Approaching SSA: Questions of Doctrine and Charity

[_Droopy]

I wanted to follow up on the "coming out" of one Brother Kendell Wilcox, a BYU professor presently employed at that institution, as "Gay."

I also wanted to bring the discussion here in the hope that effective moderation can keep the flies from swarming on the carcass and that it would attract some substantive discussion of the issues involved. What I intend is a critique and analysis of Dallin Oak's 1995 Ensign article on SSA with a concentration of what the Church's position on SSA actually is, as well as what members attitudes and conduct toward those dealing with SSA should be.

I won't quote the entire lengthy essay in toto, but enough salient points to sink everyone's teeth into the subject.

Every Latter-day Saint knows that God has forbidden all sexual relations outside the bonds of marriage. Most are also aware of the Savior’s teaching that it is sinful for a man to look upon and lust after a woman (see Matt. 5:28; D&C 42:23; D&C 63:16).

This is the central core, to which homosexual behavior must defer to the same extent as heterosexual misuse of sexual intimacy.

Attraction between man and woman was instilled by the Creator to ensure the perpetuation of mortal life and to draw husband and wife together in the family setting he prescribed for the accomplishment of his purposes, including the raising of children.

Core doctrine again. Human sexuality has a duel purpose, encompassing both a deep emotional/psychological bonding between - and only between - a man and woman within lawful marriage, and procreation, including all the implications of procreation (the actual rearing and leading of one's children toward healthy, productive, successful spiritual/sociocultural lives (part of the function of which is to maintain a fundamentally civilized society).

In contrast, deviations from God’s commandments in the use of procreative powers are grave sins.

Core doctrine again. Any deviation from "the use of procreative powers" are "grave sins," all political correctness attached to one or another of them notwithstanding.

Some Latter-day Saints face the confusion and pain that result when a man or a woman engages in sexual behavior with a person of the same sex, or even when a person has erotic feelings that could lead toward such behavior. How should Church leaders, parents, and other members of the Church react when faced with the religious, emotional, and family challenges that accompany such behavior or feelings? What do we say to a young person who reports that he or she is attracted toward or has erotic thoughts or feelings about persons of the same sex? How should we respond when a person announces that he is a homosexual or she is a lesbian and that scientific evidence “proves” he or she was “born that way”? How do we react when persons who do not share our beliefs accuse us of being intolerant or unmerciful when we insist that erotic feelings toward a person of the same sex are irregular and that any sexual behavior of that nature is sinful?

This is the crux of the matter. How should we "react," and "respond," and what should we say, when confronted with the issue of SSA among friends/loved one's. How is a Saint to approach SSA, on both a personal and doctrinal level?

Oaks teaches that our attidutes toward SSA must be conditioned, first, by a set of central gospel doctrines within which any such issues must me understood and negotiated. Those central doctrines are, using Oaks own words:

1.
God created us “male and female” (D&C 20:18; Moses 2:27; Gen. 1:27).

2.
What we call gender was an essential characteristic of our existence prior to our birth

3. The purpose of mortal life and the mission of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is to prepare the sons and daughters of God for their destiny—to become like our heavenly parents.

4. Our eternal destiny—exaltation in the celestial kingdom...is only available to a man and a woman who have entered into and been faithful to the covenants of an eternal marriage in a temple of God (see D&C 131:1–4; D&C 132).

I would posit these as the nucleus (Oaks lists more principles below) of any understanding of, regardless of the complexities of the origin of SSA, SSA must be understood as a feature of the mortal probation that itself is a primary feature of the plan of salvation. But there are variables that must be taken into consideration. Satan desires our misery and destruction, and hence, "his most strenuous efforts are directed at encouraging those choices and actions that will thwart God’s plan for his children." He influences us to "misuse our sacred powers of procreation, to discourage marriage and childbearing by worthy men and women, and to confuse what it means to be male or female."

So far, Elder Oaks has established, relative to gospel doctrine, that SSA is a part of Satan's long and aggressive assault on marriage, family, and the proper role and scope of human sexuality in mortality. It is a behavior that will "thwart God's plan for his children" and represents a "misuse" of "sacred powers of procreation."

Having established the doctrinal basis for opposition to homosexuality as a behavior and lifestyle, Oaks moves on to the Church and its members proper attitudinal stance toward those dealing with SSA themselves.

The First Presidency has declared that “there is a distinction between [1] immoral thoughts and feelings and [2] participating in either immoral heterosexual or any homosexual behavior.” Although immoral thoughts are less serious than immoral behavior, such thoughts also need to be resisted and repented of because we know that “our thoughts will also condemn us” (Alma 12:14). Immoral thoughts (and the less serious feelings that lead to them) can bring about behavior that is sinful.

Here, although SSA (the attraction and its attendant desires, feelings, thoughts, and thought forms) is differentiated from actual same sex relations, it is done with the understanding that thoughts are always the precursors, or catalysts, of action, and that thoughts and feelings may themselves be immoral and unrighteous (as are thoughts of intimacy with a woman to whom I am not married) and a part of our being such that it biases us away from the Spirit and distances us from God. Thoughts here are not in a separate compartment from actual conduct, but on a continuum with action as the final and most salient manifestation of our inner thought world. We are accountable for our thoughts as well as our actions, thought our actions are of much greater seriousness (salience, import), being, as they are, actions, usually involving others when human sexuality is at issue.

