President Uchtdorf's CES Fireside entitled "The Reflection in the Water" focused on how we often feel that we don't fit in. And that "too many go about their lives thinking they are of little worth when, in reality, they are elegant and eternal creatures of infinite value with potential beyond imagination." He used the story of the Ugly Duckling to express that "There will always be voices telling you that you are foolish to believe that you are swans, insisting you are but ugly ducklings and that you can’t expect to become anything else. But you know better. ... You are glorious and eternal. ... It is my prayer and blessing that when you look at your reflection, you will be able to see beyond imperfections and self-doubts and recognize who you truly are: glorious sons and daughters of the Almighty God.
I draw strength from this talk because as an active, temple recommend holding member who is unashamedly and openly gay I all too often look around at church feel very much unlike the swans around me. like the ugly duckling, I don't fit, but unlike the story of the ugly duckling I am given a chance of acceptance if I make severe changes to who I am. The current advice of the Brethren is for LGBT members to be celibate. (see "God Loveth His Children"). Please take a moment to suspend your current views on homosexuality and ask yourself, doesn't this seem counter to everything we were taught growing up?
First off, this life is preparatory for the next, it is here that we learn the basics of relationships, of being parents, of raising a family, etc. David O. McKay famously stated that "No other success can compensate for failure in the home" so what earthly successes can compensate for the failure of even having a home? How is remaining celibate a success at all when, by nature it is destroying any earthly possibility for having a home? Second, how many times have the words of Lincoln been repeated in our youth? "Whatever you are, be a good one." Or the story of the ugly duckling telling us to realize our full potential and then reach for it? In my family it was Emerson's "Hitch your wagon to the stars" that provided the inspiration to reach beyond our mortal potential.
If God made me gay who am I to change his design? If he doesn't desire me to be gay then He will, in his infinite atonement change me to be straight per his original design. Are we not instructed to look at our weaknesses, humble ourselves and let God turn them into strengths? Asking LGBT members to change themselves is just as ridiculous as asking the deaf to spend time trying again and again to hear. Like the deaf who find ways to live brilliant non-hearing lives, shouldn't we encourage LGBT members to do the same?
There are LGBT members of the Church who are border-line suicidal because each week, each day, each hour, they hear that they are an abomination either from others or they repeat the words inside their heads. I know I once tried to take my own life. As such I have seen how staggering the death-toll is, but even for those who survive, our actions are leaving these LGBT members handicapped just as if they were left-handed and we forced them to write only with their right-hand. To put this into sharper relief, Da Vinci was left-handed. Imagine how much we would have lost if he had been forced to go against his natural tendency to use his left hand. Would we have the art and science that fueled the renaissance? Without the renaissance we would likely be 200 years behind in the pursuit of religious freedom and the fulness of the gospel would most likely still be withheld.
Do we doubt God's power to perform miracles? Is our faith insufficient that we feel the need to do it all ourselves? I would hope not, and yet we persist in trying to force a singular view of sexuality onto all people when, if it be God's will He will change it. In the meantime wouldn't my life be a waste to wander in the cold alone like the Ugly Duckling barely surviving instead? Should I not embrace my sexuality as a healthy part of who I am looking at myself and acting well my part?
Perhaps this is too simple a response for something that's obviously been deeply thought about, but you state yourself that, "The current advice of the Brethren is for LGBT members to be celibate." If you believe that the prophet is God's mouthpiece then the solution seems plain - not easy, but plain.
ReplyDeleteWe (LDS) know that marriage between a man and a woman and the family are ordained by God. We also know that sex outside of marriage is forbidden by God. I'm sure you've had this all thrown at you before, but then it must be realized that God would not want you to act on your sexuality. There are many in the Church (I have an uncle and Sheri Dew, for some examples) that live celibate lives and I don't think such lives have been "a waste [wandering] in the cold alone." Just as we know that these faithful people will have the chance for families in the eternal future (if they continue faithful), perhaps it will then "be God's will ... to change it", maybe not, maybe you won't want it changed, I don't know how that will all work out. So to summarize my comment on your questions, I don't think a celibate life is equivalent with a wasteful life and as the brethren have advised not act on homosexual behavior (or sex outside of marriage), then it is a matter of whether or not you believe them to be men of God.
This is beautiful.
ReplyDeleteWe all have weaknesses and trials to deal with in this life. God will heal all things through Jesus Christ's Atonement, but I think we have the misconception that it will happen in this life. I believe that some of our issues won't be resolved until after this mortal life, and our trial is to endure until then.
ReplyDeleteThis is not about weaknesses and trials as much as it is about realizing that we can all be faithful members of the church while still trying to understand who we are and what our relationship with the father is going to be. I really loved your post David. I appreciated your candor and wish I knew more that faced the same problem with as much open and earnest desire to figure out what is right. I served with companion on my mission that was dealing with some of the same issues and I wish I had understood him better. I wish I had the answers, you know? It would be really nice to figure out what the design of God is. And maybe you, more than me, will be given that gift because it is so important to your eternal progress. Maybe I am making assumptions about what God would say but I honestly don't know. I wish you the best. I wish I knew more seekers of truth like you.
