to choose, the decisions we make impact our lives, the lives of those around us, and society at large. Let us celebrate our agency to choose, but let us also celebrate the pleasure and progress that come through disciplining and responsibly channeling that agency (regardless of our sexual leanings - regardless of their origins - genetic or learned.
ReplyDeleteMost of the discussion of the issue has been regarding the semantics of the term 'marriage', but the heart of the issue is the sexual acts within the union. Correct me if I am wrong, but homosexuality is not and has never been condoned in the sight of God (although there are some interesting sexual arrangements and practices in the Old Testament). We have no evidence that He loves those who practice it any less than his heterosexual children, but it is (whether legitimized by the law of the land or not) against His law. It is adultery. On this matter, the principles and practices of His church will not change regardless of popular opinion.
I think we both struggle with the complexity and weight of the issue (and the political activism of the Church), but I think our energies will be better spent loving all God's children and not fighting Him on a law that has not and will never change. Having the court's blessing on a union is not the same as having His blessing. Unfortunately, the way Civil Rights work in the U.S. is that once the courts concede to the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of the issue they force other institutions (i.e. churches) to follow suit. No religious institution, especially one we believe to be led by God through his ordained oracles should be forced to perform or uphold unions that in His eyes are illegitimate.
I realize that some may find this offensive. I don't say this to diminish the genuine love and affection that many feel toward their partners, but the issue is not so much about semantics as it is God's law.
Some may feel that if we push the issue long enough the prophet will come back with a revelation like Kimball received in 1978 regarding the priesthood. However, the distinction between this and the 1978 Revelation is that Kimball's revelation was to change accepted cultural practice - not an eternal law. We have received similar instruction regarding homosexuality (we are to love and respect all of God's children regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation etc and as long as one does not act upon his/or homosexual inclinations he or she can be in good standing and is open to all of God's blessings, etc.). However, to hope for legitimizing a homosexual relationship through marriage (particularly sealing) is making a mockery of God and His plan for His children.
This is difficult to say, given the close family and friends who have open, loving relationships with partners of the same sex. I know from personal experience that many homosexuals are thoughtful, caring, loving, educated people and would therefore probably be better guardians of children than many of the heterosexuals who don't practice their sexuality responsibly. But the issue is not what we think, but rather what God wants and commands. On this matter his prophets have spoken unequivocally that sexual relations are to occur only between a man and a woman legally and lawfully wedded.
@ Columbia Corridor Corredor
Delete"However, the distinction between this and the 1978 Revelation is that Kimball's revelation was to change accepted cultural practice - not an eternal law."
(In the name of JC this is a culural practice! Hmmm???)
"Any man having one drop of the seed of [Cain] ... in him cannot hold the Priesthood and if no other Prophet ever spoke it before I will say it now in the name of Jesus Christ I know it is true and others know it."
-Brigham Young (Bush ch.3)
Lester E. Bush Jr. 'Mormonism's Negro Doctrine: A Historical Overveiw'
http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=445
@ Aaron - I am your training partner's brother. In most circles I would be considered left of center and in most LDS circles, well I don't find myself regularly in most LDS circles because I am so far left that I don't even feel that I can talk to most of them. I shared some thoughts in response to Steph's remarks and more in response to some recent post's on Facebook of LDS men, presumably gay, demonstrating in favor of Gay Marriage. As I said above, I do not stand in a position to judge(and hopefully never will) and do not presume to know the mind of God with regard to this specific issue. It doesn't bother me that gay couples want to be together or want to solemnize their unions through legal means. However, I am perplexed by the desire to get God's blessing or for many to think that if a church doesn't simply conform to popular opinion that they are backward and therefore out of touch with reality. Like Steph, I have had serious struggle with the Church's activism with Prop 8 and subsequent public criticism. However, within the context I shared above with regard to Civil Rights cases forcing religious institutions to act outside their religious convictions I better understand the Church's decision to publicly fight it.
DeleteI based much of my stance on the divergence between the orthodoxy and orthopraxy of the Church circa 1978 on the commentary found in Spencer W. Kimball's biography, "Lengthen your Stride" written and annotated by his son, Edward Kimball who explains the inner turmoil his father experienced and the lightening of the burden he felt when he finally received the revelation on the Priesthood. From both anecdotal and historical research it appears as though there was at least one Seventy during the time of Joseph who was of African descent who held the priesthood. Somehow that ended without a lot of thorough explanation - I know of the few quote from early leaders that are often referred to, but this was not a doctrine of salvation by any means. From my mortal perspective it appears as though some of the church's early leaders (i.e Brigham Young) brought with them some of the cultural, less pluralistic views. While the views were neither understood nor espoused by many to follow, unfortunately the practices accompanying those views did. It took a hundred years and a revelation to clarify and end the perpetuation of the practice of limiting the reception of the priesthood blessing to certain peoples.
