Overnight Letter to Monson

[_sunstoned]

The Church welcomes all Gay people who are willing to repent, and also those considering it.

The Church has no interest in discussing the acceptance of this behavior, which is of itself counter to the entire plan of salvation.

Homosexuality and the gospel of Jesus Christ are antithetical to one another.

It is conceivable that with the right kind of pressure things could change. After all, the everlasting covenant, a core belief was changed because of government pressure. Temple ordinances and Priesthood availability were other changes in core doctrine.
Who knows, there could be a revelation that allows gays to marry.

[_BishopRic]

I heard a spokesman for this group on the radio today. He said something like he hopes the Church will no longer 'emphasize hate and fear'. Never at any time has the Church done such a thing.

Hate and fear are manifest by rejecting those that are different and misunderstood. I believe this is exactly what the church has done with regard to GLBTs, and I agree that there has been some improvement towards love...but nowhere near as much as there needs to be. And there is no possible way to "hate the sin, love the sinner" as has been suggested. There must be an education for the leaders that homosexuality is not a choice, so how can it be a sin if they are born that way?

I am pleased Monson will at least have dialogue with them. That's a good sign of progress.

[Gadianton]

I just do not see their motivation for validation of their lifestyle within an organization that will never accept it.
The Mormon church is modeled for one type of member. Straight, married, and child bearing.

As one who has never married nor had children, though who feels the Mormon Church, and the gospel of Jesus Christ upon which it is based, is very much modelled for me, I take acception to the way you have steroetyped the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

Hate and fear are manifest by rejecting those that are different and misunderstood.

To think this, is to significantly lack understanding of a broad spectrum of motives (including very positive emotional impetus--such as love and a desire for peace and happiness) for so-called "rejection", and grossly over-simplifies and misconstrues the issue in ways highly uncharitable to the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_Mercury]

Hate and fear are manifest by rejecting those that are different and misunderstood.

To think this, is to significantly lack understanding of a broad spectrum of motives (including very positive emotional impetus--such as love and a desire for peace and happiness) for so-called "rejection", and grossly over-simplifies and misconstrues the issue in ways highly uncharitable to the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, do you know of anyone who has been in front of a court of love for homosexuality? Do you think said individual was treated fairly? Do you think said individual deserved to be there?

[_mcjathan]

I heard a spokesman for this group on the radio today. He said something like he hopes the Church will no longer 'emphasize hate and fear'. Never at any time has the Church done such a thing.

bcspace, I urge you to go and read this letter written by the father of a young gay man to Elder Packer:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/hardy.shtml

Do the leaders of the church stand at the pulpit and openly teach hate and fear? Perhaps not openly hate, but fear? Definitely! And hate is not far on the heels of fear. From the letter to Elder Packer:

Your doctrine of "choice" and "curability" is also at the core of why the Church and its members in reality view my son and those like him as latter-day lepers. If homosexuality (1) is not inborn, (2) has an element of choice, and (3) can be cured - then it must be able to be taught or suggested. Others must also be susceptible to being enticed or recruited. Our children are capable of being infected by these people and not becoming mothers and fathers. It is, therefore, a frontal assault on the family. The "hate the sin but love the sinner" platitude cannot disguise the fact that in reality the members of the Church are taught to loathe and fear our son and those like him. This qualified and synthetic "love" is nothing more than the few alms hurriedly and begrudgingly parted with to salve the Christian conscience, while never once entertaining the idea of actually descending into the leper pit.

The father continues to Elder Packer:

Last week a dear friend (formerly a bishop) reassured us that he still loved our son "even if he has made a choice to be this way." My son did not choose to be this way. This type of "love" born of duty and pity for his abominable choice acts like a slow but virulent cancer on our son's self-esteem.

Consider the church's policy that we expect no more of our single heterosexual members than we do of our gay members:

As the Church "progresses" on this issue, what we are hearing more and more from Priesthood leaders today is the idea that our son is acceptable so long as he practices life-long chastity. That is, of course, actually called celibacy, and while it's a convenient idea to advance, in practice it is virtually impossible to live. The distinction between chastity and celibacy seems always to be overlooked by Church leaders. You may recall that in his somewhat recent newspaper interview in California, President Hinkley compared the plight of homosexuals to that of the single sisters in the Church. To paraphrase, he said that the Church doesn't ask homosexuals to do anything it doesn't also ask of its other single adult members - to live chaste lives. But this simply isn't true. As a former bishop I have firsthand experience. We openly love and support our single brothers and sisters. We give them important callings - especially with our youth and children. We urge them to date, to flirt, to get crushes, to fall in love, to marry. We sponsor Ward and Stake activities and dances to get them together to accomplish this. We ask them to be chaste - until they find someone to share their life and intimacy with. We go out of our way to give them something of immeasurable value in the struggle to keep the law of chastity - hope - hope that no matter how difficult this emotional and physical loneliness is, it is temporary. For those with the least control over their situation, our single sisters, we give special encouragement and hope that they will find love, emotional intimacy and fulfillment in this life - and if not, certainly in the next.

