The Fire of Faith

This post addresses my thoughts regarding, not only the recent policy clarifications in Handbook 1, but the overall nature of the doctrine of Christ, our place within it, and what we can expect as disciples of the Sacrificed God.

It is not meant to be kind, or empathetic, or consoling. It is an exploration of Christ's doctrine as I understand it. I hope it can help someone, even though I expect it will be harsh in places.

In watching (mostly) the discussions going on about the policy changes, one thing is clear. So very, very few of us understand doctrine. I'm not claiming to any special understanding, but I have studied the scriptures long and hard, pondered them, and applied them to times in my life that nearly broke me. So I do know a few things about struggling to reconcile my life with God's word and the policies of the Church. I'm going to get a bit personal here, in the hopes that my experiences can inspire someone to seek understanding, rather than justice.

Punishment without Volition

One of the hardest lessons I had to learn from my marriage was about agency. We often talk about agency like it's "free will" or the power to choose. But it is inarguable that the vast majority of us are very much "punished...for Adam's transgression." Here on earth, mortality is one long experience of being punished for the mistakes and sins of others.

Most of my tear-streaked nights were spent wrestling over the effect my divorce was going to have on my children and my eternity. I stayed in a marriage which had nothing to offer me almost from day one because I believed in the covenants I had made in the temple. I believed that if I was patient, things would work out for good. I thought that my ex would eventually see how much a covenant life had to offer, that he would be able to forgive me my failure, and we could work together towards God.

But that wasn't to be.

Taking it Personally

I was writing in my personal journal. When I finished, I realized there is something about my heart and mind right now that other people might need to hear. I try to be vulnerable here. It is easier, behind the protection of an online persona, to share the uglier parts of my personality. The difficult part of trying to serve God. My insecurities and doubts.

I know that distance makes it easier to hear, and not to worry about me. Because I'm ultimately all right. I've been through a refiner's fire, and I am stronger than a little sadness. But I find that allowing myself to be sad is a powerful thing. It helps me grow, keeps me humble, and gives other people a chance to feel safe and acceptable. Hiding the bad parts only makes us all feel like we can never measure up. So here it is:

Abomination of Desolation and a Little Fig Tree

Before you try to read into what I'm about to say, and boil my words down to a "HATEZ TEH GAYZ," I'm going to fully admit that my words are about the legal ratification of gay relationships (vis a vis gay marriage) BUT that they are about much, much more than that. Most of you who read this will call me a bigot, insist that my opinions come from hatred, and soon (once you have power to do so) you will probably physically revile and attack me and my family.

So be it. I hope that when the time comes, I will be able to face it with courage and kindness.

For a long time, I have been fairly silent on the subject of gay marriage/civil unions. I probably will be again, once I've posted this. The only chance I had to vote on it so far, I voted to support gay marriage/civil unions. But my opinions have changed since then, and I become more sadly convinced of them as time goes on. My opinions haven't changed because of gay marriage, or gays, or aversion to homosexual attraction. They have changed because I've been taught of a much larger picture of the role of religious beliefs in a public sphere, and it is that larger picture I wish to address.

The "Frozen" Bandwagon; Whereon Sitting, Our Bums Get Cold

A flurry of criticisms, cross-criticisms, and reasoned posts about the movie Frozen have been spinning around like a swirling storm in the wake of the movie's acclaim. This movie deeply disappointed me, not because of any hidden agenda or scary subtext, but because it wasn't enough. The plot was 100% predictable, I knew exactly what was going to happen before it did, and with such a stunning playground of deep relationships to utilize, it lived far below its potential. (Note: my prediction for the next step is a sequel about Anna's marriage and a love interest for Elsa, which will only ruin it more.)

And yet, despite my disappointment in the outcome, there are a few places that the glorious potential of the storyline peeks out, just to show us what we're missing. I don't want to harp on the disappointing parts, I want to explore that great part, and maybe contradict some of the concerns.

Chicken Politics

"For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off: that make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.

"Therefore thus saith the Lord, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale. But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel.

"They also that erred in spirit shall come to understanding, and they that murmured shall learn doctrine."

—Isaiah 29:20-24

I don't like politics. And this recent embarrassment surrounding Chick-fil-A demonstrates exactly why.

In case someone reading this doesn't know, my understanding is that basically the CEO of Chick-fil-A, Dan Cathy, was interviewed by Baptist Press, and "came out" in support of preserving one-man-and-one-woman marriage law. Those who support changing the law to include same-sex couples decided to boycott Chick-fil-A. So, those who side with keeping the law as-is decided to turn out en masse to buy chicken sandwiches.

Whereupon, people supporting same-sex marriage have decided to criticize the event, and pull out the usual name-calling of bigotry, hatred, callousness, etc.

And I think that both sides should be embarrassed.

What Love Isn't

In the wake of a failed marriage and two of the most loving children I could ask for, I have had reason to think about love, what it is . . . and what it isn't. I have heard a great deal of rhetoric on love lately, not restricted to but certainly a part of one side of the debate on homosexual marriage.

The recent participation of many members of the Church, some of whom are my friends and acquaintances, in a Salt Lake City Gay Pride march has given me even more reason to think over this eternally debated and perplexing topic. While I sympathize with the efforts these members are trying to make, and also want to communicate somehow to those with a different ideological stance than mine that I care for them as people, though I fear for the consequences of their choices, I have some thoughts that will be uncomfortable for many.

I do not apologize for them, as they are based on experience and wisdom gained through a great deal of personal loss and sacrifice. Before you continue reading, I will remind you now that while disagreeing points of view are tolerated and even welcome on this blog, insults and other forms of denigration are not. I have many more important things going on in my life than your sensibilities, and while I generally try to be patient and understanding, I don't have the emotional resources or the time to deal with immaturity right now.

There are places in the internet for you, this is not one of them.

Gay Marriage?

Prologue:
I recognize that some are going to want to attack me for these thoughts because they don't agree with them. Before you do so, know that such aggressive behavior has already done more to hurt your cause than help it.

I'm not entirely at peace with either side of the gay marriage debate. What I do know for certain is that I don't want anyone unable to live without physical or undue emotional harm because of their moral decisions unless those moral decisions directly hurt another person's ability to live without physical or undue emotional harm. Hurting someone in any way just because they don't agree with you is inexcusable.

This is rambling, because rambling is exactly how I feel about this issue. I can see good and bad to both sides of the argument. Originally, I supported legalizing gay marriage. But, as I've listened to the debate, the pro-gay-marriage side has made me a lot more hesitant to support it. Their arguments for gay marriage have done more to frighten me about the possible ramifications than the arguments against have convinced me.

"Sexual orientation is not what I do, it's what I am. Either accept what I do, or you are rejecting me, and are my enemy."
For me, sexual orientation IS a choice. I choose as a woman, not only to be attracted to men, but to be attracted to a certain type of man. For me, having sex is even more of a choice. Sometimes it is a more difficult choice than other times, but it is always a choice.

I believe sin is anything that turns us away from God and His purposes. I believe homosexuality is a sin. So is extra-marital sex between a man and a woman. So is incest. So is sex with a minor. The last two are punishable by law, the first two are not. If I suspect the latter two, I'm going to get involved. The former two, I am not. I'm not going to avoid anyone just because they don't agree with me. I am going to avoid people who tell me I either have to agree with them, or I'm their enemy. That gets scary, and reeks of fanaticism.

As much as some people would like to make it so, this is not a simple decision between being homophobic or accepting homosexuality. Homosexuality is ALREADY tolerated by the majority of people, even if they don't like it or agree with it. There are shades of gray between toleration and condoning.

"Marriage is a right. You are denying us our basic rights."
Marriage is not a right. It has nothing to do with basic survival. I don't have the right to marry whomever I want. I have no right to marry a family member or a minor. I don't have the right to marry multiple people. Marriage by law is a privilege. Some think it is a privilege that should be extended to same-sex couples, some do not. Some think it is a privilege that should be revoked entirely.

"If you don't let us marry, it is because you hate us."
Sometimes I don't give my children what they want because I love them, and I think that what they want will hurt them.

I have made many decisions that were unpleasant for both me and the other person because I loved them. I choose to see homosexuals as more than just their homosexuality. I see the person, not just the orientation.