With regard to same-sex marriage it is not and will never be accepted by the Church and will not be performed in the Temples of God because the very unions go against the ideal that has been presented from the beginning. Does that mean that those who have same sex attractions will burn in hell? Absolutely not. It simply means that they have the same challenge that all of us have - as flesh we have the weaknesses of the flesh and we have the opportunity to choose to let the Spirit guide our actions or the flesh. Demeaning, mistreating, or making others (gay or straight) feel inferior would fall under the category of acting with the flesh. Showing forth love, tolerance, and patience for our brothers and sisters who struggle with their sexuality (are there really people who don't?) is acting by the spirit, but hoping that through political means God's law or ideal regarding family and sexuality will change is futile.
Since we are speaking of Brigham Young, though, I thought it appropriate to share these recent remarks from Elder D. Todd Christofferson from the April 2012 General Conference that explain at least one instance in which Brigham Young's spoke when not moved upon by the Spirit. It begins with some commentary by Elder Christofferson:
Delete"It should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”
President Clark, observed:
“To this point runs a simple story my father told me as a boy, I do not know on what authority, but it illustrates the point. His story was that during the excitement incident to the coming of [Johnston’s] Army, Brother Brigham preached to the people in a morning meeting a sermon vibrant with defiance to the approaching army, and declaring an intention to oppose and drive them back. In the afternoon meeting he arose and said that Brigham Young had been talking in the morning, but the Lord was going to talk now. He then delivered an address, the tempo of which was the opposite from the morning talk. …
“… The Church will know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the body of the members, whether the brethren in voicing their views are ‘moved upon by the Holy Ghost’; and in due time that knowledge will be made manifest.”
"The Prophet Joseph Smith confirmed the Savior’s central role in our doctrine in one definitive sentence: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”7 Joseph Smith’s testimony of Jesus is that He lives, “for [he] saw him, even on the right hand of God; and [he] heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father” (D&C 76:23; see also verse 22). I appeal to all who hear or read this message to seek through prayer and study of the scriptures that same witness of the divine character, the Atonement, and the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Accept His doctrine by repenting, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and then throughout your life following the laws and covenants of the gospel of Jesus Christ."
Hello, brother of training partner! I have heard great things about you from Rivers. Thanks for the thoughtful response to an ease-dropped message. It was inspiring and well received: I liked what you said in your response to me much more than your initial posting. Although, I am a little confused on what your position is with regard to the homosexual issue. I see two positions presented that I comprehend as contradictory. However, before I present what I find to be confusing I would like to give you a quick disclaimer about myself and my intent. I care little about truth in the traditional sense: the church could be right and the gay activists and intellectuals could be wrong, or vice versa. The claims of having—“the eternal truth”—or whatever, seems trivial given the current circumstances and how things are playing out. As I see it, people spend too much time worrying about eternal theologies while neglecting what is currently going on. In an analogy, imagine two people standing by the side of a river where a friend is drowning. They are both too busy arguing about who has the capacity to save instead of just jumping in and doing what they can.
DeleteI am not trying to continue a never ending argument but to educate to the extent that people will think differently about our GLBT brothers and sisters. At the end of my previous post I linked a site with a publication that shows what depressing things happen to GLBT individuals who are rejected from their family or church. Obviously the dangerous lifestyle and risky behaviors increase dramatically from such rejection. There is nothing in the Gospel of Christ that would encourage a family or church to reject a GLBT individual but it happens and it continues to happen. Something is not right here. I encourage you to look at it if you have not already. http://familyproject.sfsu.edu/
The argument that I presented is not that the church has to change, according to popular opinion, but that it very well might change. For the members of the church to say that it will not happen is short of prophecy. The examples I used for theological and doctrinal change were sited in my previous post. Also, I want to be clear to what change I am suggesting. I am not so stuck on the idea that the temple sealing needs to be inclusive enough to include our GLBT brothers and sisters in a type of sealed marriage arrangement. More so, a change to a general acceptance of their sexuality as being an intrinsic part of whom they are as Gods children: they are not afflicted; it is not some sick addiction, etc. If this acceptance is irreconcilable with current church theologies, I would argue— what’s new? There is a chasm between the ideologies of religion, Mormonism included, to the practicalities of the world around us. In the case of a typical GLBT person, it is easier to argue around the biological origin because it is less apparent in respect to the other sexual divergences in the world. I know that the church has no official stance on intersexed persons neither on what is called true hermaphrodites. It would be hard to tackle those cases theologically. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
I understand fully what problems arise from accepting every so called, “inspired statement” that an authority makes. A popular apologist for the church, Blake Ostler, said that if every inspired statement a prophet or apostle makes is counted as truth there would be no doctrine by overwhelming contradiction. As a resolve, Ostler went on to say that the church needs to be scripturally bound. Although, I do not agree with that either. What is different from the prophets of old to the prophets of today? They are still subject to an interpretive mind, relative cultural situation, and biased opinions. Among recent scholarship, even the BOM is understood as an interpretation not necessarily a translation because of found contradiction. https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/written-by-the-finger-of-god-claims-and-controversies-of-book-of-mormon-translation/
I am curious to what happens when a prophet actually speaks as a prophet. Are they then able to speak a verbatim dictation of Gods will? (That would be kind of cool.) Maybe to make things clear, the prophets should say before they speak, “right now I am speaking as a prophet”. And at other times they can say otherwise. It sure would make things a lot clearer. Of course there are the words of Wilfred Woodruff in regards to the manifesto when he says:
DeleteThe Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty.
