Same-Sex Marraige and the Recent US Supreme Court Ruling

I debated whether or not to write this post and initiate this conversation, but enough people have asked that I have decided to do so.

I am approaching this in a question and answer format, and my only request is that it be a civil conversation and not be approached as a debate. I have no desire whatsoever to argue with anyone about this, and I will not engage in that sort of dialogue. What I would like is an open discussion in which I can explain how I feel about the Supreme Court’s decision regarding same-sex marriage and the reasons I feel that way. Rather than try to list all of those reasons, I have decided to share one (perhaps the most counter-intuitive one) initially. I will respond to any other reasons, for or against, as they are given.

The primary reason I support the Supreme Court’s decision is that I believe in religious freedom, particularly when it comes to issues as sacred as marriage. 

Just as I believe my own denomination should be able to marry whomever it chooses to marry, I believe other religions and denominations should have the same right. I believe in restrictions based on consent, including the legal ability to consent, but I do not believe in legal restrictions based strictly on religious ideology. There now are multiple religions, including Christian denominations, in this country who want to be able to perform marriages for same-sex couples; thus, if I truly believe in religious freedom in the realm of marriage, and if I insist on that right for myself and my religion, I personally must support other denominations’ right to perform marriages mine does not.

I would love it if the government got out of the marriage business altogether and focused solely on civil benefits for civil unions, leaving marriage strictly as a religious practice. Lacking that ideal, which the religious majority in the United States fought for a long time, the only way for the government to provide equal civil benefits was to issue marriage licenses.

The central issue to me is not that the government is issuing marriage licenses, although I would like to see that change; the central issue to me is that religions are performing marriages that provide civil benefits. Up until now, equal civil benefits were not possible for same-sex couples under that structure. It is the tying of civil benefits (with equality under the law as the core foundation) to religious ceremonies (with their inherent and important right to be selective based on doctrine) that is the central issue for me – and if religions were unwilling to allow the government to perform civil unions for same-sex couples (which, again, was the case in the United States), the only alternative to provide civil benefits equally and fairly was to legalize same-sex marriage within the public marriage structure while maintaining the right of religions and denominations to perform and refuse to perform marriages according to their own doctrine and beliefs.

The Supreme Court ruling has done that. Religions and denominations still can refuse to marry inter-racial couples, for example, with no legal ramifications, even though inter-racial marriage has been legal for a long time; same-sex marriage is no different, in that particular respect, with this recent ruling.

Thus, the primary reason I support the Supreme Court ruling is that I believe so passionately in religious freedom.

"Many Questions Must Await a Future Answer": The Case of Homosexuality

I don't believe that all people who end up in homosexual relationships are hard-wired biologically for that. I understand enough about the research on human sexuality and know too many homosexuals who had traumatic experiences that influenced greatly their choices and/or actions to believe sexual orientation is predestined at birth for all. Boys who are sexually abused in their childhood by a male are more likely to be abusers of other boys when they are adults; women who are abused by men are more likely to turn to other women for comfort, support and sexual fulfillment; etc. I understand those "environmental" forces and their effects on sexuality.

However, I also know WAY too many homosexual people who lived completely normal lives without any trauma, "indoctrination" (which I really don't like using regarding a topic like this, since it's a standard charge that means, in practical terms, "teaching something to children that I don't believe") or other environmental influences. I've known too many people who have known only sexual attraction to those of the same sex from the days of their earliest awareness of sexual attraction - and many who have tried to change that aspect of themselves without any success whatsoever. For them, like for me, trying to change their sexual attraction from one sex to another is useless; it simply can't be done.

Thus, I believe the following statements in the Church's latest pamphlet about same-sex attraction ("God Loveth His Children":

Many questions, however, including some related to same-gender attractions, must await a future answer, even in the next life.

However, the perfect plan of our Father in Heaven makes provision for individuals who seek to keep His commandments but who, through no fault of their own, do not have an eternal marriage in mortal life

.

Same-gender attractions include deep emotional, social, and physical feelings.

It also is interesting that the pamphlet does not use the word "repent" or "sin" once when dealing with homosexual attraction. Rather, it talks about such attraction often lasting throughout one's entire life and speaks of "self-mastery" - not "change". That is a critical word choice.  It is obvious that the Church no longer views homosexual attraction itself as sin, which translates into the belief that homosexual attraction is not a conscious choice in many cases.