"People should be allowed to do what they want to do. It's not hurting anyone else."
There are some moral decisions that are not compatible with society. That is a given. That is what law is for. Whether or not gay relationships should be sanctioned by society, whether or not each individual believes them to be compatible with living in a society, is the issue. It is not just a matter of allowing gay relationships, it is a matter of believing whether or not it is something that government funds and support should be given to the same way as heterosexual relationships wherein future citizens, children of both parties, could potentially be given life. It's also a matter of convincing the general populace that it really won't hurt anyone else.

Marriage is not an island. It affects law and society in a myriad of ways that can't all be foreseen. Any great societal change should be done with caution. In order to change how marriage is done in society, we should be careful. The burden of proof always rests on those who agitate for change of any kind.

I believe that children benefit by having a good role model of each gender. I don't think that having two parents of the same gender immediately harms a child. But if I had a choice between two sets of equally great parents, one gay and one heterosexual, I think there is an advantage in a child having access to both gender role models. I reject the notion that the male and female genders are the same. I think that biology gives each uniquely different ways of coping with the world that are often strengthened by cultural bias (at times strengthened too much). But I still believe there are differences in general, though they vary from individual to individual. I believe they are differences that can complement each other as a parental unit seeks to teach a child ways to cope with the world.

"This is no different from segregation."
The civil rights movement came after a majority had already voted in favor of emancipation, after a war was fought over it. Some people were disobeying law that had already been decided by the majority and the outcome of the war. So far, the majority has decided against (not for) gay marriage, so far, the war is not yet won by either side. At this time, the analogy is not a good one.

Once the legislative body creates a law requiring the extension of marriage to gay couples, until gays are forcefully kept from drinking at certain water fountains, patronizing certain public establishments and sitting in certain seats, the analogy does not hold up. If that does happen, there should certainly be steps taken to punish those who instigate it. That is unequivocal in my mind.

"You can't use your religion to vote."
You have no right to tell me what can and cannot factor into my voting decisions. I have every right to let my religion affect my votes, just as you have a right to let your sexuality affect yours. More than anything, this argument irritates me the most and makes me want to vote against merely to prove I can. It is my vote for a reason, not yours.

Epilogue:
All of these rantings make me nervous that those who want to marry are not truly trying to help gays or society in general so much as they are wanting to win. It feels like they think that all who disagree with them are closed-minded bigots, and they just want to crack their heads open both figuratively and literally. Their goal seems to primarily be to force others to agree with them, not to win something tangible for themselves. It is almost like the marriage itself has become a side note.

And an actual quote:
"We hope you’ll change. You might not, but we hope you and the church will. This is why we insist on calling your stance homophobic and bigoted, so that you don’t feel comfortable about your positions."
Which sums up perfectly what I mean by this post. This openly admits an attempt to manipulate through shame, to control another person's behavior. While I understand the same can be said in the other direction, that still makes me suspect the motives. I don't call you names, please try to extend the same courtesy to those who are genuinely trying to understand.

I know a lot of people have been hurt because of things that other people have done to them, and want to lash out. Understandable, but not reassuring. Not calculated to persuade me to change my mind back to what it was.

I hurt most of all for those who are caught up in the crossfire: those who are truly wanting to follow God's will, but struggle with feeling inadequate or intrinsically deficient. I know how that feels, and I'd not wish it on anyone, no matter why you feel that way. I wish we could all have a good cry on each others' shoulders.

So I've saved for last what I think is the most important part of this whole debate. Know that even though I'm confused and conflicted about the various points, and I definitely don't understand all the ins and outs and possible ramifications of one decision or the other, even though I most definitely do not agree with certain tactics and attitudes on both sides of the fence, there is One who knows and understands it all. It doesn't matter who you are, He understands you and loves you. He wants your eternal joy, not just your immediate happiness. It doesn't matter if I ever fully understand how you are feeling, because He does.

And that is all that really matters, in the end.

"Simply a Choice"

I was loosely following a discussion over at Times & Seasons about homosexuality (great job, Alison!) when a phrase jumped out at me. The commenter, whom I have not seen before, said this in comment 18: "It is simplistic in the extreme to think that sexual orientation is simply a choice."