Maybe Woodruff was speaking as a man in this statement too? We could say that the peculiar statements and pushed beliefs by Brigham Young and others were not regarding the doctrines of salvation; but in reality they are, even the esoteric doctrines and orthopraxy of the church play a vital role in the overall cosmology of the church.
I love the idea that doctrine will only be determined when the spirit confirms witness in the hearts of the congregation and all decide it to be as such. Very beautiful but I just do not ever remember being able to have any say on doctrine in that way. I am pretty sure it’s a top down organization especially as it progressed from its free-thinking beginnings.
I hope I do not sound depressing. That is not my intent. I do not want to tear down faith as I want to create room for people to give themselves permission to love. Oftentimes LGBT persons or their family feel torn between the gay issue and their religion. They feel as if they have to choose between them. Nobody should ever be placed in that situation. It is not according to Gods plan. I say that as a man, speaking as a man, but I think God is with me on that one.
Quickly, I’ll post a couple statements you said and give you the opportunity to state your position— if you want?
Delete“I am all for celebrating diversity. However, with regard to sexuality, although we have the opportunity to choose, the decisions we make impact our lives, the lives of those around us, and society at large. Let us celebrate our agency to choose, but let us also celebrate the pleasure and progress that come through disciplining and responsibly channeling that agency (regardless of our sexual leanings - regardless of their origins - genetic or learned”.
What are you saying here? I have an idea what the underlying premise is but I’m not positive. If I understand, you are saying it’s good to be different but with sexuality, even when it is biological, we need to channel it responsibly. What do you mean by being responsible— practicing monogamy? Or, does this mean gay people need to not act on their sexual orientation? Can the same be said for heterosexual persons?
“I think we both struggle with the complexity and weight of the issue (and the political activism of the Church), but I think our energies will be better spent loving all God's children and not fighting Him on a law that has not and will never change.”
I see this statement of belief as a false-dichotomy. You will never be able to fully love them if you judge them as sinners. I love my GLBT brothers and sisters for who they are, not in spite of who they are. (A difference of belief and that’s okay, just want to make it mentioned)
“I realize that some may find this offensive. I don't say this to diminish the genuine love and affection that many feel toward their partners, but the issue is not so much about semantics as it is God's law.”
I agree with Nietzsche when he says: “What is done out of love always happens beyond good and evil”. What exactly is God’s law, if it is not love?
Thoughtful and thorough responses, Aaron. Thank you for keeping me on my toes. There are and have been myriad explanations for sexual orientation and they vary from culture to culture. The idea that homosexuality is an eternal characteristic runs counter to the most current official declarations we have received. The law of chastity states that we are not to have sexual relations with anyone who is not our spouse. Part of the resistance to same-sex marriage comes from the potential assault on this very law. If we base the discussion on the law any sexual relation outside of marriage with someone of the same or opposite sex is against the law or sin and will require repentance to be forgiven. The good news is that 1) if we don't act on our sexual impulses (i.e to have sexual relations outside of marriage) we are obeying the law and entitled to the corresponding blessings and 2)if we do act on those impressions there is a just and merciful Savior who has atoned for our sins and if we repent we can be forgiven. The ideal would get to the point where our will is in line with God's. While we read about such people, we don't meet many of them. Though this will be a challenge for us all, I believe it is indeed possible and whether we seem predisposed to certain behaviors or not "the natural man is an enemy to god" we can submit our wills to His and eventually our hearts and our actions will follow suit.
DeleteWith regard to loving and judging, I don't feel that pointing to the heart of the discussion is judging, but rather directing the attention at the elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. They want to make the discussion about marriage when in fact the real issue is the behavior of the union whether sanctioned by the state or not. Homosexual behavior is no less sinful than heterosexual behavior outside of the bonds of marriage. I have friends and family in and out of the Church who have chosen to act on their impulses in both homo and heterosexual relationships outside of marriage. I don't love them any more or less because of their choices, nor do I see their choices and accompanying consequences any more or less acceptable in the eyes of God (that is an important point - it is His eyes we are talking about, not ours). If the law legalizes marriage then the law of God is required to either make accommodations or stand firm. Because the law of God specifies that sexual relations are to occur only between a husband and wife, legally and lawfully wedded, some people think they are being left out or misunderstood. What is not understood is that "There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated— And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated" (D&C 130:20-21). If we want the blessings we accept and obey his law, but notice that it doesn't say "But if you think that your particular case is an exception to the rule go and do what you want and if you complain about it enough God will say it is alright and you won't actually be accountable for going against His law. The last thing He would want to do is make things difficult for you." I think there is a scripture to that effect: "And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear God—he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God." 2 Nephi 28:8. I don't mean to sound condescending or unsympathetic and I typically don't like to quote scriptures like this, but the fact of the matter is homosexuality can and should be viewed in the same way as any other practice (not identity) that falls outside the parameters God has given us. It is there. It is real. It is a challenge for many. We acknowledge it. We don't have to participate in it or glamorize it any more than we would any other deviation from God's plan for His children.
DeleteOne last comment by Sorkin to close my thoughts. It might explain my leanings: "I'm a registered Republican. I only seem liberal because I believe hurricanes are caused by high barometric pressure, not gay marriage."
ReplyDeleteAwesome blog post, Mormon mow-hawk momma… I am a friend/ training buddy of your husband. We were talking today on the bike ride about various doctrinal/social issues and he told me I should start commenting on your blog. So, I will! I think you are in a good place. I mean, the cognitive dissonance at times can fry your brain and tear at your spirits but in reality, asking deep questions is just the thing we should be doing. For me thoughtful inquiry brings me to my Mormon roots. I don’t think Joseph was a conformist, nor do I believe he did not think outside the box. Joseph, as well as others, was highly speculative especially during the beginning developments of the church (Shoemaker). Overtime doctrines have become more standardized, everything now is correlated and to a degree it takes some of the excitement away from the faith—at least for me. I relate to Margaret Toscano when she said in an interview for the PBS documentary, ‘The Mormons’, “that when she found out that the Sunday school story was not true, she discovered her faith”.
ReplyDelete@ Columbia Corridor Corredor
You cannot predict the future trends of a stock by looking at the current price. It’s not until you look at the past trends that you can really attempt to determine where things will go. In comparison it is the same with the Church. I am not claiming to be a scholar in Mormon history but I am not without understanding.
I am interested in this idea of eternal laws. Can you show me one? Especially on issues of morality it seems that the only constant is change. Theology and doctrines of the church have developed significantly over the years (White, Alexander). Are Mormonism’s claims on continued revelation only theoretical? Or, do you just not accept the open cannon notion? You claim that it has always been against Gods law to practice homosexuality, when did Christ say that? You can pull the seven scriptural references from the Old and New Testament yet still those are highly debatable. (Lose) Where in the BOM and Doctrine and Covenants does it talk about homosexuality? From the beginnings, the Mormon Church has changed its stance on the homosexual issue and has dealt with it differently (O’Donovan).
Everything changes and I believe the best thing that the members can do is maintain an open mind, practice Christ’s injunction of non-judgment, and focus on the love element. Also, a word to the wise, it is important to recognize the potential caveats our beliefs carry and how they might affect others in horrible ways. Here is a ground breaking study on what happens to LGBT individuals when their family, church, or friends do not accept them. I’ll admit, when I first looked at the study it seemed so obvious. If the family of an LGBT individual is rejected, the risk of HIV, illegal drug use, and suicide increases drastically. How do we not know this!? Please check it out: http://familyproject.sfsu.edu/publications Follow the link and it will direct you to where you can download a publication directed specifically to those of the Mormon faith.
Thanks for reading,
Aaron
Alexander, Thomas G. ‘The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine’
https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/022-24-33.pdf
Lose, David ‘What Does the Bible Really Say about Homosexuality’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-lose/what-does-the-bible-reall_b_990444.html
O’Donovan, Connell ‘The Abominable and Detestable Crime against Nature’
http://connellodonovan.com/lgbtmormons.html
Shoemaker, T. Eugene ‘Speculative Theology: The Key to a Dynamic Faith’
https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/016-28-32.pdf
White, Kendall Jr. ‘The Transformation of Mormon Theology’
http://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Dialogue_V05N02_11.pdf
Mormon Beliefs: Continuing Revelation
http://www.mormonbeliefs.org/prophets/continuing-revelation
The Mormons: Interview with Margret Toscano (So interesting!)
http://www.pbs.org/mormons/interviews/toscano.html
Let me reword that last part. *If an LGBT individual is rejected by the family, not: If the family of an LGBT individual is rejected
ReplyDeleteWOW, this sounds like it could have been coming from my head. Thank you so much. I love your writing!
ReplyDelete