All other issues aside, I believe that foundational understanding is key. Yes, there are environmental forces at work in many cases, but there are genetic forces at work in many others. I have come to this understanding partly through the research, but a more important part of my understanding was gained by talking openly and deeply with those about whom this post is addressed - and the ultimate realization came from multiple people who asked me, point-blank, if I could change my own sexual orientation if I tried hard enough - if I "only had more faith". I couldn't, and the very assertion that I should evokes a powerful oppositional reaction within me. In that sense, I "get it" - and I understand why many people hear someone say that they weren't "born that way" and feel like such statements are a direct attack on them and their honesty and sincerity. It is very much like saying, "That's not true. You are lying - or deceived." They aren't lying, and they aren't deceived. They simply are being honest about what they feel and, in many cases, always have felt.

So, for me, the "solution" to this type of discussion is to recognize the truth of the Church's first statement I excerpted and posted above:

Many questions, however, including some related to same-gender attractions, must await a future answer, even in the next life.

I'm fine with doing my best to understand what I can in this life while admitting openly that many questions must await future answers. 

Having said all of that, I also need to make it clear that there are parts of the pamphlet I have excerpted and parts of the general view of homosexuality within the LDS Church with which I do not agree.  I also need to make it clear that we do NOT need to await further light and knowledge regarding this topic only "in the next life" - that we are learning much in this life and must be open to continuing that learning, both religiously AND scientifically. 

The Evolution of Perspective: Homosexuality as an Example

I have thought a lot over the years about how perspectives evolve over time.  If I were to try to simplify the process as much as possible, I might frame it as follows: 

1) We see things one way because it's the only way that makes sense for us - the only way we can see things "naturally". Thus, we begin with "the natural (wo)man". 

2) We are exposed to something that makes us realize how "personal" that natural perspective is - that it's not as obvious and natural for someone else.

3) If we are fortunate, we know and love people who see things differently than we do - which forces us to see that "normal", "good" people see things differently than we do. It's harder to marginalize and dismiss people if we know them and realize they are good people doing the best they can according to the dictates of their own consciences.

4) In the end, we still hold to what makes sense to us, personally, but we begin to understand the difference between personal perspectives and societal rules - those things that we choose to let govern us, those things we choose to let govern those who choose to be part of our various-sized circles and those things we choose to let govern the largest, non-voluntary associations of which we are a part. Hopefully, we realize and accept the idea that the rules get looser and looser as the circles get larger and larger and less "self-selected".

To use a practical example from my own life's experiences that is controversial enough to illustrate a definite change in perspective:

1) I used to oppose all forms of official gay unions.  I believed that giving official status and rights would confer a sense of legitimacy and encourage homosexual activity.

2) I went to college at Harvard and was exposed, for the first time, to people who didn't see the issue the same way I did and, importantly, who could articulate sound, logical reasons for their different views.

3) Throughout those years in college (and as I grew older), I became friends with gay people and realized that my view was built on a faulty foundation - that it was based on ignorance of homosexuality.  I had formed my view without ever talking with gay people directly - without any input from people I loved, respected and admired who were gay.

4) Currently, I do not have the same view that I did in my adolescence and earliest adulthood - but I also don't have the same view as many of my gay friends.  I have developed my own view of homosexuality and how I view various options for gay unions - and it truly is my own now and not something borrowed from anyone else.

This is not the proper post in which to discuss all the details of my current views, but, as a rule, if I'm going to err on either side of anything, I'd rather err on the side of understanding and love. I'd rather be a little too "liberal and upbraid not" than a little too uncharitable.

How Can I Support a Gay Family Member or Friend?

The following are suggestions that were given in a thread in which I participated about how to support a gay member, focusing especially on the question of how to do so in the LDS Church.  I came across that thread again and want to share the suggestions, of which the first three are mine - and the last one comes from a friend who has struggled mightily to stay actively involved in the Church despite what he hears regularly in church from people who don't realize he is gay.  It's hard to express how much I admire and respect him:

--------------------------------------------------------

1) Don't approach the member about it proactively, if that member has not told people that s/he is gay. The decision to share one's sexual orientation should be a personal one, and forcing it before someone is ready to deal with all of the reactions is cruel and simply wrong.  Don't take it upon yourself to ask the person about it, especially if you aren't 100% certain.

2) Talk in the person's presence about acceptance and unconditional love generally (not specific to homosexuality), regardless of whatever issues might exist, but don't be obsessive about it - and do it in other situations, as well, so it's not obvious you are targeting one person and/or family with that message.

