Anderson Cooper’s much-ballyhooed announcement today reminded me of this blog post that has been making the rounds in the past few weeks. Titled “Club Unicorn,” it is the story of a gay Mormon man who has been happily married to a woman for ten years, having produced three lovely daughters by means of a “healthy and robust sex life.” The name “Club Unicorn” is a reference to the fact that gay men happily married to women are like unicorns – remarkably rare and probably mythical.
Less popular, but probably far more typical, is this story – gay Mormon man marries a woman; their sex life stinks, and both sink into depression and despair before divorcing as the gay Mormon dude leaves the church forever.
Since this blog is only popular when I discuss either Mitt Romney removing wasps nests and/or gay stuff, I feel I’ve been neglecting my duty to throw in my two cents.
I’ll begin, however, by throwing in Carlfred Broderick’s two cents.
Dr. Broderick, who passed away in 1999, was a fixture of the University of Southern California Sociology Department, as well as being an accomplished leader in the LDS Church. He was brilliant, insightful, and remarkably funny. Rumor is that Johnny Carson had him on the Tonight Show a number of times back in the day to chuckle about psychosocial sorts of things, but YouTube has no record of it, so we can’t be sure.
His book My Parents Married on a Dare is now out of print, but it includes an essay that has provided the greatest and clearest explanation of why bad things happen to good people that I’ve ever read. (You can read Broderick and skip the Book of Job.) His counsel is almost ineffably wise, and he sums it up thusly:
The gospel of Jesus Christ is not insurance against pain. It is resource in event of pain, and when that pain comes (and it will come because we came here on earth to have pain among other things), when it comes, rejoice that you have resource to deal with your pain.
That’s not my central point. But it’s such a good point that I couldn’t mention Dr. Broderick and deprive you of that wonderful gem.
But today, it’s Dr. Broderick’s insights into homosexuality that I want to use to kick off the conversation. In his book, he writes:
I think that I am as knowledgeable about the condition we call homosexuality as any heterosexual in the Church. My life has brought me into close association with many fine people whom, fortunately, I had the privilege of knowing well before I knew of their sexual orientation. My professional activities have led me to be a student of the research on this condition. As a priesthood leader and as a therapist I have worked with many people over the years as they have struggled with difficulties they face in resolving the tensions between the homosexual lifestyle and the gospel path.
I wish Dr. Broderick were still with us, as I’d love to get his thoughts on both the Unicorn Club, as well as those who strive to and fail to join.
He continues:
No one knows what determines that one individual will be drawn toward members of his own sex and another to the opposite sex. There is beginning to be some evidence that there may be a biochemical factor. Perhaps certain life experiences make the opposite sex seem more dangerous and less attractive to some than to others. Whatever the origins, I have never met a homosexual who remembered choosing to be so oriented. Each experiences it as an unbidden affliction.
When this was written in 1996, this was still a fairly controversial position for Broderick to take. Most Mormons still relied on Spencer W. Kimball’s The Miracle of Forgiveness as the authoritative voice on the subject. President Kimball, who was not president of the church when the book was written, implies that homosexuality is the product of excessive masturbation, and that “the glorious thing to remember is that it is curable.” Since there was very little evidence to suggest that was the case, Kimball simply insisted that homosexual “perverts” just weren’t trying hard enough.
Therefore to those who say that this practice or any other evil is incurable, I respond: “How can you say the door cannot be opened until your knuckles are bloody, till your head is bruised, till your muscles are sore? It can be done.”
I love and sustain President Kimball, and he accomplished a tremendous amount of good in his life.
I think, however, that he’s wrong here. Very, very wrong.
I think these words have done a great deal of damage to homosexual members with the figuratively bloody knuckles, bruised heads, and sore muscles he describes. They all have spent a whole lot of time wondering why, with all that effort, they remain attracted to people of the same gender. They followed those words with faith and ended up feeling like failures when they couldn’t reach the desired outcome. Those who try to change their orientation in order to stay in the church encounter tremendous frustration and despair, and far too many of them have end up taking their own lives as a result, especially after many church leaders, relying on this counsel, advised them that heterosexual marriage would “cure” them and make them straight.
