Getting back to the doctrinal question, I should probably tell you what I think about the Church's position regarding homosexuality in general, as well as elaborate on my views both on the church and on homosexuality.
I find it interesting that you equated the "homosexuality issue" with Polygamy. I think you meant this in the sense that it is a divisive issue; in this sense I agree. However, with the case of polygamy, the Church was advocating an act (plural marriage) which those on the outside viewed as immoral, compared to the case of homosexuality where the Church opposes an act it deems immoral but which others on the outside view as being moral. They are really opposite in this sense. (I know this is a bit trifling but it offers a good lead-in to the point I really want to make.)
I actually think of the "homosexuality issue" in the church is analogous to the "Blacks and the Priesthood" issue. Before SW Kimball’s proclamation on the priesthood, the Blacks being denied the priesthood was as divisive as Homosexuals being denied the expression of their love and sexuality within a marriage by the church. In both the case of homosexuality, and the Church denying Blacks (or anybody with arbitrarily dark colored skin) the priesthood, the Church can be seen as denying individuals a right on supposed doctrinal basis. My opinion about the Church's teachings on homosexuality mirror my opinion about the church withholding priesthood from males with the wrong skin color.
My opinion on why people with arbitrary levels of melanin in their skin were denied the priesthood is simply that the Church leaders which decided to deny them the priesthood were acting (perhaps unwittingly) on personal and cultural prejudices which were never congruent with Heavenly Father's desires or doctrine properly understood. Unfortunately they were able to trump up what they thought (and what many people still today use) were good doctrinal reasons to justify their prejudice, but these explanations were and are always lacking in substance. Importantly, Joseph Smith is not included in this statement because he did in fact confer the priesthood on black men; the temples of the day were even ornamented with a saying to the effect that all were welcome regardless of race. As with any revelation, our Heavenly Father had to wait until someone in the right position asked the right question and was prepared to receive and act on the answer. I personally think that in the case of the Priesthood, He had been patiently waiting, from the moment the decision was made to deny the first black the priesthood until SW Kimball asked the question, to tell us we were wrong and that no worthy male member should be denied any blessing of the Gospel.
Notice that I DO think that SW Kimball and all those leading up to him were prophets. I just also recognize that a prophet is a man who is free to act on his own conscience, but who also happens to be the only one who can receive revelation for the Church as a whole; I also do believe that they are selected to be prophets and leaders because they generally are righteous, intelligent, and sincere, which means both that generally speaking their decisions will be in harmony with truth and that they are more likely to be prepared to receive revelation; but in the end they are human and they do still make mistakes.
Regarding the issue of homosexuality and how their desires are treated by the church, I personally think that the direction the church has taken is not a product of revelation, especially with regard to Proposition 8. I think that the teaching that having a homosexual relationship is immoral stems from historical and cultural ignorance, and fear of things which are out of the ordinary; I think this is another case of confusing popular norms with gospel truths: The way I see things, the Earth revolves around the Sun, humans (along with all other life on this planet) are the product of evolution, and there is nothing inherently immoral about acting on homosexual feelings. I think it is clear that individuals do not choose their sexual persuasion, and it is even clearer that no amount of therapy or repentance or righteousness will change a homosexual into a heterosexual, no matter how badly they may want to change. I do agree with the law of chastity that we should not have sexual relations outside of marriage, but I think this applies (should be applied) in the Church equally to homosexuals as it is heterosexuals. As said, I think that making homosexual marriages legal will only tend towards the stabilization of family and society. I will even go so far as to say that I think that homosexual couples should be allowed to be sealed in the temple. I know that most in the church would argue that there would be no point because they wouldn't be able to have spirit children in the next life, but even if the premise and the argument are true, is this sufficient to make their marriage immoral? I don't think so. I can honestly say that I hope that the Prophet considers the issue sincerely and receives revelation that homosexuality is not immoral as long as homosexuals adhere to the law of chastity. I am not holding my breath, however, because, the analogy with blacks and the priesthood notwithstanding, homosexuality is much more difficult for people to accept.
In one of your comments posted to you Facebook wall, you mentioned the importance of making the pursuit of truth the standard we should be rising to, not dogmatic adherence to one way of thinking and a determination for that to be right. I completely agree. I agree that these kinds of truths can only be received by sincere and humble searching. I believe this searching must include as much study of all sides of the issues from all angles, as it does prayer and meditation. I think that all sides of an issue must also be sincerely considered as real possibilities. I do not believe that truth will ever be obtained if the predetermined answer is conformity to any one way of thinking, regardless of the source. If the source is a prophet/leader of the Church, their opinion in my mind deserves attention, but it is not guaranteed to be in the right. I can tell you that 5 years ago, even though I have always been sensitive to the struggles that homosexuals face, my opinions were definitely more in line with the main-stream Mormon views. However, the more I have looked at, thought about, studied, prayed, meditated, and considered this issue (along with many others), my views have changed in ways that surprise even myself.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment