I have been working w/ some folks affiliated with Idaho State University to post a 3-part video series on LDS homosexuality to the Internet. Today the videos were made available. Below is Part 1: “Go Forward”–the story of a young man who has sincerely tried to walk in the path outlined by President Hinckley. Please check it out (below), and let us know what you think. Also, please feel free to share your thoughts and feedback either below, or at youtube.com.
If you are interested in the issue, there is also a web site you may want to check out: https://ldsresources.info/, dedicated to supporting faithful LDS w/ the issue of homosexuality.
This video ought to be manditory viewing for all officers of the Church, Bishop and above.
Heterosexuals should consider how hard it would be for them to stop having attractions to the opposite sex before asking homosexuals to stop have attractions to the same sex. Sexual orientation in either direction does NOT change easily.
It does not matter whether the behavior is genetic or environmental or a choice or whatever. These are difficult issues for science to distinguish. What is NOT hard to determine is that sexual orientation is deep seated and very stable.
Most people do not know where their sexual orientation comes from. This is true in homosexuality as well.
Homosexuality is a fact of life and the Church simply better get used to it. We LDS need to find better ways of dealing with this issue without causing individuals to go into deep depression, if not suicidal depression.
It just seems like we LDS have a long way to go. This video is a good step forward.
Thanks to those who put it together.
Thank you, John. This is wonderful.
Thant is simply an amazing story. I hope this gets out and watched by many, many people.
Excellent Videos! I just showed them to a friend who is very familiar to this issue.
Unfortunately there’s still this message going around:
https://lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-202-4-202,00.html
John, this is really good. Gary’s so obviously Mormon through and through, and not at all scary looking, or radical acting. I hope that lots of people will see this. (By the way, he’s very modest about his genealogy accomplishments. He’s well-known for his knowledge of northern European genealogy, in genealogy circles.) (I’m a genealogy nerd too.)
Hyrum, I am disappointed that you would say the message and counsel of our inspired prophets are unfortunately going around.
I grew up in a family of 7 boys, attended an all-boys High School, and have known several homosexual men.
True, it is ridiculous to treat them with any type of disrespect. If anything, they need uplifting, exalting friendship.
However, Elder Oaks is very correct. He is an inspired man that knows the doctrine of how we are each independent agents, or spirits, in this world, subject to the spirit of the devil or to the spirit of God.
According to Alma, we will be judged according to our words, thoughts, and actions. As he stated, “our thoughts will also condemn us.” These thoughts are connected with our feelings. If we will be judged according to our thoughts, then certainly, according to the Law of Justice, then we are able to control these thoughts, to some degree or another. We cannot be condemned or blamed for things we cannot control. This is an important principle of the Gospel.
Elder Oaks explains, “Yes, homosexual feelings are controllable. Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. But out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings, they increase the power of the temptation. If we yield to the temptation, we have committed sinful behavior. That pattern is the same for a person that covets someone else’s property and has a strong temptation to steal. It’s the same for a person that develops a taste for alcohol. It’s the same for a person that is born with a ‘short fuse,’ as we would say of a susceptibility to anger. If they let that susceptibility remain uncontrolled, it becomes a feeling of anger, and a feeling of anger can yield to behavior that is sinful and illegal.”
Elder Oaks was commissioned by the Church and the Prophet to answer these questions, and President Hinckley would completely agree with his statement.
What would Moroni say about this temptation? “All things which are good cometh of God, and that which is evil cometh of the devil” (Moro 7:12). Homosexual feelings and thoughts can lead someone to not marrying and fulfilling the measure of their creation. It is a commandment of God. It can ultimately lead to homosexual behavior, which is a heinous and destructive sin. This behavior can ruin people’s lives, and most importantly, their eternal salvation.
I am troubled with this ‘liberal’ movement in the Church that it is ‘okay’ to be gay, and that homosexuals cannot control they way they think or feel. I do sustain, however, a movement that shares their perspective and struggles. For this reason, I like the video. I honestly felt bad for him, and for the struggles and pain he went through. However, I do not like that how his counsel to relieve the pain, was through accepting that the feelings were okay, and as he said, ‘having intimate relationships’ with these other Gay Mormons.