It didn’t, and it won’t.
That position may make me look faithless to some Latter-Day Saints – how dare I question The Miracle of Forgiveness! – but the fact is that President Kimball’s thesis is not consistent with the current position of the church.
Consider Elder Jeffrey R. Holland’s words, which take a decidedly different tone:
[R]ecognize that marriage is not an all-purpose solution. Same-gender attractions run deep, and trying to force a heterosexual relationship is not likely to change them. [Emphasis mine.] We are all thrilled when some who struggle with these feelings are able to marry, raise children, and achieve family happiness. But other attempts have resulted in broken hearts and broken homes.
Thankfully, nobody’s talking about “curing” homosexuals anymore. The member of the Unicorn Club who describes his idyllic marriage never once tries to pretend that he’s no longer gay. He’s still attracted to men, but his love for his wife and children, along with his faith in the gospel, are more important to him than his sexuality, and he’s found a way to make that work.
And, for his part, Dr. Broderick insists that every homosexual can join the Unicorn Club.
Given that premise, it has nevertheless been my observation that those who act on those unbidden feelings lose the Spirit and before they know it are pulled step by step into a world at complete odds with the Kingdom. Those who earnestly seek to conform to the Plan are provided small miracle after small miracle until they are able to experience every blessing of the gospel. I have yet to find an exception to this rule. This puts me at odds with both those who treat men and women with homosexual feelings as though they were voluntary perverts and also with those who insist that there can be no genuine reconciliation between such persons and the highest standards of the Kingdom.
I want to believe this. And I almost do. But I’m not quite there.
I’ve seen the broken hearts and broken homes Elder Holland talked about. It seems my friends are all exceptions to Dr. Broderick’s rule. Furthermore, I’ve seen good people leave the church and embrace their sexuality and live lives far more joyful than they had when they were pounding against President Kimball’s unopenable door.
I think the church has moved in the right direction on this issue, but the current position is somewhat unstable. We’ve gone from “homosexuals are voluntary perverts” to “no one knows what causes homosexuality.” Well, what happens when we do know? What happens when we finally acknowledge, as I think we must, that sexual desire is innate and seldom subject to change? Can we do that and still insist that some people remain celibate or closeted their entire lives?
That’s not a rhetorical question, because the answers are a lot more complicated than advocates on either side care to admit. For example, my church teaches, and I fully believe, that the greatest blessings to be had in this life and in the next are all associated with posterity. Homosexuals, regardless of how wonderful, loving, and committed their relationships may be, are incapable of producing children with each other. We teach that in the resurrection, our bodies will be perfected, so infertile married couples will have the opportunity to create a posterity in the life to come. Basic anatomy offers no such solace to gay couples. Indeed, biology cruelly reserves all the goodies in this life and the next for the straights.
So should all gay people strive to join the Unicorn Club? What happens when, as is frequently the case, it just doesn’t work? Can the LDS Church provide some kind of righteous outlet for homosexual desires and maintain the integrity of its family-based theology?
I offer all these questions and provide no answers, because I have none. If someone can explain it to me, I’d very much appreciate it.
I don’t think there is an answer because each of us are individuals and each of our life experiences are vastly different. Even if they are the same, we respond to them differently. That is the inherent value in the gospel, we are all unique children of God. Having said that, I have many friends who also are homosexual and most of them don’t remember when they weren’t. I do have one friend who chose that lifestyle after a lifetime of physical, sexual and emotional abuse at the hands of every man in her life.
I am not sure striving to join the Unicorn club is a universal solution. Mostly because each of our trials are going to be different. I think the key is obedience and righteousness to the commandments. I feel a lot of sympathy for those who are homosexual in the church who choose to obey the law of chastity rather than live a fulfilling life with a partner and lose the blessings of the gospel. It must be a very lonely life in many ways. I know their lives seem joyful that have left and choose to be an active gay person but I can’t help feeling like there will come a day when they recognize things that are missing in their life. However, the laws of God are inherent and eternal – they apply to everyone. The blessings that come with them are also inherent and eternal and also apply to everyone. I think it is a matter of trust, sacrifice and love for a Savior whose atonement heals all things, esp. pain and sorrow within.
You will probably say this is easy for me to say and believe because I don’t have to make that choice and you are right. But I have choices I have to make every day also that quite possible someone else doesn’t and I know God expects me to choose His way in my trials and struggles also.
Anyway just a few thoughts. Thanks for provoking those today.
Thanks, as always, for your thoughts, Tami. You cut right to the heart of the matter.
I obviously don’t have all the answers, either. But I have 3 comments:
(1) You said you want to believe what Dr. Broderick said (in the last quote you included), but that you cannot. I think you are reading too much into what he said. Where did Dr. Broderick insist that all homosexuals can join the Unicorn Club? I don’t see it in the quotes you provided.
I think this is the part you may be misreading:
“Those who earnestly seek to conform to the Plan are provided small miracle after small miracle until they are able to experience every blessing of the gospel.”
Earnestly seeking to “conform to the Plan” is not necessarily trying to have a happy heterosexual marriage (unless there is more context to his quote that you are not providing). Note that the sentence immediately before this one was about how those who “act on unbidden feelings lose the Spirit” and are pulled away from the church. So it seems to me that all Dr. Broderick was saying about conforming to the Plan is that homosexuals should NOT “act on unbidden feelings and lose the spirit.” That is his recommendation … to not disobey the commandments of God by acting on unbidden feelings. I don’t think that’s a controversial recommendation for any believing member of the LDS Church.
I don’t see your views, as expressed in this post, as being at odds with any of the quotes from Dr. Broderick you provided.
(2) You asked: “What happens when we finally acknowledge, as I think we must, that sexual desire is innate and seldom subject to change? Can we do that and still insist that some people remain celibate or closeted their entire lives?”
You are suggesting that the LDS Church might have a problem once we learn more about the true source of homosexuality. I don’t follow this logic.
Personally, I agree that homosexuality is at least partially (if not largely or entirely) innate. And I will have no problem if and when the LDS Church says as much.
But there LOTS of times when we, as children of God, are born with desires to engage in behavior that is at odds with His commandments. For example, I was born with a desire to have sex with lots of women. Not just my wife. But lots of women. And I even had desires to have sex with women before being married. (I’m no different than most heterosexual men in this way, so don’t worry Mom, this isn’t some kind of confession.) But the commandments of God teach me to behave differently. Others are born with a desire to have sex with children (as perverted as that is). But the commandments of God teach otherwise. And homosexuals are (likely) born with a desire to have sex with individuals of the same gender. But the commandments of God teach otherwise. (Note that I am not comparing pedophiles to homosexuals any more than I am comparing pedophiles to myself … which is to say that I’m not making any moral comparison whatsoever … just for the record.)
So if/when the LDS Church acknowledges that homosexual feelings are innate, I don’t see how that will create a problem for the church.
Of course, I acknowledge that the practicality of being a heterosexual man and only having sex with my wife is very different than being a homosexual man not having sex with anyone. I get that. I’m not trying to be insensitive to that. And I agree that the LDS Church needs to help these individuals. These homosexual individuals are important to the church, and more importantly, are important to the Lord. So the Church must actively help these people.
But there is no theological issue created when the church acknowledges that homosexuality is innate. To answer your question … “Can we do that and still insist that some people remain celibate or closeted their entire lives?” … the answer is YES. Just as the church acknowledges that my desire to have sex with many women is innate and still insists that I behave consistent with God’s commandments.
(A better, albeit imperfect parallel would be to compare homosexuals in the church with heterosexuals who never marry. Both have innate sexual desires that will go unfulfilled. Again, the comparison is still imperfect, but I’ll leave it at that.)