3) If the person comes out, offer support immediately and openly - and charitably. Damn the consequences with other people in the moment; support the person. Having said that, do it in a way that doesn't alienate others simply as a result of how you respond - in support of the person, not by attacking anyone else.

4) Keep an open mind, and learn to deal with your own feelings before it becomes a problem - then be ready to help others. A person who is gay is just like the rest of us in every other way, looking for love and acceptance. If two humans love and respect each other, that is enough to overcome all differences.

5) Let the person know that there are people who love him and will support him no matter what. He needs to know that he will have somewhere to turn if he needs help.

6) Support people who are gay by just treating them like you treat all your family members and friends, with lots of love and respect. You don't have to do anything different, and they don't want anything different.

7) As a gay man myself, I think it's very important to stress that gay people will talk when they're ready, and not before. They also won't talk about it unless they either a) have felt out the situation/person well enough to feel it's safe, or b) have come to such a deep crisis that they either have to talk about it, come out, or self-destruct. The self-destruct part can take a couple of forms. One is the obvious--suicide attempts. Other ways of self-destructing include developing addictions to numb the pain, self-mutilation, participation in highly risky sexual behavior, and internalized self-hatred.

There is a great resource that you can download from a group called the "Family Acceptance Project" that might be helpful for you to read and keep in mind. Here is a link:  http://familyproject.sfsu.edu/LDS-booklet

----------------------------------------------------------

I also want to add the link to the Church's own website about this issue.  It is worth viewing, especially by any members who struggle to accept and love people who are homosexual for who they are:

Mormons and Gays (mormonandgays.org)

Homosexuality and the LDS Church: We Can Change without Compromising Our Theology

I believe there are multiple ways the Church could continue to alter its stance on homosexuality without having to alter its core theology in the slightest.

I'm glad that we are moving away from blaming people for their sexual orientation. I'm glad the Church's official position no longer is that homosexual attraction is 100% a choice and can be changed with therapy, marriage and/or more faith. Being told you just need to stop feeling something that is central to who you are and over which you truly have no control is brutal - and was based on past biological ignorance.  If we could take the latest official statements in "God Loveth His Chlidren" and state fully, openly and explicitly from the General Conference pulpit that sexual attraction isn't always a choice, and that it can't be therapied away, and that it isn't a "sin" to feel the attraction - that would be a huge step in the right direction. We are getting there now, but we aren't quite there yet.

If we could stop categorizing all homosexuals as enemies and attackers of the family, that would be a huge step in the right direction.  My gay friends are not my enemies - and not one of them is attacking me or my family in any way.  For anyone reading this, imagine you are a gay youth who is a faithful member of the Church and hear regularly from the local pulpit that you are an enemy.  It happens regularly, often from "leaders" of some kind, and it simply ought not be. 

If we could allow homosexuals to do everything heterosexuals can do without violating the Law of Chastity as it relates to them (date, hold hands, kiss, express affection, develop non-sexual intimacy, etc. without actually engaging in "sexual activity" of any kind) - that alone would be a huge step. A heterosexual couple who can't have sexual intercourse still can be married and sealed - and if a heterosexual couple chooses not to marry but to live together without crossing lines of conduct prohibition, they shouldn't be disciplined in any way. (I know that would be an exception, but it certainly is possible.) Allowing homosexuals to live together but remain celibate and still be fully "worthy" wouldn't require any change to our current theology whatsoever, especially if the restriction on temple marriage was maintained. Allowing them to attend the temple and be sealed to parents and siblings wouldn't require ANY change to our theology whatsoever.

While acknowledging how far we've come in many ways regarding this issue in the last decade or so, the latest official policy still has one glaring issue. As I mentioned above, even expressions of intimacy that are not sexual in any way still are discouraged. In a way the current stance says, "It's OK to feel attracted to those of the same sex - as long as you never do anything that makes it obvious you feel those attractions." Heterosexual members can do all sorts of things that really aren't "sexual" in nature, while homosexual members can't do those exact same things.

Try this as a thought experiment:

You are a heterosexual man - someone who is attracted to women. Imagine what it would be like if you had been told all your life that such an attraction was wrong - and, in some cases, by some people, that such an attraction was reprehensible, disgusting, repulsive or even evil - that the very attraction itself, the very thought of having sex with a woman, was a gross abomination - that your attraction was seen by God as an abomination). Imagine if you had been told that you could overcome that attraction if you only had more faith - that, in a very real way, your attraction was a sign of your lack of faith. Imagine if you were told that you needed to marry a man and have sex with him in order to get over your attraction to women. 