We must not ignore the Prophets. We must not reject the Law of Justice, which in connection with this was perfectly stated by Elder Oaks: “No, we do not accept the fact that conditions that prevent people from attaining their eternal destiny were born into them without any ability to control. That is contrary to the Plan of Salvation, and it is contrary to the justice and mercy of God.”
I think it is unfortunate that the comment which appears above by “se7en” does not accurately represent the recent statement of Elder Oaks who said “We expect celibacy of any person that is not married” and “The line of sin is between the feelings and the behavior.”
“se7en” also misrepresents Gary who said the following within the film.
“I can keep the Church standards”
“I want to be a member of the Church in good standing.”
When he talks about his relationship with some gay men he describes these as friendships. He says…
“They weren’t sexual relationships, but they were very close, very intimate relationships without crossing the boundaries of the Church.”
When talking about this he says…
“It wasn’t like I was becoming sexual.”
“It doesn’t have to be sexual.”
“I can choose to be celibate.”
Anyone can view the film for themselves and see the statements which Gary makes which are exactly what I have listed above.
Please don’t be misled by the comments of “se7en”
It is high time that Church members quit putting a different standard on gay men that does not apply to heterosexuals. Single heterosexual persons can associate with and have friendships with other single heterosexuals as long as they abide by the behavioral standards of the Church.
The same should be true for homosexuals who abide by Church standards and who should, as President Hinckley says, “Go Forward” as any other member of the Church.
Ron Schow
seven also said “Elder Oaks was commissioned by the Church and the Prophet to answer these questions, and President Hinckley would completely agree with his statement.”
i happen to agree with this part of sevens remarks. oaks was commissioned to respond by the church. oaks has absolutely no training in this field whatsoever. he is working for an institution, and his comments should be considered nothing more than the position of the church for which he works.
i wish there was a way to reduce the guilt and undue anxiety that oaks’ comments will produce. he was, in my opinion, completely out of line and his tone stands in great contrast to the tone i picked up in schow’s book or in this video.
i feel sorry for any homosexual that is born into this church. (we know that homosexuals are not joining the church, for obvious reasons.) the pain that oaks’ comments will produce will be borne by those that dont choose to be gay and dont choose to be mormon. fortunately, at least one of those can be changed.
edit needed: above should read “those that didn’t choose to be gay and didn’t choose to be mormon.”
Ron Schow:
You seemed to pick at my statement, “However, I do not like that how his counsel to relieve the pain, was through accepting that the feelings were okay, and as he said, ‘having intimate relationships’ with these other Gay Mormons.”
I understand from his statements, that he was completely celibate. He, himself, called it an “initimate relationship.” He, and I, don’t suggest it was in any way sexual. Thus all your quotes were in the assumption that I thought he was breaking the Law of Chastity. I did not. Whatever he called an ‘intimate relationship’ with these other men, was it really appropriate?
However, this brings up another issue of what is crossing lines and what is not. Would kissing or holding hands with another male be crossing lines when you have homosexual tendencies? I haven’t read any statements on that, nor should I give my own statement. However, wouldn’t that be considered “catering to the feelings” that increase the power of temptation, as Elder Oaks states here:
“Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. But out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings, they increase the power of the temptation.”
Thus, as I was trying to state, (but only did it in a short sentence and not clearly explaning what I meant – and for that, I apologize) that I did not agree to his having “intimate relationships” (though not sexual) with other males, because that might be catering to feelings that will lead him down a path he probably shouldn’t go down. Elder Oaks also stated in another talk he gave (“Freedom and Free Agency”) that if we have a tendency or susceptibility toward some improper thing, we need to avoid it like the plague. What did these “intimate relationships” really entail? Just because he wasn’t participating in sexual activity doesn’t mean the relationship is okay.
I just wanted to make clear that I understood these intimate relationships were celibate. However, it seemed to me that he relieved the pain by going to these Gay Mormon groups and having ‘intimate relationships,’ and depending on the real nature of these relationships, it could be considered, “catering to the feelings” and not avoiding it like the plague. Thanks for the post.
se7en
Thank you for stating with reference to the relationship Gary describes , “I, don’t suggest it was in any way sexual.” Unfortunately, you go on to question whether his relationships were “really appropriate.”