(3) I have no idea what you were saying when you said this:
“We teach that in the resurrection, our bodies will be perfected, so infertile married couples will have the opportunity to create a posterity in the life to come. Basic anatomy offers no such solace to gay couples. Indeed, biology cruelly reserves all the goodies in this life and the next for the straights.”
I don’t see any difference between (a) the infertile couple incapable of having children in this life, (b) the homosexual individual who does not have children in this life, or (c) the heterosexual individual who never marries and never has children.
Why would resurrection (or anything else) allow (a) and (c) to have eternal posterity, but not (b)? I don’t follow that logic … to the point that I think you are mistaken here (although I’ll await your further clarification).
Andy
Very insightful comments, Andy. My response:
1) I agree with your assessment of Dr. Broderick’s words here with one caveat – Dr. Broderick says that, without exception, those who are tempted by homosexuality can experience small miracles that eventually allow them to “experience every blessing of the gospel.” Certainly every blessing of the gospel would include the ordinance of celestial marriage, and in order for them to “enjoy” that blessing, they would have to become members of the so-called Unicorn Club. I find it difficult to interpret these words any other way.
2) A denial of the innateness of homosexuality has historically been at the heart of the church’s opposition to such. Consider more of Spencer W. Kimball’s words on the subject: “’God made me that way,’ some say [i.e. homosexual] … This is blasphemy. Is man not made in the image of God, and does he think God to be ‘that way’?”
Just two years ago, Elder Packer reiterated this position as follows:
“Some suppose that they were pre-set and cannot overcome what they feel are inborn tendencies toward the impure and unnatural. Not so! Why would our Heavenly Father do that to anyone? Remember, He is our Father.”
This statement no longer appears in the printed version of the talk, as it is inconsistent with the church’s current position, which does not preclude the possibility that homosexuality has an innate component to it.
However, I do agree with you in believing that the cause of homosexuality may not be exclusively biological. I also concede that sexuality can be fluid, and that some people can see their degree of attraction to either gender fluctuate over time. At the same time, I also believe that there are some people who are exclusively homosexual, despite their best efforts to change.
The problem with conceding that their may be some unchangeable, innate aspect to homosexuality is that we are then forced to counsel gay members that there will never be any righteous outlet to their desires, either in this life or the life to come. Heterosexual members who never marry still have the promise that these blessings will come to them hereafter. I think that’s a significant difference.
3) The difference between those three examples is biological. The heterosexual who never marries because they had no opportunity, along with the infertile heterosexual couple, are promised that the blessings of posterity will be theirs in the next life – presumably by the same biological means that fertile couples have them in this life. Yet basic biology precludes two people of the same sex from reproducing with each other, and, unless there is some significant biological changes in the next world that we don’t know about, that same roadblock will exist in the hereafter, too. My point, then, is that it would be very difficult to reconcile homosexual unions with the doctrine of eternal posterity.
When a unmarried heterosexual person is counseled that even if they never marry in this life, they will be able to “experience every blessing of the gospel” if they remain faithful … I do not think the counselor is talking about the fulfillment of their sexual urges. I would not consider sexual gratification a “blessing of the gospel.” So when Dr. Broderick says that, “those who earnestly seek to conform to the Plan are provided small miracle after small miracle until they are able to experience every blessing of the gospel” … I don’t think he’s telling that person that if they just remain faithful long enough that all their sexual desires will be fulfilled. No, not at all. He’s talking about eternal blessings. Which leads us to the next issue …
If we are so certain that the Resurrection will solve the problems of the infertile couple, who is to say that it won’t also solve the “problems” of the homosexual individual? (I know it’s not politically correct to say that being homosexual is a “problem,” but work with me here.) That is, are we so certain that homosexuals will still have the same physical attractions, given that the Resurrection makes us physically perfect? I don’t know. I don’t know if you know, or if there is an official answer. But the underlying assumption of most of your comments (in the original post, and especially in response to me and in response to StrikeEagleIII) is that the Resurrection will have no effect on one’s sexual preferences, thereby making some eternal blessings out of reach for homosexual individuals. Do you know that to be true? (Honest question.)