Now, imagine being told that all of that was wrong - that you weren't the vilest of sinners because of your attraction to others of the opposite sex. However, imagine being told that you still couldn't let anyone, ever, know about your attraction - that you couldn't hold hands with a woman, hug or kiss a woman, put your arm around a woman affectionately (no lust involved whatsoever), spend time alone with a woman in a way that someone else might think is inappropriate. Imagine being told that the expression of intimacy of any kind, in any way, had to be absent from your life - with a man, because you weren't attracted to men, or with a woman, because such things still are seen as abominable.

We've come a long way, as I said, but the second half of the thought experiment above is what we currently ask of homosexual members. We aren't talking exclusively about avoiding "fornication"; we're talking about asking someone to live a completely intimacy-free life - at least with someone to whom that person actually feels a physical attraction. Living without physical intimacy of any kind is one definition of Hell - and we condemn it in the case of Catholic priests and nuns (and even blame it for the sexual abuses of the past within those groups). That is not what we ask of heterosexual members, so I understand completely why some people simply can't stay LDS who face that future.

I admire greatly anyone who can stay actively involved in the Church while being gay, which means I admire some of my friends greatly, but I also admire greatly those who face intense pressure to conform and who suffer greatly for their decision not to do so. What I admire most is not the specific decision, but rather it is the fact that either decision brings great, terrible pain and suffering initially and, in many cases, over an extended period of time.

There is no complete and easy answer right now, but there is much we can do to ease pain and suffering without compromising our theology in any way. What I have detailed above is just a start - but we absolutely need to start.

A Beautiful Talk about Inclusion Despite Fundamental Differences, even Marriage and Sexual Orientation

A friend of mine gave the following talk yesterday in church.  It is a difficult talk to address in Sacrament Meeting, but it is message that we all should understand, accept and internalize. 
-----------------------------------------
Good Morning Brothers and Sisters,

Let me share with you the message from the Stake Presidency about our speaking topic this month:

“Brethren, this month’s topic is one that will need to be approached with sensitivity and prayerful consideration. We have provided for your preparation several different talks on the topic of Same Sex Attraction, Inclusion, and The Eternal Nature of Marriage. Our desire is for you to review these topics and prayerfully develop a talk that incorporates each into a single message. Your goal is to help those within our stake understand the position of the church as it relates to the eternal nature of marriage as outlined in The Proclamation to the Family while still maintaining an attitude of loving kindness and acceptance of all as brothers and sisters in The Lord.”

As I mentioned to a friend what I would be talking about this month, his reply was something about walking into a “mine field.” Perhaps, but I think we will be uplifted together as we discuss the true essence of the gospel.
 
To start, here is the Church’s position on marriage and same sex marriage: This is taken from the Topics session on LDS.org and this document is titled: Addressing Same Sex Attraction

“The Church’s doctrinal position is clear: Sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married. However, that should never be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down.
 

In short, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints affirms the centrality of doctrines relating to human sexuality and gender as well as the sanctity and significance of marriage as the union of a man and a woman. However, the Church firmly believes that all people are equally beloved children of God and deserve to be treated with love and respect. Church apostle Elder Quentin L. Cook stated, “As a church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate. Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion and outreach. Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender.”

And from the church’s website Mormons and Gays.org:

“The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God’s children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters.”

And again from the previous document:

“Accordingly, the Church favors measures that define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. However, “protecting marriage between a man and a woman does not remove Church members’ Christian obligations of love, kindness and humanity toward all people.”

So let me make re-clarify a few points:
• The Church teaches that the family is ordained of God
• The church’s position is that sexual activity should only occur between a man and woman who are married.
• The church’s position is that marriage is the lawful union of a man and a woman
• Many individuals do not choose same sex attraction
• Regardless of the church’s stance on marriage, we are obligated as Christians to love, be kind, and understanding to all people.

These are the official positions of the church.

Are some members going to have different opinions than the official church position? Yes. We are a big church. We cast a wide net. People will have different viewpoints and feelings about certain topics.
 
In a statement by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve published on June 28th they said:

“We understand that from time to time Church members will have questions about Church doctrine, history, or practice. Members are always free to ask such questions and earnestly seek greater understanding. We feel special concern, however, for members who distance themselves from Church doctrine or practice and, by advocacy, encourage others to follow them.
 

