Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
As it was once before is probably now
Borrowed from Rob @ Scrum Central for my own archive here. If anyone has access to a more original online I would love to have a link. This one stops and makes you think hence why I have reposted Rob's excellent arranging of this piece.
Dear -----:
It was a real pleasure to greet and have a moment to visit with you and your wife here this past week. It is wonderful to see how enthusiastically you are received by the good people of Utah.
After listening to your talk on homosexual rights, I am very much concerned. Several others have expressed the same concern to me. It does not altogether harmonize with my own understandings regarding this subject; therefore, I thought to drop you a note--not in my official Church position, but as a personal friend. Only President Monson can speak for the Church.
I felt that your views were most liberal on this vital problem in light of the revelations, but nevertheless, I cannot deny you the right of your position if it represents your true belief and feelings.
I would like to suggest you read the teachings of leaders of the Church on this subject. President David O. McKay said homosexuality was even worse than heterosexual immorality and called it a "filthy and unnatural habit." Spencer W. Kimball called homosexuality a habit based on selfishness and caused by masturbation, said it was unnatural and contrary to the nature of God, and declared that no real love could ever exist in any homosexual relationship. He affirmed that it could be cured and suggested that those who failed to overcome it simply had not tried hard enough. As you may know, the organization called Evergreen International, which has unofficial Church backing, offers resources and support for members of the Church with this problem and who wish to change their sexual orientation.
When I reflect upon the statements of these Church leaders and remember what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as to the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations which all tolerated and supported homosexuality, I am sobered by their demise. They went contrary to the teachings of the prophets, unwittingly, no doubt, but nevertheless, the prophecy of Joseph Smith, " . . . those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by his counsel," has and will continue to be fulfilled.
In this respect, let me give you a personal experience. A friend of mine in Arizona--not a Church member--a great champion of homosexual persons--came to me after my call into the Twelve, and acknowledged President Monson to be a Prophet of God. He wanted me to ask President Monson to inquire of the Lord to see if the Lord would not lift the curse from homosexual persons and give them the privilege of same-sex marriage. I explained to him that the Lord had prohibited homosexuality; therefore, it was the Lord's responsibility--not man's--to change His decision. This friend of mine met a very tragic end by drowning. He was a most enthusiastic advocate of same-sex marriage privileges for homosexual persons and went about promoting for them all the privileges, social, opportunities, and participation enjoyed by the heterosexuals.
The statements of the prophets I reference above have been a helpful influence on me because they accord with my own understandings regarding the homosexual. I cannot, in my own feelings, accept the idea of public accommodations. I do not have any objection to recognizing the homosexual in his place and giving him every opportunity for education, for employment, for whatever contribution he can make to the society of men and the protection and blessings of God. Yet, all these things, in my judgment, should accord with the expressions of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
It is not right to force any class or race of people upon those of a different social order or sexual classification. People are happier when placed in the environment and association of like interests, sexual instincts, habits, and natural groupings.
I am enclosing a little booklet entitled "God Loveth His Children", which you may already have. If not, it is an enlightening exposition and quite well reflects the Church position in regard to these people.
I am not against legislation that would establish basic civil rights for the homosexual if it conforms to the views of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the other leaders of the Church according to the references above given. I fully agree that the homosexual is entitled to considerations also stated above, but not full social benefits nor marriage privileges with each other, nor should heterosexuals be forced to accept homosexuals into restricted heterosexual areas. In my judgment, the present effort to establish so-called "gay marriage" is vicious legislation. There needs to be some modification. The position of the Church cannot change until the Lord changes it Himself. Certainly I am not for exploiting gender-based or religious prejudices, but it is the present play-up to the homosexual voters which is unnecessarily creating problems that by a more firm, sensible approach can be avoided. There will always be a few die-hard leaders, but then that has always been true with any debatable issue. Principle--religious or otherwise--cannot be abrogated for political expediency.
Now, don't think I am against the homosexual, because I have several in my employ. We must understand and recognize their status and then, accordingly, provide for them. I just don't think we can get around the Lord's position in relation to the homosexual without punishment for our acts; going contrary to that which He has revealed. The Lord will not permit His purposes to be frustrated by man.