I know the easy answer is that we will carry our personality, habits, etc. with us into the hereafter. But I’m not so sure that applies to homosexual desires, especially if those desires are innate (rather than learned).
Ultimately, if you believe homosexuality is innate (and it seems you and I both agree that it is, at least for many), then it seems there MUST be a mechanism through which ALL eternal blessings can be realized for these good people. Otherwise, some of God’s children would have been born on this earth without the potential to receive all of God’s eternal blessings … and that is not possible. So while I may not understand all the mechanisms, they must certainly exist.
All of this boils down to what sexuality will be like in the next life, and I think we can both safely say that neither of us have a clue. I will say, however, that sexual intimacy is very much a part of celestial marriage, and since all good things come from God, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss it as not being one of the blessings of the Gospel.
The other question, one which once again neither of us have the answer to, is how much our sexuality defines our personality. I don’t think it’s a cosmetic component of who we are, like the color of our hair. Would a gay man who woke up and suddenly found himself attracted to women instead be the same person he was before he had gone to sleep? I’m not sure many gay people are thrilled with the idea that their sexual desires are a “problem,” and that this basic part of who they are will be radically altered in the next life.
I don’t believe in the next life a magic wand is going to be waved over anyone and magically change their sexual orientation or any other characteristic or behavior (see Alma 41:3-7,10-13). I think our sexuality only defines our personality as much as we let it. (It’s not the specific struggle that defines us, it’s our response to it.) Those who want to stay homosexual in the next life will stay homosexual and will experience the consequences of that choice. I absolutely believe if a person has homosexual inclinations and WANTS to overcome them, they will be enabled to–the same as they can overcome any other desire IF they want to. They may not be able to do it in this life, but eventually they will. That is what the atonement is all about.
In response to your comment: “I’m not sure many gay people are thrilled with the idea that their sexual desires are a ‘problem,’ and that this basic part of who they are will be radically altered in the next life.” People who smoke and allow themselves to become addicted to tobacco or other substances may not be thrilled that in the next life they will not be able to satisfy those cravings, but so it will be. Guys who like to sleep around may not be thrilled that they will no longer have those procreative powers in the next life, but so it will be if they don’t change. It makes no difference if those tendencies are innate.
This may sound more harsh than intended, but I think one fundamental problem with our society today is we always want to think of ourselves as exceptions to the rule or that somehow we’re a “special case”. With God there are no “special cases”. The standard is very clear and it applies universally to everyone. The purpose of this life is not for us to figure out how we can fit or change the standard to ourselves–it’s how we can change ourselves to fit the standard, even if we can’t (and won’t) fully make those changes until the next life. Remember the purpose of this life is to overcome the natural man (Mosiah 3:19) which will take far longer than the short few years any of us are here.
I have thought a lot about this over the last week in regards to a Facebook post my brother (who has declared homosexual). Couple scriptures have come to mind in regards to this:
“There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” (1 Cor 10:13)
“Therefore, be not afraid of your enemies, for I have decreed in my heart, saith the Lord, that I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy.” (Doctrine and Covenants 98:14)
“And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell; And we will prove them herewith, to see if they will do all things whatsoever the Lord their God shall command them;” (Abraham 3:24-25)
Everyone in life has challenges. I do not know why some people’s challenge is dealing with a sexual orientation that is contradictory to what God has declared. I DO know that the law of chastity is clear and as such I do not believe there will ever be an “outlet” for homosexuals just as I do not believe there will ever be an outlet for single heterosexuals who very much desire to marry, but never are able to for one reason or another. There simply can’t be–such an outlet would be fundamentally contrary to God’s plan for our personal development. Ask Sheri Dew how lonely her life has been and what she has done make the best of her not marrying.