Simply asking questions has never constituted apostasy. Apostasy is repeatedly acting in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its faithful leaders, or persisting, after receiving counsel, in teaching false doctrine.”

We are encouraged to seek understanding. D&C 107 vs. 7 says:

And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom, seek learning even by study and also by faith;

Whatever our feelings on the doctrines I have discussed, we can advocate for tolerance, kindness, and good will with those of differing viewpoints. Inquiry, debate, and free expression of ideas are hallmarks of a free society; coercion is acted out when losing the battle of ideas, and thwarting free expression through authoritarianism. For those that preach tolerance, it must be a two-way street, and we are completely within our right to ask for such. As Elder Dallin H. Oaks has observed:

“Tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.”

Let us error on the side of kindness but always fight for the freedom to discuss, think, and advocate for ideas and policies that we deem valuable.

Let me spend a few minutes talking about the importance of families:

Throughout time strong families have served as essential institutions to teach and convey knowledge to future generations about morals, ethics, traditions and values that are vital to robust and free civilizations.
 
Marriage, in a civil sense, is an affirmation of a couples love for each other, a contract to work together, provide for each other and their children which comes with legally binding obligations. Marriage and the rearing of children within the obligations of marriage is the most optimal institution in a world governed by agency. Unless we believe that authoritarianism is the best relay point to transfer the necessary knowledge to the next generation, the family is the best alternative.

The Proclamation on the Family says:

“Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and that the family is central to the Creator’s plan for the eternal destiny of His children. . . . The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan.”

This is a theological and spiritual view on marriage with temporal implications. From a secular perspective, the data on marriage also tells an interesting story. The creation and sustainment of marriage provides the best opportunity for children, not only in an eternal sense, but for temporal growth and personal fulfillment.

Over the last decades there has been an erosion of intact families.

“In 2012, 40% of all births in the United States were to unwed mothers. More than 50% of births to mothers under age 30 were out of wedlock. Further, the marriage rate has been declining since the 1980s. These trends do not bode well for the development of the rising generation.”

A study found on fatherhood.hhs.gov says:

Children raised by single parents have lower levels of social and academic well-being, and more behavior problems than those from intact families. "…adolescents who have lived apart from one of their parents during some period of childhood are twice as likely to drop out of high school, twice as likely to have a child before age twenty, and one and a half times as likely to be 'idle' - out of school or out of work - in their late teens and early twenties."

Charles Murray, in his book Coming Apart, wrote an in-depth analysis comparing different survey and data trends. In one observation based on his analysis he says:

“The raw material that makes community even possible has diminished so much in some parts of the country that the situation may be beyond retrieval. That raw material is social trust-not trust in a particular neighbor who happens to be your friend, but a generalized expectation that people around you will do the right thing.”

We can help reverse these trends by advocating for strong familial relationships, helping those in our community, and working to make our marriages and families to be places of happiness, learning, growth, and faith. One of the most important things that we can do as members of the church is to create as Celestial a marriage as possible.
 
The Proclamation of the Family states:

“Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities…In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation.”

As couples we are obligated to help each other as equal partners and to decide as a family what will work best for us; whether that be more traditional roles, or whether that be a working mom and stay-at-home dad, or somewhere in between. We have the ability to receive our own personal revelation of what will work best for our family. And any relationships that are built on forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, teamwork, and wholesome recreational activities are bound to last for the eternities.

To cite Charles Murray again he notes:

“The relationship of marriage to happiness is simple as can be. There’s hardly anything better than a good marriage for promoting happiness and nothing worse than a bad one.”

The ideals of the LDS Church around family formation and the eternal nature of families can work really well for a lot of people. But it can be a very difficult concept and idea for others. What happens if someone’s situation falls outside this neat little box? What if we were sealed in the temple but now our husband or wife is no longer active in the church? What if our children have chosen different theological, personal, or spiritual paths than our own? What if we have family members, children, friends who are attracted to members of the same sex?

For many of us, we feel left holding a bag of disappointments, burdened by our inability to reconcile a God of agency and unmet promises of obedience. I have no easy answers for you, only a willingness to stand with those in need of comfort and faith and hope in an expansive view of the mercy of our Creator.