Oaks counsels us to approach those with SSA in the following spirit:

“We are asked to be kinder with one another, more gentle and forgiving. We are asked to be slower to anger and more prompt to help. We are asked to extend the hand of friendship and resist the hand of retribution. We are called upon to be true disciples of Christ, to love one another with genuine compassion, for that is the way Christ loved us.”

Kindness, compassion, and love are powerful instruments in strengthening us to carry heavy burdens imposed without any fault of our own and to do what we know to be right.

Our doctrines obviously condemn those who engage in so-called “gay bashing”—physical or verbal attacks on persons thought to be involved in homosexual or lesbian behavior.

We should extend compassion to persons who suffer from ill health, including those who are infected with HIV or who are ill with AIDS (who may or may not have acquired their condition from sexual relations). We should encourage such persons to participate in the activities of the Church.

Part 2 to follow.

[_Droopy]

Elder Oaks continues:

Applying the First Presidency’s distinction to the question of same-sex relationships, we should distinguish between (1) homosexual (or lesbian) “thoughts and feelings” (which should be resisted and redirected), and (2) “homosexual behavior” (which is a serious sin).

We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.

This is critical, as it is a hands down rejection of the secularist "born that way" argument, an exercise in biological reductionism in which SSA is framed as a genetically/biologically predetermined condition wholly outside the choice or control of the individual.

Feelings are another matter. Some kinds of feelings seem to be inborn. Others are traceable to mortal experiences. Still other feelings seem to be acquired from a complex interaction of “nature and nurture.”

This is very close to the position I have taken for many years on the subject of SSA, which is that the origins of SSA are complex, subtle, and deeply interconnected variables involving aspects of biology, psychology, family dynamics, and early psychological/emotional experiences such that a simplistic "x is the "cause" of homosexuality" argument is out of the question.

But just because we are unable to tease out all the variables affecting the ultimate manifestation of a same sex orientation, we are not at an impasse, because although:

All of us have some feelings we did not choose, but the gospel of Jesus Christ teaches us that we still have the power to resist and reform our feelings (as needed) and to assure that they do not lead us to entertain inappropriate thoughts or to engage in sinful behavior.

Again, SSA is not genetiaclly or biologically determined by forces beyond the control of the spirit intelligence within the mortal body. We have power, and we have agency with which that power can be used in the process of choice making.

Different persons have different physical characteristics and different susceptibilities to the various physical and emotional pressures we may encounter in our childhood and adult environments. We did not choose these personal susceptibilities either, but we do choose and will be accountable for the attitudes, priorities, behavior, and “lifestyle” we engraft upon them.

This is absolutely critical to an understanding of the Church's position here. While our biases, predispositions, and susceptibilities may not be chosen, and may be intrinsic, our interpretation of those features of our perceptual and psychological world itself conditions those predispositions, biases, and susceptibilities, and in this we do stand accountable for our determinations relative to them, as intrinsic as they may be in their "raw" form.

Oaks continues on this aspect of the issue:

Just as some people have different feelings than others, some people seem to be unusually susceptible to particular actions, reactions, or addictions. Perhaps such susceptibilities are inborn or acquired without personal choice or fault, like the unnamed ailment the Apostle Paul called “a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure” (2 Cor. 12:7). One person may have feelings that draw him toward gambling, but unlike those who only dabble, he becomes a compulsive gambler. Another person may have a taste for tobacco and a susceptibility to its addiction. Still another may have an unusual attraction to alcohol and the vulnerability to be readily propelled into alcoholism. Other examples may include a hot temper, a contentious manner, a covetous attitude, and so on.

Indeed. Bias and susceptibility must be filtered through our own personal interpretative lens thourgh the process of living, and in so doing, our own agency and core characterological attributes fused with it to form a basis for its understanding and use (or lack of use). This is how, for example, SSA, as an "orientation" based in inherent biases and predispositions, and even as behavior, becomes "Gay" which is an identity and mode of life.

In each case (and in other examples that could be given) the feelings or other characteristics that increase susceptibility to certain behavior may have some relationship to inheritance. But the relationship is probably very complex.

As I have maintained for a number of years, the subtle and complex origins of SSA cannot be disentangled from one another such that a discreet "cause" can be singled out as key.

The inherited element may be nothing more than an increased likelihood that an individual will acquire certain feelings if he or she encounters particular influences during the developmental years. But regardless of our different susceptibilities or vulnerabilities, which represent only variations on our mortal freedom (in mortality we are only “free according to the flesh” [2 Ne. 2:27]), we remain responsible for the exercise of our agency in the thoughts we entertain and the behavior we choose. “Most of us are born with [or develop] thorns in the flesh, some more visible, some more serious than others. We all seem to have susceptibilities to one disorder or another, but whatever our susceptibilities, we have the will and the power to control our thoughts and our actions. This must be so. God has said that he holds us accountable for what we do and what we think, so our thoughts and actions must be controllable by our agency. Once we have reached the age or condition of accountability, the claim ‘I was born that way’ does not excuse actions or thoughts that fail to conform to the commandments of God. We need to learn how to live so that a weakness that is mortal will not prevent us from achieving the goal that is eternal.