I think it very foolish for a homosexual man to marry a woman (or vice versa) in hopes that it will “cure” his homosexuality just as I think it’s foolish for a heterosexual to marry someone for any other reason than wanting to be joined to that person for eternity. Much to my dismay, I did not marry until I was 32. When I got home from my mission at 24 I knew exactly who I wanted to marry, but she said no and life moves on. During the time between those events I was often told, “If you’re not happy single, you’ll never be happy married” I absolutely believe that is true. Reminds me of a quote (I think it was Jeffrey R. Holland speaking of Hugh B Brown) “I was always told that when I got married I would come to the end of my problems, so I got married only to find they were talking about the front end…” I haven’t read the complete blog of the gay man who is happily married, but I would be willing to bet he didn’t just marry his wife in hopes of “curing” his homosexuality.
My mission president said and I believe it, that one of the great tests of mortality is how we use the procreative powers we have been given–including both complete abstinence before marriage (heterosexual marriage, one man, one woman), and then responsibly using them after marriage to bring children into this world and to also draw husband and wife closer to each other. We came to earth to become like God. We must keep that in focus. If we focus only on this earth life, then yes telling a homosexual it is better to not marry seems unreasonable just as seems unreasonable to tell people to live any sort of self-sacrificing life if there is no hope of any sort of benefit in the next life (see 1 Corinthians 15:19). As members of the church, though, we should have an eternal perspective to help work through this or any other challenge that is limited to mortality (and like I mentioned earlier, how is this any different than heterosexual singles who WANT to marry but don’t have that opportunity?)
I appreciate your thoughts on this. The difference, as I mentioned in my comment to Andy, is that Sheri Dew and others who have never married through no fault of their own are told that those blessings will be available to them in the next life. So there will be an outlet for their desires – just not in mortality. Homosexual members are told that there will never be such an outlet, forever and ever, worlds without end. It’s a much starker fate.
I think that perhaps Sexuality is not the issue. Perhaps Obedience is the only real issue at play here. What of the many
faithful, heterosexual, LDS priesthood holders who, for a variety of reasons, do not have sexual relations with their spouses? Are they left unfulfilled, lacking, doomed?
True conversion is a gift of the spirit, and comes through repentance and consistent obedience. Sexuality (lots of it or none of it) is not really part of the equation, be it homo or hetero. Obedience saves not because of any inherent magical properties, but because it changes our very nature.
Thank you for your well thought out and thorough analysis of a prickly issue. I have just one bone to pick.
“We teach that in the resurrection, our bodies will be perfected, so infertile married couples will have the opportunity to create a posterity in the life to come.”
I don’t think that the doctrine is so clear on this. Yes, upon resurrection, our bodies will be perfected BUT the method and means of reproduction aren’t necessarily the same as they are here on earth. We are taught that resurrected bodies have no blood. Therefore how could an resurrected immortal body give birth to a mortal body of flesh and blood. I don’t know the answer to that question but in my mind it means that there is just a lot that we don’t know about the next life and how we will receive our eternal increase. And to make policy arguments based upon our limited understanding is myopic and problematic.
I’ve read the OP and all the discussion that’s followed, and I need to chime in here.
Just so you know. I was born and raised in the church. I’m a direct descendant of one of the Three Witnesses. Served a mission, graduated BYU, married in the Salt Lake Temple, bishopric and high council before I was 30, temple supervisor and sealer in my early 30’s. For years read everything from Nibley and FARMS and FAIR I could get my hands on. As outside legal counsel to the church, I worked with numerous General Authorities, several of whom I still count among my friends. So I think I can speak with some credibility here.
I’m also gay, and you guys are all talking about something you have no experience with and no real comprehension of. So here’s some additional perspective.