Chieko Okazaki, former first counselor in General Relief Society Presidency said:

"I don't want anyone to misunderstand what I'm going to say next. The First Presidency has made its opposition to same-sex marriages very clear; as a member of the church I support them in their position. But I want to stress that we can be opposed to a piece of legislation or to a practice and still behave with courtesy and decency toward those who hold other opinions. I would not want anyone to use the First Presidency's stand as an excuse for being hateful or disrespectful toward others..... It is very likely that every person in the Church knows someone - a family member or a friend - who is gay, lesbian or bisexual…I think there is much we do not understand about how such conditions come to be, or what resources are truly helpful. In the meantime, nothing has suspended the commandment of Jesus to love one another and to bear one another's burdens."

In my view it's understandable that the depression and suicide rates among gay people, in general, and in the LDS Church are significantly higher than in the general population. Many of our brothers and sisters feel alone, isolated, different, and in pain. Really loving someone who is different, in any way, isn't just a nice idea or a good concept; in many cases, it might bring a measure of joy to someone who has precious little happiness and, literally, help save lives.

I remember one particular service activity as a youth when we lived in South Florida. Our activity was to help clean up a hospice center where people who had contracted HIV and AIDS lived for a while before they passed away. This was during the early 90’s when AIDS was relatively new to the public and was wreaking havoc among the male homosexual population. I remember feeling conflicted during our service project. Many of the people who had inhabited the hospice were there because of choices that were not in agreement with the doctrines of our church and so why should we be spending our time at that particular place. On the ride home I expressed this conflict to my father and in his wisdom affirmed the centrality of the gospel message to me. His reply, and I am paraphrasing a bit here, was, 

“Son, we are all sons and daughters of God. As such we are all deserving of His love and it doesn’t much matter what choices others have made, we should serve and love everyone.”

I know that many of us can feel out of place, unsure of how to assimilate into such a performance based culture. Many of us are at different points on the spectrum in our faith journey, our life experiences, and the growing pains of mortality.

I find comfort in Elder Wirthlin’s words:

“Some are lost because they are different. They feel as though they don’t belong. Perhaps because they are different, they find themselves slipping away from the flock. They may look, act, think, and speak differently than those around them and that sometimes causes them to assume they don’t fit in. They conclude that they are not needed.
 

Tied to this misconception is the erroneous belief that all members of the Church should look, talk, and be alike. The Lord did not people the earth with a vibrant orchestra of personalities only to value the piccolos of the world. Every instrument is precious and adds to the complex beauty of the symphony. All of Heavenly Father’s children are different in some degree, yet each has his own beautiful sound that adds depth and richness to the whole.
This variety of creation itself is a testament of how the Lord values all His children. He does not esteem one flesh above another, but He “inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; . . . all are alike unto God.””

Our message as members of the church should echo the message of Elder Uchtdorf in the October 2013 General Conference. He said:

"To those who have separated themselves from the Church, I say, my dear friends, there is yet a place for you here. Come and add your talents, gifts, and energies to ours. We will all become better as a result."

And to those of you with doubts:

"It’s natural to have questions—the acorn of honest inquiry has often sprouted and matured into a great oak of understanding. There are few members of the Church who, at one time or another, have not wrestled with serious or sensitive questions. One of the purposes of the Church is to nurture and cultivate the seed of faith—even in the sometimes sandy soil of doubt and uncertainty. Faith is to hope for things which are not seen but which are true.
 

Therefore, my dear brothers and sisters—my dear friends—please, first doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith. We must never allow doubt to hold us prisoner and keep us from the divine love, peace, and gifts that come through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ."

I love that line: "We must never allow doubt to hold us prisoner." Wherever we are at with our faith, let us act on the things we do believe. If all you believe to be true is that we should be charitable with each other, that sounds awesome! Act on that. Don’t let the other things hold you back from helping and serving others. If all you believe to be true is that we are a part of a great cosmic unity, then let that belief flow into action of viewing others as a part of that journey and loving your neighbor.
 
And he addresses those who worry about living up to the standards:

"All the more reason to come! The Church is designed to nourish the imperfect, the struggling, and the exhausted. It is filled with people who desire with all their heart to keep the commandments, even if they haven’t mastered them yet."

I interpret that to mean, no problem. We come to church to work on our relationship with God and to work on being better. Don’t worry about what other members think, your journey is yours. It’s not our place to judge. And if we are being judgmental, call us out on it. And for heaven's sakes, let's cut ourselves and each other a break.