And that, in essence, is the core of the LDS position as I think most eloquently expressed up to this point by a General Authority.

[_Ren]

[Droopy, I've combined your two threads into one - they appeared to be exactly the same topic.]

[_CSA]

Droopy,

You hit the nail right on the head. Lust in one's heart based on sexual desire is clearly against what is considered proper in terms of church standards. Now within a marriage between a man and a woman there can be all types of sexual desire and it really does not matter. Isn't SSA simply unbridled lust, and isn't lust wrong in the eyes of the church?

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

In regards to SSA, I can honestly see President Oaks in 5 years from now state, "Forget everything that I have said relating to SSA. I spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

[_3sheets2thewind]

while I appreciate the post, I don't there is much arguing inside the Church as to what Elder Oaks, President Hinckley, Elder Packer.

The consensus that I have seen, is that Church is opposed to sexual relations outside of one man one woman even to the exclusion of polygamy.

Elder Packer statement about things being inborn is that even if something is inborn it can be overcome.

However, it is the following statement that many in the Church do not understand

"Again, SSA is not genetiaclly or biologically determined by forces beyond the control of the spirit intelligence within the mortal body."

This is similar to Elder Packers statement. Too often members of the Church take such statements and claim "See there is no genetic basis for homosexual tendencies". To do such is make a serious error of interpretation.

edit: I spoke too soon. Droopy has taking a statement and made into something the statement is not.,

Droopy, you have a serious lack of understanding you application of Elder Oaks statement:

Elder Oaks: It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.


Droopy's serious lack of understanding: This is critical, as it is a hands down rejection of the secularist "born that way" argument, an exercise in biological reductionism in which SSA is framed as a genetically/biologically predetermined condition wholly outside the choice or control of the individual.

Droopy Elder Oaks like Elder Packer and the Church stated two things that coexist in the statements i.e. inborn and can not overcome.

To take Elder Oak statement and say's "hands down rejection of "born that way", is to demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what Oaks stated. You only apply part of the statement to further your personal agenda.

You need to restate your position based on the two conditions in which gave

consigned by birth
which he or she has no choice

That is essentially what Packer said. Your interpretation is completely without merit.

[_Droopy]

[Droopy, I've combined your two threads into one - they appeared to be exactly the same topic.]

No problemo.

[_Droopy]

In regards to SSA, I can honestly see President Oaks in 5 years from now state, "Forget everything that I have said relating to SSA. I spoke with a limited understanding and without the light and knowledge that now has come into the world."

You'll have to try something beyond a snarky apples/oranges throwaway line, Wang.

I brought this topic here because this is the place for "upper-crust...scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only."

So perhaps you could enter the arena of ideas here instead of standing outside of it making faces.

[_Droopy]

while I appreciate the post, I don't there is much arguing inside the Church as to what Elder Oaks, President Hinckley, Elder Packer.

The consensus that I have seen, is that Church is opposed to sexual relations outside of one man one woman even to the exclusion of polygamy.

Elder Packer statement about things being inborn is that even if something is inborn it can be overcome.

However, it is the following statement that many in the Church do not understand

"Again, SSA is not genetiaclly or biologically determined by forces beyond the control of the spirit intelligence within the mortal body."

This is similar to Elder Packers statement. Too often members of the Church take such statements and claim "See there is no genetic basis for homosexual tendencies". To do such is make a serious error of interpretation.

edit: I spoke too soon. Droopy has taking a statement and made into something the statement is not.,

Droopy, you have a serious lack of understanding you application of Elder Oaks statement:

Elder Oaks: It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.


Droopy's serious lack of understanding: This is critical, as it is a hands down rejection of the secularist "born that way" argument, an exercise in biological reductionism in which SSA is framed as a genetically/biologically predetermined condition wholly outside the choice or control of the individual.

Droopy Elder Oaks like Elder Packer and the Church stated two things that coexist in the statements i.e. inborn and can not overcome.

To take Elder Oak statement and say's "hands down rejection of "born that way", is to demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of what Oaks stated. You only apply part of the statement to further your personal agenda.

You need to restate your position based on the two conditions in which gave

consigned by birth
which he or she has no choice

That is essentially what Packer said. Your interpretation is completely without merit.

I found it quite difficult to follow your argument here. Could you restate it as a succinct, logical argument so I can understand where you see the defects in the "inborn" analysis?

[_Droopy]

Droopy,

You hit the nail right on the head. Lust in one's heart based on sexual desire is clearly against what is considered proper in terms of church standards. Now within a marriage between a man and a woman there can be all types of sexual desire and it really does not matter. Isn't SSA simply unbridled lust, and isn't lust wrong in the eyes of the church?

This is not congruent with LDS doctrine.