ReplyDeleteThis has been my favorite post on NAW. Thank you.
ReplyDeleteDavid,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post. I also appreciate your candor and feel for your situation. Here are a couple of my thoughts on the topic. Please feel free to challenge, qualify, or respond to my ideas.
You say, "Should I not embrace my sexuality as a healthy part of who I am...?"
I say yes, but not necessarily for the reason you present when you say "If God made me gay who am I to change his design?"
This is an oft repeated argument where what is natural is viewed as something that should also be acceptable. The reasoning, as you present, is that if God made something in a particular fashion, then it is just as it should be.
The problem here is how we define nature. Is being straight "natural." Is getting sick "natural." Is asceticism natural? Is hedonism? Is anger natural? Is sexual desire?
The point I want to make is that someone may be born with a mental illness, with a talent for music, with a sexual attraction to children, or with tendency to be intellectually curious, but such just because something is natural does not mean it is desirable or good. If a person can be born with equally desirable and undesirable traits, I would contend that naturalness does not correlate to desirability.
I think we have to use a measure other than what is natural to determine whether or not we as a society accept certain behaviors. Often when we speak of something as "natural" and therefore acceptable, we are not actually speaking of things as they occur in nature, but rather are speaking of normativity and the desire for and expanded socio-cultural normativity that will stop marginalizing certain behaviors, beliefs, attitudes, etc.
I would argue that we have to examine potential threats to the communities we exist in as we determine what actions and behaviors are deemed acceptable. It may be "natural" for a person to react with physical violence (watching little children seems to be adequate proof to me that violence is natural), but that does not mean such behaviors should be permitted.
Yes, being gay may be natural, but that does not mean it is socially desirable to allow those behaviors to exist. The reason, I think, that we should be more accepting of homosexuality is that it does not directly hurt anyone (as, say, violence would) and it is a consensual behavior that can be a longterm, stable, and socially beneficial relationship (as, say, pedophilia could never be).
Homosexuality may be natural, but we regulate "natural" behaviors everyday. It is not because homosexuality is natural that it should be accepted, but because it does no direct, demonstrable harm to society (or the church, for that matter).
I may be faithful and church-going and all that, but that doesn't mean that I don't hope for the day when homosexual Mormons will be included in full fellowship and able to enjoy the blessings of companionship.
Thoughts, anyone? How do you understand the relationship between nature and desirability? How do you determine whether or not something is "natural"?
David,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the post. I also appreciate your candor and feel for your situation. Here are a couple of my thoughts on the topic. Please feel free to challenge, qualify, or respond to my ideas.
You say, "Should I not embrace my sexuality as a healthy part of who I am...?"
I say yes, but not necessarily for the reason you present when you say "If God made me gay who am I to change his design?"
This is an oft repeated argument where what is natural is viewed as something that should also be acceptable. The reasoning, as you present, is that if God made something in a particular fashion, then it is just as it should be.
The problem here is how we define nature. Is being straight "natural." Is getting sick "natural." Is asceticism natural? Is hedonism? Is anger natural? Is sexual desire?
The point I want to make is that someone may be born with a mental illness, with a talent for music, with a sexual attraction to children, or with tendency to be intellectually curious, but just because something is natural does not mean it is desirable or good. If a person can be born with equally desirable and undesirable traits, I would contend that naturalness does not correlate to desirability.
I think we have to use a measure other than what is natural to determine whether or not we as a society accept certain behaviors. Often when we speak of something as "natural" and therefore acceptable, we are not actually speaking of things as they occur in nature, but rather are speaking of normativity and the desire for and expanded socio-cultural normativity that will stop marginalizing certain behaviors, beliefs, attitudes, etc.
I would argue that we have to examine potential threats to the communities we exist in as we determine what actions and behaviors are deemed acceptable. It may be "natural" for a person to react with physical violence (watching little children seems to be adequate proof to me that violence is natural), but that does not mean such behavior should be permitted.
Yes, being gay may be natural, but that does not mean it is socially desirable to allow those behaviors to exist. The reason, I think, that we should be more accepting of homosexuality is not because it is natural, but because it does not directly hurt anyone (as, say, violence would) and because it is a consensual behavior that can result in longterm, stable, and socially beneficial relationships (as, say, pedophilia could never do).
Homosexuality may be natural, but we regulate "natural" behaviors everyday. Let me reiterate: it is not because homosexuality is natural that it should be accepted, but because it does no direct, demonstrable harm to society (or the church, for that matter).
I may be faithful and church-going and all that, but that doesn't mean that I don't hope for the day when homosexual Mormons will be included in full fellowship and able to enjoy the blessings of companionship.
Thoughts, anyone? How do you understand the relationship between nature and desirability? How do you determine whether or not something is "natural"?
I found this article on the churches' website that I thought was pretty great. It gives an explanation of the churches' view and how to help those in your family who suffer from same-sex attraction.
ReplyDeletehttp://lds.org/ensign/1999/09/when-a-loved-one-struggles-with-same-sex-attraction?lang=eng&query=homosexuality