More from Elder Uchtdorf: 

"Some might say, “I know a member of your Church who is a hypocrite. I could never join a church that had someone like him as a member.”

If you define hypocrite as someone who fails to live up perfectly to what he or she believes, then we are all hypocrites. None of us is quite as Christlike as we know we should be. But we earnestly desire to overcome our faults and the tendency to sin. With our heart and soul we yearn to become better with the help of the Atonement of Jesus Christ."

And this!

"If these are your desires, then regardless of your circumstances, your personal history, or the strength of your testimony, there is room for you in this Church. Come, join with us! If you seek truth, meaning, and a way to transform faith into action; if you are looking for a place of belonging: Come, join with us!...If you are tempted to give up: Stay yet a little longer. There is room for you here.”

Elder Orson F. Whitney, former member of the Quorum of the Twelve said this:

“…The Shepherd will find his sheep. They were his before they were yours-long before he entrusted them to your care; and you cannot begin to love them as he loves them... Our Heavenly Father is far more merciful, infinitely more charitable, than even the best of his servants, and the Everlasting Gospel is mightier in power to save than our narrow finite minds can comprehend.
 

The Prophet Joseph Smith declared—and he never taught more comforting doctrine—that the eternal sealings of faithful parents and the divine promises made to them for valiant service in the Cause of Truth, would save not only themselves, but likewise their posterity. Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the Shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold. Either in this life or the life to come, they will return. … Pray for your careless and disobedient children; hold on to them with your faith. Hope on, trust on, till you see the salvation of God.”

I believe as C.S. Lewis that:

“It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses…There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - These are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit.”

I believe we are eternal and as such we have an obligation to treat others as Christ has instructed us to do, and to love regardless of others personal choices. That doesn’t mean we have to agree with others choices, but we must love as best we can. The gospel of Christ is one of faith and hope, charity and love, experience and progression. Let us remember the example of Christ in our interactions with others.

In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.

No Family (Biological or Ward) Should Exclude Homosexual Members from Participation in Its Circle

Thank you, Rich Alger, for linking to something Elder Quentin L. Cook said in a video posted on the LDS Church's website regarding homosexuals and the Church.  I am providing the link to Rich's post - and excerpting one part of Elder Cook's comments.

Be at the Forefront in terms of Expressing Love - Rich Alger

No matter how one feels about homosexuality (from one extreme to the other and at every point between the two extremes), I hope every member of the LDS Church someday understands, accepts and internalizes Elder Cook's message below:

I think the lesson that I learned from that is that as a Church nobody should be more loving and compassionate. No family who has anybody who has a same-gender issue should exclude them from the family circle. They need to be part of the family circle. Do we teach the Proclamation on the Family, do we teach Heavenly Father’s plan, do we teach the first chapter in the second handbook, yes we do. We have a plan of salvation. And having children come into our lives is part of Heavenly Father’s plan. But let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion, and outreach to those and let's not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender. 

Inasmuch as we do unto (those whom we naturally see as) the least of these, our brethren and sisters, we do unto Jesus.   If we exclude them, we exclude our Savior.  Period.

Religions Lost the Homosexuality Debate the Minute They Adopted the "Unnatural" Justification

 I read something recently, and I think it's important to understand the answer to the question it asked.  I'm not saying the following question is right or wrong in this post; I'm just saying it's important to answer the question adequately. 

So say we agree that sexual orientation is primarily a function of nature. What then? Does it change anything about the debate?

Absolutely - as long as one side keeps insisting that it's universally unnatural - that all gay people choose to be gay. (especially if the claim is that they choose to FEEL homosexual attractions)

Does it change the "right" vs. "wrong" debate? Not really, especially for those (like Mormons) who don't have a "natural is always right" philosophy in the first place. However, it absolutely makes those who condemn it find a  "valid" reason to condemn it, since calling it unnatural simply isn't valid. It's an ignorant, incorrect argument, and it really shouldn't be made.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying all homosexual activity is biological and unavoidable and inevitable. I'm not saying there is no choice in the matter of one's sexual activity. I'm not saying anything like that. I'm not even arguing in this thread that homosexuality is good, bad, okay or reprehensible. There's no moral judgment in this thread at all. I'm just saying the discussion ought to be grounded in reality and solid arguments, and saying homosexuality (the feeling) and homosexual activity (the actions) are unnatural simply isn't reality or a solid argument.

That's why I say religions lost the debate the minute they latched onto the "unnatural" justification. That argument simply is wrong.