My first thought was "of course it's not SIMPLY a choice! Choice is never just a choice." Which sobered me.

In my search to serve the Lord, I have come to understand that sometimes decisions which are counterintuitive and extremely uncomfortable often need to be made in order to be a true disciple.*

True, it is not a hard decision for me to decide to be heterosexual. It comes naturally. Nor was it a hard decision for me to reject drug or alcohol usage. Nor, with my physique, has modesty been a huge issue. But I have other things which I have fought against. As a teen and young adult, my temper was a really tough one. I was born with a fiery temper. My dad had a temper, my grandfather had a temper and my great-grandfather had a temper (records are scarce before that.) It is a natural trait. Yet, it is not acceptable in society to allow one's temper to rage out of control. So, I have gradually, slowly, with painstaking effort, learned to control my temper. Now, I rarely get angry, and when I feel my emotions rising, I know enough to take a time out.

Learning to overcome my body's chemical response to such stimulus has been a complicated and uphill battle. I've only overcome it through extensive divine help. And, although it is overcome, much like an alcoholic, I will always struggle with it to some extent.

Granted, homosexuality is not the same thing, but physiologically speaking, sexual desire is analogous to the desire to fight or flight in intensity. So, yes, I believe that homosexual behavior is a choice . . . but not JUST a choice. Never that.




*This is not to countenance "God told me to do it" rationalization for things such as the Inquisition, but it is relatively easy to determine the line between the two. Using God as rationalization harms others and benefits self. Discipline in the Lord's service most often seems to harm the self and benefit others. I have reason to know for myself this is true.

Misplaced Assumptions in the Marriage Debate . . .

. . . which should be set aside, if gay marriage advocates truly wish to try to change the minds of those who are traditional marriage advocates.

1. An individual has the inherent right to marry whomever they want.
I simply don't believe it. I don't think people should be allowed to marry close family members, for example. Even though there is no rational reason for feeling this way, I just do. Gay marriage advocates would be better off trying to explain why the right to marry the same gender ought to be allowed, beyond a simple "cause we want to".

2. Genetic traits excuse behavior.
There is a plethora of genetic traits that lead to unacceptable behavior. Schizophrenia and other mental disorders come to mind. Advocates would be better off getting away from an appeal of "I can't help it," to explaining why the behavior should be normalized.

3. Animal behavior is a good role model for human behavior.
Animals do a lot of things I don't think humans should do, ranging from eating their own young to rape, not to mention sniffing behinds as a greeting. I would advise refraining from comparing oneself to an animal in this sense. It isn't really a flattering analogy.

4. That any minority desire must be allowed or it is majority tyranny.
Again, I don't believe it. There is a minority of people who believe they have the right to child pornography. That doesn't mean it should be allowed. Whether people like it or not, democracy is by definition a tyranny of the majority. Better that than tyranny of one, such as an absolute monarchy. Rather than whining that it isn't fair, advocates really ought to demonstrate why the minority desire is beneficial to society.

To be fair, some advocates have done this. I'm not writing this post for them, I'm writing it to those who believe that it is worth repeating something loudly and often enough to drown out anything anyone else might say, whether or not it matters.

What I find compelling is a reasonable, measured, calm exposition of why this is beneficial to me, personally, and to society as a whole. Calling me a bigot and hate-filled really doesn't accomplish the goal, unless the goal is to cement me more firmly in my opinion.

Sin and Suicide: the Message We Should Be Sending

I feel as though I'm belaboring a point, but Carol Lynn Pearson's recent opinion essay in the newspaper helped me realize that I should expand on a topic I mentioned in my previous post on Proposition 8. One of the most common concerns with the Church's stance on marriage is that those who self-identify as gay are more prone to suicide because of it. I don't believe this is true. I feel that a more accurate statement would be to say that those who self-identify as gay are more prone to it because of the way they are treated.