Please understand that I have a great respect and admiration for you, but because of my feelings I thought I should express myself as I have so you will know my personal position.
This letter is for your personal use only (also your wife's), and is not to be used in any other way. It does not require an answer.
With best wishes and success to you both always, I am
Faithfully your friend and brother
"Surprised? Astonished, even? Think this is a fake?
Well, it sort of is, but sort of isn't either. Replace all the gay references with "African-American" or "race" or what have you, as necessary, and take out one paragraph where I had to substitute some quotes from past LDS leaders, and you'll have the exact text of a 23 January 1964 letter from Mormon Apostle Delbert Stapley to Michigan Governor George Romney, in which Stapley essentially told Romney that his support for civil rights was contrary to God's will. Yet how much of this letter, as I've "amended" it, falls right into line with current Mormon thinking about God's gay children?"
Dear -----:
It was a real pleasure to greet and have a moment to visit with you and your wife here this past week. It is wonderful to see how enthusiastically you are received by the good people of Utah.
After listening to your talk on homosexual rights, I am very much concerned. Several others have expressed the same concern to me. It does not altogether harmonize with my own understandings regarding this subject; therefore, I thought to drop you a note--not in my official Church position, but as a personal friend. Only President Monson can speak for the Church.
I felt that your views were most liberal on this vital problem in light of the revelations, but nevertheless, I cannot deny you the right of your position if it represents your true belief and feelings.
I would like to suggest you read the teachings of leaders of the Church on this subject. President David O. McKay said homosexuality was even worse than heterosexual immorality and called it a "filthy and unnatural habit." Spencer W. Kimball called homosexuality a habit based on selfishness and caused by masturbation, said it was unnatural and contrary to the nature of God, and declared that no real love could ever exist in any homosexual relationship. He affirmed that it could be cured and suggested that those who failed to overcome it simply had not tried hard enough. As you may know, the organization called Evergreen International, which has unofficial Church backing, offers resources and support for members of the Church with this problem and who wish to change their sexual orientation.
When I reflect upon the statements of these Church leaders and remember what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah, as well as to the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations which all tolerated and supported homosexuality, I am sobered by their demise. They went contrary to the teachings of the prophets, unwittingly, no doubt, but nevertheless, the prophecy of Joseph Smith, " . . . those who are determined to pursue a course, which shows an opposition, and a feverish restlessness against the decrees of the Lord, will learn, when perhaps it is too late for their own good, that God can do His own work, without the aid of those who are not dictated by his counsel," has and will continue to be fulfilled.
In this respect, let me give you a personal experience. A friend of mine in Arizona--not a Church member--a great champion of homosexual persons--came to me after my call into the Twelve, and acknowledged President Monson to be a Prophet of God. He wanted me to ask President Monson to inquire of the Lord to see if the Lord would not lift the curse from homosexual persons and give them the privilege of same-sex marriage. I explained to him that the Lord had prohibited homosexuality; therefore, it was the Lord's responsibility--not man's--to change His decision. This friend of mine met a very tragic end by drowning. He was a most enthusiastic advocate of same-sex marriage privileges for homosexual persons and went about promoting for them all the privileges, social, opportunities, and participation enjoyed by the heterosexuals.
The statements of the prophets I reference above have been a helpful influence on me because they accord with my own understandings regarding the homosexual. I cannot, in my own feelings, accept the idea of public accommodations. I do not have any objection to recognizing the homosexual in his place and giving him every opportunity for education, for employment, for whatever contribution he can make to the society of men and the protection and blessings of God. Yet, all these things, in my judgment, should accord with the expressions of the Prophet Joseph Smith.
It is not right to force any class or race of people upon those of a different social order or sexual classification. People are happier when placed in the environment and association of like interests, sexual instincts, habits, and natural groupings.
I am enclosing a little booklet entitled "God Loveth His Children", which you may already have. If not, it is an enlightening exposition and quite well reflects the Church position in regard to these people.