There’s a reason most gay Mormons leave the church. It’s because we realize that Mormon theology rejects even the concept of homosexuality, that there’s no place for us in the Mormon system, and that we can’t trust “prophets, seers and revelators” whose teachings over the last 100 years on this topic have been so conflicting and contradictory that we’d laugh at them if they hadn’t had such fatal and tragic results in so many lives. So all the discussion in the comments here which unquestioningly assume the standard LDS doctrinal framework for addressing homosexuality are pointless. We reject their premises, the scriptural exegesis on which they rest, and we don’t trust the leaders who push them.
We are sick of being pitied, of being told we’re “struggling” or that we have a “burden.” That’s patronizing and offensive, and many times Mormons don’t even realize that’s how they’re coming across. But we do, and we resent it. We are not broken, and once we get past the shame artificially imposed on us by Mormon teachings and culture, we overwhelmingly affirm that even if we could take a magic pill to become straight, we wouldn’t do it. It is so miraculously wonderful to finally reach a place of full and healthy self-acceptance that we can’t imagine wanting to be otherwise.
But current Mormon teachings and culture would deprive us of that. They are not psychologically or emotionally healthy for us, so we leave. And most of us never, ever want to go back. We can honestly say “No, if heterosexual temple marriage is required for exaltation then we don’t want it. That would be eternal hell for us, not heaven.” We find new spiritual homes in places that accept us the way we feel, as deeply as any Mormon “testimony,” that God made us and is pleased with us. We trust that the same honest, prayerful approach that Joseph Smith adopted will also give us the individual inspiration for our own lives which the Mormon church is currently incapable of.
So all of your discussion and commentary here is no doubt well-intended. But please understand that for the great majority of gay Mormons and gay ex-Mormons, it’s wasted effort. We don’t accept the premises, we don’t trust the leaders or the doctrine, we don’t want the promised “rewards,” and we’ve run out of patience with efforts to shame us into being something we’re not and never can be. If Elder Whitney Clayton of the Presidency of the 70 was right when he told me last week that the church will “never, ever change” its “non-negotiable, foundational doctrine” that marriage is between a man and a woman, then there will never be an equal place for us in Mormonism and it’s futile for us to wait around for one. So we leave, and we’ll continue to leave. And after all the no doubt well-intended discussion here, that’s the real bottom line.
These are the stories that break my heart.
“So all of your discussion and commentary here is no doubt well-intended. But please understand that for the great majority of gay Mormons and gay ex-Mormons, it’s wasted effort.”
I don’t doubt that this is true.
But there are also many gays within the church who have put the Lord’s teachings, as they understand them and as taught in the LDS Church, above all else. And it is these individuals we hope to help, as imperfect as our efforts and as limited as our understanding may be.
So you’ll have to tolerate us as we fumble around in an effort to reach out to those individuals, even if you do not count yourself among those within our reach.
Thanks for your perspective. God bless.
And, Andy, after you reach out to them, what can you offer them, and on what basis, that you believe would persuade them to stay? This is an honest question.
I second this. (I wish I had a “like” button.)
It seems evident to me that those within the Church (gay or straight, such as those posting here) are the ones struggling.
Many of us who are gay and have left the LDS Church’s prescription for life have found a salvation that most of us never expected to find in this life (our pessimism attributed to our upbringing, being taught that being gay is to struggle through life, living with a thorned side).
In the words of Mercy Me, “This life was meant to shine.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4xm2mtDj2c). And, like Rob, my life has never been as bright as it is now.
“It seems evident to me that those within the Church (gay or straight, such as those posting here) are the ones struggling.”
If by “struggling” you mean that I don’t have all the answers, then yes, I’m definitely struggling. But by that definition, aren’t we all struggling? You included?
So join the “Unicorn Club” to have children? Sperm donor, adoption, surrogacy?? The only way the “Unicorn Club” works is if the man (or woman) is Bi-sexual, in deep disonnect with their own body & desires and had very little sexual contact with the same sex. Sexuality and the way were are born preceeds any words MEN wrote in a book. I can’t imagine how it would be to be married to a man who does not find me or anyone who looks like me sexually attractive. I would not wish that mythical life on anyone.