In my experience, suicide is often more about being isolated than it is about being different. Those who can be different but still participate in a social network are not (in my experience) the ones who suicide (barring some other, more physiological reason.) I also feel, however, that Carol Lynn Pearson's approach to helping our gay friends and family feel accepted isn't the best way. It seems that she would have people compromise their moral beliefs in order to accept people for who they are. I think it is possible to accept a person without that compromise.

As a disclaimer, I'm writing this from a base assumption that homosexual acts are sins, and that the situation includes someone who has gone beyond mere homosexual attraction. We have been admonished to forgive all men their trespasses, and that should we fail to do so, we stand condemned of greater sin. This includes homosexuality. Should we revile or shun a person because they are homosexual, we are sinning greater than they. Whether or not the Lord forgives them is up to the Lord, the person, and those priesthood wielders with stewardship over that person.

That being said, I want to reiterate that forgiveness of a person includes loving and accepting that person as a child of God. It does not have to accept their behavior, should they be preaching their ways as the right ways. There is a line between a sinner and an antiChrist. We are all sinners, but if we should begin preaching our sins as righteousness, we cross that line.

Christ demonstrated this love of a sinner when He forgave the woman taken in adultery. At the time, adultery was punishable by death. Christ taught that we are all sinners, and have no right to judge another. His defense of the woman, however, did not mean that He condoned her behavior. His "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more," perfectly demonstrated the blend of forgiveness of a person without tolerance of a sin. The woman at the well, the parable of the Samaritan, Christ's supping with publicans and sinners all demonstrate how we should behave towards those whose sins we see.

While those who do not understand homosexuality must mold their actions more perfectly after Christ, so should those who are sympathetic to homosexuality realize that much of the fear comes from ignorance. Many people have neither met nor befriended people with same-sex-attraction. If they have, they have not been gently and lovingly taught or educated about the subject. So often, bigotry is a symptom of ignorance. This is where Sister Pearson's works can help. But if you ask people to accept something they feel is harmful, you only widen the divide. Plead, therefore, for understanding, not for acceptance. Acceptance of a person's self will come with understanding, even if acceptance of a behavior never comes. Christ loved everyone, even if He did not love their behavior. He even lovingly taught the Pharisees. Many did not listen, but some did. As you seek to educate those who do not understand, remember that most have good hearts and would not wish to cause extra pain to anyone. We are all children, here, trying to work out our salvation together.

The Best Word on Homosexual Marriage

As I'm sure most of you know, the Church has written an explanation for their stance against legalization of gay marriage: The Divine Institution of Marriage. The interesting thing to me is that most of these points were things I have begun to feel myself, the more I ponder out the question for myself. To me, that is a reaffirmation that the Spirit is able to teach me in a vacuum of direct command. I still appreciate the explanation when it comes.

Proposition 8: Into the Fire

I dislike this topic, mostly because I know that no matter what I say, people will be offended. There is really no way to talk about the topic of homosexuality without causing a fight. Luckily, I'm a very small blog in a very small corner, so I doubt there will be too much contention. All the same, I feel compelled to share some of my thoughts on the topic. My opinions here and anywhere on my blog in no way represent the stance of the Church or opinions of her leaders. They only reflect my own thoughts as I struggle to reconcile the points made.

Tax-free Status
The first thing I'd like to address is the argument that the Church has no place encouraging its members to support Proposition 8. From what I understand, based on IRS documentation (warning: this link opens a PDF), the Church is within its legal rights to conduct limited lobbying without losing its tax-free status. Also, I've heard a variation on this argument that claims a Church has no right to tell anyone how to behave, especially those who are not members of its organization. Obviously, under free speech, any organization can say anything so long as it's not threatening or damaging, with the exception of a tax-free organization not being allowed to tell people to vote for a specific candidate without losing status. Since Proposition 8 is non-partisan, it's a non-issue according to my understanding.

Polygamy
Another complaint I've heard is that the LDS Church is hypocritical when it opposes same-sex marriage because it practiced (and still practices in a sense) polygamy. (Since this argument really has little to do with homosexuality, it is only an attack on the character of the Church. Since it is often quoted, however, I will still discuss it.) These complaints generally misquote The Family: A Proclamation to the World by claiming the Church has stated that marriage is between one man and one woman. They say they contradict themselves in the doctrine of polygamy. There are two fallacies to this complaint.