I am not against legislation that would establish basic civil rights for the homosexual if it conforms to the views of the Prophet Joseph Smith and the other leaders of the Church according to the references above given. I fully agree that the homosexual is entitled to considerations also stated above, but not full social benefits nor marriage privileges with each other, nor should heterosexuals be forced to accept homosexuals into restricted heterosexual areas. In my judgment, the present effort to establish so-called "gay marriage" is vicious legislation. There needs to be some modification. The position of the Church cannot change until the Lord changes it Himself. Certainly I am not for exploiting gender-based or religious prejudices, but it is the present play-up to the homosexual voters which is unnecessarily creating problems that by a more firm, sensible approach can be avoided. There will always be a few die-hard leaders, but then that has always been true with any debatable issue. Principle--religious or otherwise--cannot be abrogated for political expediency.
Now, don't think I am against the homosexual, because I have several in my employ. We must understand and recognize their status and then, accordingly, provide for them. I just don't think we can get around the Lord's position in relation to the homosexual without punishment for our acts; going contrary to that which He has revealed. The Lord will not permit His purposes to be frustrated by man.
Please understand that I have a great respect and admiration for you, but because of my feelings I thought I should express myself as I have so you will know my personal position.
This letter is for your personal use only (also your wife's), and is not to be used in any other way. It does not require an answer.
With best wishes and success to you both always, I am
Faithfully your friend and brother
"Surprised? Astonished, even? Think this is a fake?
Well, it sort of is, but sort of isn't either. Replace all the gay references with "African-American" or "race" or what have you, as necessary, and take out one paragraph where I had to substitute some quotes from past LDS leaders, and you'll have the exact text of a 23 January 1964 letter from Mormon Apostle Delbert Stapley to Michigan Governor George Romney, in which Stapley essentially told Romney that his support for civil rights was contrary to God's will. Yet how much of this letter, as I've "amended" it, falls right into line with current Mormon thinking about God's gay children?"
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
The Heavens are Shut
Image by: cjohnson7 at http://flickr.com/photos/72621973@N00/1460568819
Please see Rob's excellent post and remembrance of Stuart Matis at Scrum Central.
I think it fitting to once again point out the lack of such desperately needed "modern revelation" amongst the Mormon church in regards to the issue of homosexuality. As Rob very astutely points out, the church has been swinging back and forth over this issue for decades. In consideration of the church's posturing amongst other Evangelical and Fundamentalist Christian groups so as to attain some degree of political clout, it is clear to see the church leadership is unwilling to officially pick a side and stick to it.
My devout LDS readers may be further offended, but one with eyes to see and ears to hear can see that in this issue alone the modern revelation channel the church subscribes to does not seem to be working. If it is the Lord's "one and only true church on the face of the earth" why is he not speaking to Mr. Monson, who is charged with speaking to the Lord on this important topic? How many more need to die needlessly before a convenient revelation comes? The heavens were never open to the leaders of the church. This is but another sad chapter in the history of Mormonism. The charisma of Joseph Smith with his quick and creative intellect to generate "revelation" at just the right time are but faded pages in the history of the church.
Monday, February 22, 2010
Scripture and intellectual dishonesty
In reading another fellow moho's blog the following topic came to mind. While no disrespect is intended to those still trying to reconcile with the church I find the mental gymnastics some go thru rather fascinating. The poster was commenting about a BYU professor who was of course a faithful member yet a thorough archaeologist. When of course having a discussion about the lack of archaeological evidence around the BoM it was asked of the professor how do you remain faithful when the "proof" doesn't exist. The professor's response was "I wear two hats."
The blogger went on to explain how they rationalized being in the church when it's keystone is not a book that may or may not be fiction, but solely upon faith, truth and evidence being irrelevant to that faith.
I find myself getting in to regular verbal sparring matches on Youtube with the blindly devout members and self proclaimed experts (aka "apologists") on the various vagaries of Mormonism. It is really quite amazing the intellectual tail chasing such people do to find the most unsubstantial "proof" they can and qualify it buy being fact and legitimate evidence. Such things by these apologists are usually only quotes of some other member or apologist working at one of the fiction mills associated with not proving the credibility of Mormonism and all its claims, but trying to poke wholes in legitimate and reliable science practices that disprove overwhelmingly the church. Really the whole thing and all the flows from it is nothing but one large and relentless ad hominem attack.