Let me remind you how Gary phrased it. He said
“They weren’t sexual relationships, but they were very close, very intimate relationships without crossing the boundaries of the Church.”
How could he possibly have made it any clearer that they WERE “really appropriate?”
I would suggest you let his bishop handle his worthiness. The intrusiveness of your comments is baffling and appalling. Gary’s courage and honesty in telling his story is in stark contrast to your unwillingness to even state your name.
I hope you will let this matter rest. I will say nothing further about it. But if you do comment again or if you don’t, I hope the viewer/reader will recognize how misleading, disrespectful and abusive your comments have been toward Gary.
Please remember that Elder Oaks, in the recent statement you cite, along with the First Presidency in an earlier statement, urge us to “reach out with understanding and respect” toward individuals like Gary.
Ron Schow
se7en:
All of us crave and require intimacy. It is a human need. We can go without sexual intimacy, but forsaking emotional intimacy is damaging.
Homosexuals are sustained by emotional intimacy from those of the same sex, just as heterosexuals are sustained by emotional intimacy from those of the opposite sexs. Elder Oaks and other church leaders can talk all they want about catering to inappropriate feelings and avoiding temptations, but it doesn’t change this reality.
The fundamental problem I have with the LDS Church’s approach to dealing with homosexuality is that it very clear doesn’t try very hard to listen to and understand actual homosexuals. We are expected to insert the square peg that is our reality into the round hole that is LDS theology. They don’t fit. And I think a lot of gay Mormons get tired of the church pounding on us to get us into that hole.
I’ve reached the point in my life where, apostle or no, I don’t care what Elder Oaks or Elder Wickman or Gordon B. Hinckley himself say about homosexuality. It bears no real resemblance to my experience and it does nothing to help me live happily.
Homosexuals are sustained by emotional intimacy from those of the same sex, just as heterosexuals are sustained by emotional intimacy from those of the opposite sexs.
Interesting assertion Chris… Aren’t we all sustained by emotional intimacy from those of both sexes?
Of course. But…
I’m assuming you are heterosexual, and probably married. Do you connect emotionally with your wife differently than you do with, say, a close male friend? My guess is you do. I’m talking about primary attractions, primary sources of intimacy, not the many different types of relationships that sustain us.
I’ll also bring my own experience to this. I was married for ten years, in the closet almost all of that time. As much as I longed for sexual intimacy with a man, it was the lack of an emotionally intimate relationship–one that would be beyond simple close friendship–that left me feeling troubled, depressed, disconnected, lonely, and abnormal. Now that I have found a measure of that lacking intimacy, I feel more fully normal than I ever have before. I feel healthy. I feel happy. I feel more complete.
So it sounds like you are saying that one cannot have sufficient emotional intimacy with someone they are not having sex with… You have a hard row to hoe in trying to support that claim I think.
Geoff J,
Isn’t that one of the primary purposes of sex? To have an emotional connection?
Or perhaps the sexual/emotional connection is just a bonus for heterosexuals beyond what is “sufficient”. And who are you (or I) to decide what is “sufficient” emotionally for someone else?
Sexual intercourse represents the pinaccle of emotional intimacy. It should be reserved for comitted relationships (I would say monogamous, but that would be very unfair, wouldn’t it?). That relationship is the most exclusive in terms of intimacy, and sex is an integral part of what distinguishes it from other intimate relationships.
There is absolutely no reason outside of dogma why homosexuals should not be treated with egalitarian acceptance.
But then again I’m just a “Dude” who you’ve never hear of… ;-)
Geoff J,
That’s not what I’m saying. In fact, I wasn’t thinking about sex at all when I posted my response.
Perhaps what you are telling me though is that the only thing more your wife offers you (if you have one) that a close male friend can offer is sex.
Is that right?
Chris,
Being emotionally intimate with someone of the same sex is not a problem and it won’t keep anyone out of the temple (think fathers and sons, brothers, trusted and beloved friends, etc.)
You said “Homosexuals are sustained by emotional intimacy from those of the same sex”
Fine. My point was that heterosexuals are also sustained by emotional intimacy from those of the same sex.
Perhaps I misunderstood your position though. Perhaps you believe that sexual intimacy is not required for emotional intimacy (contra Tom Grover). If so then we are in agreement.
