History Revised

It's been interesting to me, as I've read the comments on Deseret News and Tribune articles, blogs, Facebook pages, etc., how shocked many members of the church have seemed that the church's recent official endorsement of the Salt Lake City non-discrimination ordinances would even be an issue. Many are shocked at the suggestion that this official statement reflects any sort of change in the church's position or policy.

"Nothing has changed", they say. "The church has never been anti-gay, and has always been supportive of equal rights. We are just pro-family, and believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman."

Many go even further: "The church has never had a problem with gay people--it's only gay behavior that is an issue. A gay person who doesn't act on his feelings has always been welcome in the church.

It's good that these members understand current policy--there are some who don't, and who still believe that mere attraction to others of the same sex is a choice and a sin and grounds for excommunication or at least disfellowshipment.

But it's sad that history has been rewritten so easily, and that the decades of sorrow and struggle endured by gay members who were excommunicated for nothing more than admitting their attractions have been swept under the rug.

It's more comfortable for members to believe that the church's current position is no different than its position yesterday, because that cements the notion that its position will be the same tomorrow as well. Acknowledging that there has been change in the past forces us to admit the possibility of future change. It also suggests that past policy might have been in error, and speaking from personal experience I can testify to the discomfort that a faithful Latter-day Saint experiences when confronted with the idea that his church might actually have gotten something wrong.

I've seen the same phenomenon in discussions about blacks and the priesthood. It's not hard to see how there might be some parallels between the current gay rights issue and the black civil rights movement of the 60s, so it's not uncommon for the latter to be brought up in a discussion of the former. If the discussion involves the church and includes active, testimony-bearing members, it will almost certainly include declarations like:

"The situation is totally different. It was always prophesied that blacks would receive the priesthood someday. And anyway, there's precedent for the priesthood being withheld from a group of people because of race--being black was never considered a sin, but gay behavior has always been considered sinful and always will be."

I suppose that there is some truth in these statements... It was always understood that blacks would eventually receive the priesthood. But nearly every statement from every church leader on the subject prior to 1978 indicated that it wouldn't happen until after the resurrection. In the meantime, being black wasn't considered a sin, per se, but black skin was considered evidence of an individual's unfaithfulness in the pre-existence. Of course, these things are no longer taught or believed, and in fact shortly after the 1978 revelation Elder McConkie spoke from the pulpit and repudiated many of the previously-held notions concerning blacks, stating that newly revealed light and knowledge had revealed them to be in error.

Those erroneous notions were fervently believed (and considered "doctrine) by most members prior to 1978. And now they have been almost entirely forgotten. Swept under the rug and replaced with made-up explanations (the church itself has never offered an official explanation for the ban that I'm aware of) that allow members to comfortably believe that that revelation was part of God's Great Plan, but that the situation bears no resemblance whatsoever to today's question of homosexuality.

They insist that God is unchangeable and that His law (forbidding homosexual relations) is clear. They state this as confidently as the members of the 1960s declared that blacks would never receive the priesthood in this life, because God had made His position on those who bore the mark of Cain clear. They insist it with as much fervor as the members of the late 1800s, who asserted that God would shield the church from its enemies (the US government) so that its members could continue to practice the eternal and unchanging law of Celestial (plural) Marriage, because He had made clear the essential role that it played in the exaltation of His children.

I don't know if the church will ever change its position on homosexual relations in any significant way. But I'm fairly certain that if that ever does happen, within a decade or two most members will insist that the change had been predicted and expected. They will have found a way to reconcile the new policy with the scriptures, and much of the current opposition and prejudice that exists within the church and its members will be entirely forgotten.

Most members of the church don't have much reason to be as familiar with the church's policies on homosexuality as I do (or as most of my readers do). They can be forgiven for not understanding the change that this week's official statement represents.

But I'm not quite as willing to forgive the tendency that so many have to ignore the facts, even when they are clearly and plainly laid out before them, and re-write history in their own minds so that they don't have to face difficult and possibly uncomfortable questions. A testimony should be built on faith, but a strong testimony must be built on faith in what is true, not faith in what one wishes was true.

FHE

Just a reminder that this Saturday (the 14th) is the monthly MoHo FHE. We meet at our house at 7pm. This one is adults-only, to allow for uninterrupted discussion, so please make the appropriate babysitting arrangements if necessary.

Suggestions for a topic are welcome in the comments. Sarah or I will choose a topic to discuss if necessary.

We look forward to seeing you Saturday!

Can I Take a Massage?

I suffer from migraine headaches on a fairly frequent but irregular basis (I might go a week or two or three between headaches, or I might have three or four in a single week). Migraines can have a variety of causes, but in my case I'm fairly certain that they are at least partly due to the stress put on my back and neck by long days spent in front of a computer.

A few times over the last few years I've gone in for a massage to help ease the tension. I had my first massage a few years back at Massage Envy, a franchised massage clinic, and when I scheduled the appointment they assigned me to a female therapist. I enjoyed the experience, and have enjoyed several similar experiences since--most at Massage Envy, and all with female therapists (though some were "couples massage" sessions, in which a male therapist worked on Sarah in the same room at the same time).

NOTE: There are a few bits in the rest of this post that are just slightly explicit. If you're uptight about that sort of thing you might not want to read further.

Read more »

Here I Am!

I've been paying attention to my blog statistics lately. It's interesting to see how many people visit my blog, where they come from, how long they stay, how many pages they visit while they're here, how many of them are repeat visitors... stuff like that.

It's also interesting to see what searches have led people to my blog. As I've paid special attention to search keywords over the last month or so I've noticed something:

Read more »

Another Answer (Talking to the Bishop)

There's been another question posted to in the comments of my Questions post, so here's another answer post. This time it's about talking to a bishop:

After your experiences with church leadership, what advice would you give for someone who wants to talk to their bishop about being a gay Mormon.

More specifically...
Is it worth it?
What to say, and what to avoid?
What to expect.

Read more »

SADness, Solitude

I blogged last year about Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD)--basically a form of clinical depression that only hits when the days get shorter and the body's normal cycles of serotonin and melatonin get disrupted by the decrease in daylight hours. It's been an issue to varying degrees for the last several years, though I wasn't technically diagnosed until just a few years ago.

I'm sure that SAD is part of what's been bothering me the last few weeks, but I don't know if it's the only thing...

Read more »

Answers, Part V (Miscellaneous)

Final post of answers to questions posed in a previous post (until I get more questions, at least). This one addresses the few miscellaneous questions, some of which are meaningful and some of which aren't:

Read more »