But the resulting issue remains. If the church is in fact true why does it need so many people running around shoring up the dam and putting out doctrinal fires of the past? I would think the church would not allow any defensive organizations to be "unofficially" spreading confusion through illogical and inconclusive findings and publishings. But of course the church has said official doctrine comes from the First Presidency with a *wink wink and a nudge to the apologists and general authorities. If Mormonism is true why the intellectual dishonesty? Are we not to be honest in thought, word, and deed? Wouldn't God have given some small scrap of something tangible to support faith? We still have existing cultures and places from Old and New Testament times but yet not a shred of anything from Book of Mormon history has ever been found or will ever likely to be.
I'm sure in due course we will be hearing from the faith promoting justification leagues of people (that get a biased BYU education to lend credibility to their unscientific garbage) who shall still go unnamed as I don't want them to get any publicity on my watch, will start rationalizing the spiritual customs of early american civilizations. Some how "The Great Spirit" is going to end up an apologist publication with more even more of the mental razzle dazzle saying "see Christ did come to the Americas - that's what the native cultures mean. This proves the church is true and why we need to give the remnants of the Lamanites the gospel again." Mark my words it's heading that way.
I'll use my favorite line again... "Truth needs no buttress."
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Church and Family
I happened to be thinking about what it is that ties us together. That thing that makes family what it is. My family is not what you would consider one of "closeness." If anything we probably try to avoid eachother on most situations. I'm sure my coming out hasn't helped in that area either. But I have stopped to ponder why is it that we are so isolated, to the point of not even regularly talking to one another.
Not surprisingly it seems many answers begin and end with the church. It was the church the brought us all together and it was also what has ultimately divided us. Despite proclamations on the family and other official sanctions approving of the stereotypical Mormon family things did not end up as church leaders have supposed they would be. The promises of the church have failed incredibly.
My dear mother, who has been gone for 12 years now (my has it been that long?), was the one that held it all together and the church was the glue. It was her faithfulness that kept it all pieced so carefully together. She ran herself ragged trying to make our home live up to the Mormon standards of family and it wasn't easy. Now that the tie in to the church is missing I suppose it is no wonder we've scattered to the winds.
My dad still goes to church on a fairly regular basis, but it seems more out of habit then out of sincereity as one of the faithful. My sister however has taken quite the church plunge. She seems to be determined to out mom our mom in the church faithfulness department and making darn sure her children are well established in the church "lest they be lost to the wolves." I think it is just over compensation.
The rift between us all seems to be an ever widening chasm. I once thought my sister, the scientist and teacher, was the sanest out of the family, but her blind faith in church doctrine trumped that of family and love. I doubt that the day will come where I will be accepted as I am by her. We all know what it's like to be shunned by our family members "hyper active" in the church. In they eyes of one of my own siblings, I am a walking "abomination" willingly sinning over a "choice to love men" instead of women. I am null and void to God's plan and the plan of salvation and my departed relatives weep for my poor choices. Or so I'm lead to believe.
How the "perfection" of Mormonism has soured my family to be distant and removed at best, and hateful, bigoted, biased, and unloving at the worst. This is the fruit of the "traditional Mormon family," that which espouses only heterosexuals make a family and good Mormon families should protect marriage from same sex couples.
When I'm with my BF there is more love there than I have felt in my entire some 30 years of existence. I can even begin to process what I feel in the relationship. But I know that's where I belong. And yet I think about what it is the people are trying to protect in blocking "gay marriage." There really isn't anything worth saving in my family unity. No amount of "protecting marriage and 'traditional family values' is going to change how I'm viewed or loved in my family. Neither will it change where Mormonism still fails to understand one of the most important commandments - unconditional love.
My family is who ever accepts me for who I am. Not where I come from and who I'm related to. I wish I had a bigger "family." I long to be with more of those who love me for me.
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Tommy's Story
Tommy shares with talk show host Laura Lavigne
his life journey of being gay and growing up in the Mormon Church.
Listen to Tommy's story here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