First, the Proclamation says that marriage is between a man and a woman, not one man and one woman. The statement is misquoted to begin with.

Second, even if the statement did say what some claim it says, their interpretation shows a different understanding of polygamy than what I have understood. Although a man may marry multiple women, each of those marriages is complete and whole in and of itself. There is no eternal covenant between the women. Nothing that happens between the man and one wife affects the eternal marriage between him and another wife. It is not one large marriage, but a series of several marriages, each between one man and one woman.

Blacks & the Priesthood
This common comment states that because the Church was wrong about blacks holding the priesthood, they'll be wrong about same-gender marriage. Besides the obvious logical fallacy, it assumes that the Church was wrong. I don't believe they were, in the sense that the leaders should have behaved any way other than the way they did. I believe that God's purposes were fulfilled in the timing as well as the reality of the bestowal of the priesthood. Priesthood exclusivity has precedent in scripture. Not until modern days has it been extended to all worthy male members. (This is partially why it does not trouble me that women do not hold the priesthood.) Additionally, I believe that the perfect God I believe in can work with our imperfection. He knows our thoughts, and He knew the thoughts and intents of the hearts of the men who He called to lead His Church. He called them anyways. Therefore, I can only believe that for whatever reason, whether it be to teach and instruct or for some other reason, He wanted things to happen the way they happened. I trust that those leaders were doing the best they could to follow the Lord. That is why they were chosen and anointed to serve in His kingdom at the time and in the place they were.

Gays Were Born That Way
This argument claims that gays were born with homosexual urges. Because these desires are genetically influenced, they should be encouraged to act according to those desires. I cannot swallow this argument because I was born with genetically-demonstrated depression and anger. I have spent my entire life carving myself away from these tendencies, and allowing the Lord to prune them away. Not everything we are born with is good. Some are born with homicidal tendencies. Some are born with attraction to children, or other psychoses. I don't believe that this fact means that society has to allow them that behavior.

Paired with this argument is the nature argument, which says that Bonobos and other species demonstrate homosexuality in nature. Because it is natural, it should be allowed and even encouraged. Again, I fail to swallow this argument. There are many behaviors in the animal kingdom which I do not feel humans should emulate. (Warning: the two previous links may be disturbing to some.)

Agency
Also comes the argument that fighting against same-sex marriage violates the agency of those who wish to indulge in homosexuality. Obviously, no one's agency is being violated any more than it violates the agency of a mass murderer to be thrown in prison. This stems from a common desire to equate agency with lack of consequence.

Similar to this is the claim that fighting against same-sex marriage adds to suicide rates among LDS members with same-gender attraction. I happen to know by my own experience that suicide is a choice, and falls under the laws of agency. Fortunately, I don't have to judge how capable a person is to make the decision or how accountable they are. Although I do believe there are things that can be done to help someone contemplating suicide, in the end the act itself is only between the person and God.

Opposition is UnChristlike
Again, if a person truly believes that same-sex marriage is wrong, and that acting on same-sex attraction will harm the participants as well as those around them, they have a moral obligation to speak out against it. This obligation does not eradicate the obligation to love as Christ has loved. This is one of the delicate balances found so often in the Gospel. Those who have failed this have failed to be Christlike, indeed, but it is possible to love gays and oppose their behavior. I would imagine anyone with parents, siblings, or children who have hurt themselves by their own actions can understand this.

Reproduction (added from below conversation)
I have often heard the lack of homosexual reproduction compared to heterosexual couples who are infertile or too old to procreate. I feel that is also a logical fallacy. You cannot compare the rule of one instance to the exception of another. That infertile heterosexual couples exist is undeniable, but the general rule is that heterosexual couples can reproduce while homosexual ones cannot without going outside of the bonds of marriage (or resorting to sterile fertilization.) If a heterosexual couple cannot reproduce, it is because they are different from the norm. Any actions taken to help such a couple reproduce are attempts to align them with the common situation. The reasoning that homosexual couples are no different from heterosexual couples who do not or can not reproduce is therefore fallacious.

At any rate, these are the thoughts I have had so far. I would welcome courteous comments on them.