Chris Williams:
You say, “I’ve reached the point in my life where, apostle or no, I don’t care what Elder Oaks or Elder Wickman or Gordon B. Hinckley himself say about homosexuality.”
That is where you walk a dangerous line. Many have had this same attitude towards Prophets in the last 6,000 years. Whether it be homosexuality, immoral heterosexuality, addictions, envy, anger, jealousy, or whatever it may be. ALL ARE SIN.
Those that rejected the Prophets in OT times reaped disappointment by and by. Then at the time of the Apostles, and until the destruction of the righteous Nephites, many “didn’t care” what the Prophets said on a certain subject or principle that they struggled with.
The Prophets don’t need to participate in pornography to tell you to stay away from it, just as they don’t need to experience homosexual feelings in order to tell you to control them, and not to cater to them. Those that have had “selective hearing” to the Prophets in the past, have reaped disappointment.
Why is it any different now? What makes Israel and her Prophets any different now, than they once were? The real faithful, gay Mormons are those that adhere to the Prophets, and ‘care’ with what they have to say. Perhaps you feel they don’t provide the right answer? Well, I believe the Prophets are ordained unto that purpose, to provide us with the right answer! And scripture teaches us that basic principle.
On top of that, it is all based upon eternal principles. Whatever temptation or susceptibility stands in our way of achieving exaltation, it can be controlled, and not catered to. The more we cater to those feelings, the harder it becomes to avoid it. I’m sorry, but those struggling with homosexuality are not the only ones that have very powerful susceptibilities that they are struggling with. We ought to love, uplift, and support them just as we ought to, to others.
I do feel homosexuals need better treatment in the Church. That will come through education, and open and honest stories for the mainstream members of the Church to see. They need to be better understood. However, those that hope for the day that the Church and her members feel homosexual feelings are ‘okay,’ that day will never come. Homosexual feelings will not be okay, ever, in the eyes of God, nor would feelings of hate ever be okay! We are all seeking perfection, and any degree of sin will not be allowed. Thanks for the post.
se7en,
With all due respect, I think it is important to understand that many, many people reject the binary paradigm upon which your argument is based.
Prophets have always displayed a degree of fallibility and influence from the culture and time in which they live. Our current Prophets and Apostles are certainly no different. While I certainly beleive they are inspired, they are by no means infallible or omniscient- they remain mortals like you and I.
Opposition to the legal recognition and assimilation of homosexuals is based purely upon dogma such as what you have outlined.
The power of these videos is that they invoke empathy for sincere individuals who find themselves caught between the church they love and believe in and feelings and an orientation that they cannot supress or deny. The question for those of us who do not face this dilema is, how will we respond? Rejection? Patronizing acceptance (hate the sin, love the sinner)? Or empathy, understanding and acceptance? As I look to the teachings of Christ and his prophets regarding human relations, to me the answer is crystal clear.
Thanks for sharing your feelings and position on the subject.
To say that we should follow the Prophets, and that they provide the commandments we should obey means that they are infallible? I DO AGREE that they have a degree of fallibility and influence from the culture and time in which they live! In no way, did my “binary pardigm” even come close to claiming that.
I was simply saying that the consistent lesson of the scriptures is that we should follow the Prophet’s counsel, and not have an attitude of rejection concerning a principle, especially such an important one of homosexuality.
I do not picture a faithful member completely ignoring the counsel of a prophet concerning homosexuality, and rationalizing it by adhering to the fact that prophets are not infallible… “Oh they are wrong when it comes to their teachings on homosexuality, and when they say their feelings can be controlled.” Dangerous paths.
And I understand the power of these videos, and I sustain them and their purpose. And truly, yes, we must show SYMPATHY (empathy only if I have experienced such temptations myself, understanding, and acceptance of THEM, but not acceptance of homosexual feelings, for they are not of God.
I’m sorry you completely misunderstood my statement, and extrapolated it toward an extreme that I am well aware of, and not believing of. Thanks for the post.
7,
I am sorry you feel I misrepresented your position. Thanks for the clarification.
What do you mean when you say fallibility?
What reasons outside of dogma do you give for opposition to the assimilation and legal recognition of homosexuals and their committed relationships? (Beyond “The authorities have spoken on this subject…”).