We do not knowingly give homosexuals important callings - especially not with our youth or children who would be at risk of being infected and recruited. We forbid them ever to flirt, to date, to get crushes, to fall in love, to have a legally-recognized monogamous relationship. The image of a Tri-Stake Gay and Lesbian Gold-and-Green Ball is amusing. We ask them to be chaste - forever. No hope at all. The question of sexual intimacy aside - can you imagine having being denied the ability to become attracted to, flirt with, get a crush on, hold hands with, steal a kiss from, or fall in love with you wife? With all trace of romantic love and emotional intimacy denied you, with what would you fill the void to hold at bay a life of loneliness, emptiness, and despair?

We do have at least one historic example to look to. The Catholic Church has attempted to enforce celibacy on its clergy throughout the ages with success at some level (although we will never know what level). With what did they replace the emotional void? They had the love and adulation of the church membership, and authority and power. They were, in fact, the Bishops, Stake Presidents, and General Authorities. They were held next to deity - and their record is less than stellar. Imagine the celibacy success rate of a group defined by a loathsome and abominable "condition."

Imagine also, for a moment, if you were to stand up in front of the freshman class at BYU and announce that everyone present was being given a special calling to live a celibate life from then on. How many do you think would really be able to do it? How many empty and guilty lives and suicides would result? The Church has never taught the principle of celibacy. As a parent, I don't have the slightest idea how to begin teaching it. There are no manuals, no courses, no "For the Strength of Celibate Youth" cards to carry. There are no Priesthood, Relief Society, Sunday School, or Primary lessons on celibacy. On the other hand, following the teachings of the Church, we have raised our children in a home filled with open love, intimacy, loyalty and commitment between a couple. Our children know Carlie and I adore each other, and they want and need the same thing in their lives.

I find the church's current stand and teachings regarding homosexuality to be void of any Christ-like compassion. I think John Larsen nailed it: In 20-50 years, there will be so much pressure put on the church to change their policy that a "revelation" will be given. Gay rights is truly THE civil rights issue of today. In 50 years, our society (including members of the church) will look back at our day with the same disdain we now view the biases against African Americans 50 years ago.

Wondering No More

[_Trinity]

I just do not see their motivation for validation of their lifestyle within an organization that will never accept it.
The Mormon church is modeled for one type of member. Straight, married, and child bearing.

As one who has never married nor had children, though who feels the Mormon Church, and the gospel of Jesus Christ upon which it is based, is very much modelled for me, I take acception to the way you have steroetyped the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I suppose the Proclamation of the Family is completely irrelevant to you? And temple marriage ordinances?

[_wenglund]

Hate and fear are manifest by rejecting those that are different and misunderstood.

To think this, is to significantly lack understanding of a broad spectrum of motives (including very positive emotional impetus--such as love and a desire for peace and happiness) for so-called "rejection", and grossly over-simplifies and misconstrues the issue in ways highly uncharitable to the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wade, do you know of anyone who has been in front of a court of love for homosexuality? Do you think said individual was treated fairly? Do you think said individual deserved to be there?

The answer to your first question is, "no". And, since your other questions are dependant upon the first question being answered in the affirmative, they are rendered moot.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[_wenglund]

I just do not see their motivation for validation of their lifestyle within an organization that will never accept it.
The Mormon church is modeled for one type of member. Straight, married, and child bearing.

As one who has never married nor had children, though who feels the Mormon Church, and the gospel of Jesus Christ upon which it is based, is very much modelled for me, I take acception to the way you have steroetyped the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I suppose the Proclamation of the Family is completely irrelevant to you? And temple marriage ordinances?

You suppose incorrectly on both accounts.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

Hate and fear are manifest by rejecting those that are different and misunderstood.

To think this, is to significantly lack understanding of a broad spectrum of motives (including very positive emotional impetus--such as love and a desire for peace and happiness) for so-called "rejection", and grossly over-simplifies and misconstrues the issue in ways highly uncharitable to the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I don't feel it oversimplifies anything. I have many gay friends, and most were raised in the church. They were absolutely rejected, in every way, by the church. They did not develop good self-worth, being told constantly by church leaders that their feelings for others of the same sex was sinful.

Thank "God" that approach has recently changed! (And thank science for teaching us about it...)

When one is raised with that sort of complete shame and guilt, it is not easy to recover from it. Coincidently, a good friend's son is sitting in ICU as we speak from a drug overdose. He has had sexuality confusion, and was totally humiliated a few years ago by a black and white bishop (who didn't know what he was talking about) regarding his issues. He soon after started down the road to drug use to escape the shame he had, and now we hope he will live another day....

You can say what you will about this type of story, but it is all too common in Utah County particularly, and is certainly a major cause for the high drug use and suicide rate in the church. When one is taught that the way they are is an abomination, they struggle to feel loved.

The whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" phrase is analogous to telling a blossoming tree "you are beautiful, but that blossoming thing you do is wrong!" (to borrow the phrase from Carol Lynn Pearson's play "Facing East").

It is hate and fear, and I hope and pray the church will continue its evolution towards a culture of love.