Thanks again for your clarification and I look forward to your response.
se7en:
This is probably going to sound disrespectful, but it’s a risk I’ll take. I don’t intend to be disrespectful.
But my response to your response to me: Whatever. You’ve said nothing that I haven’t heard all my life or that I haven’t considered myself. I won’t let anyone define the experience of being gay for me–particularly those who are not themselves gay. I’m at peace with my creator and my family, and that’s all that really matters to me.
i want to return to a comment made by se7en:
“Elder Oaks was commissioned by the Church and the Prophet to answer these questions, and President Hinckley would completely agree with his statement.”
and to this comment by se7en:
“However, Elder Oaks is very correct. He is an inspired man that knows the doctrine of how we are each independent agents, or spirits, in this world, subject to the spirit of the devil or to the spirit of God.”
in a sl tribune article about the pr piece, oaks and wickman acknowledge that their comments related to homosexuality, including instructions to parents, were neither divinely inspired or institutionally qualified. basically, this was two old guys with a significant following pulling answers out of their….ahem…. thin air.
it was irresponsable, in my opinion, for oaks and wickman to assert in the initial interview that their comments were anything more than two lawyers’ personal opinions and observations.
The Salt Lake Tribune article in context: “[They] clearly represent the church’s perspective but make no claims to divine or institutional authority.”
It is ridiculous to assume they pulled these answers out of thin air. Certainly they do not need to say, ‘Thus saith the Lord’ in order for it to be true. Because they don’t make ‘claims to divine…authority,’ does not mean it is not inspired. Certainly there are differences between direct revelation and inspiration. Revelation is in degrees, just as everything else in the Gospel.
Elder Oaks was using the light he has in order to make statements he feels are true. And he has more light than you or I. To say that you have more light than he has, is not only a dangerous road, but the same thing less valiant saints were saying to their prophets all throughout time. Despite his experience and wisdom, I believe him to be a righteous and chosen vessel, through whom the Lord wishes to interpret His will. Thanks for the post.
And he has more light than you or I.
As a gay man, I’m quite willing to say that I have more light than Elder Oaks when it comes to homosexuality.
as friend of gays and lesbians, i am equally willing to say that i have more light than oaks on this topic. if nothing else, at least i am sympathetic to families on the topic and would not consider driving a wedge into a family over this.
perhaps se7en was referring to a dark light?
This video says that people are born gay and have no control over how they respond to same-sex attractions. In reality, there is a lot that people can do to understand the attractions and resolve the issues that cause the attractions. Thousands of people have overcome same-sex attractions. See http://www.evergreeninternational.org and http://www.exodus-international.org
I appreciate the comment by Bill Rice, and think that all the people criticizing the prophets are doing a very dangerous thing. I think of Noah and all the many people that didn’t listen to him. To all the people what he said was ridiculous. To some of you who have commented, you think that what Elder Oaks has said is ridiculous, but I fear for your live the next time a flood comes around, and maybe homosexuality is the very flood that will prevent you from attaining eternal life.
John Staley,
The flood never really happened. Your ill-will towards others, including homosexuals, is duly noted.
John Staley, where to start, where to start.
First, you are aware that the story of Noah is at best a story about the localized flooding of either the Black Sea or the Tigris river, right? And that before Noah got his new name, he was named Utnapishtim, right? At “worst” the Noah story is a pure myth – made up completely with parts plagiarized from the Epic of Gilgamesh, as part of some kind of morality tale that a bunch of Jewish scribes, post-babylonian exile, wrote as part of their scripture. I just wanted to get that out in the open before we start relying on fiction to dictate our behavior. For good measure, we ought to throw in Tolkien to consider also, since his prose and Elvish songs are significantly more lyrical, and, I dare say, more relevant.
OK, now where was I? Oh, yes. “Homosexuality is the flood that will prevent me from attaining eternal life.” Hmmm. There are too many assumptions there for me to deal with concisely, so let me just say that no, I don’t think treating fellow human beings with dignity and respect, regardless of their sexual behavior or orientation, would necessarily keep me out of heaven, if such a place even exists. Remember, we are taking metaphorical literature from an ancient culture as literal truth to describe your heaven. I prefer to think that I will go live with the Valar in Valinor after I leave this mortal existence. I always liked the Maia and Istari folks.