Equality Ride's visit to BYU

[awediot]

I believe my religion does fill all the gaps, but you don't because you're different. We're all different, and to say that a religion will, should, or can fill all the gaps means we have to give up our individuality to be a part of it.

Your interpretation, nothing to do with what I said... But do you mean you have given up your individuality for your gapless religion? I don't see The Truth wiping out individuals. There's way too many aspects within it to homogonize all its followers.

If there's one thing that is inescapable in the Bible it is that men must conform to the will of God, and not the other way around. From Adam to John we are told that we must become more like Him and forsake all that does not fit. If you want to believe another dogma that's your prerogative, but it is not Biblical.

Well, the Book of Mormon is certainly not Biblical to the majority of Christians (another topic).

But, I absolutely agree. This is not meant as a justification to bend the Bible to my will (though that is exactly what God Himself has forced me to do). I am simply forsaking that which does not fit: Him thinking me an Abomination being a big one. (The automatic damnation of those who add to scripture being another) I have only felt that from the world. Never from Him...

You would no doubt wipe the floor with me in scripture and hermeneutics, and thank the Lord formal education is not a prerequisite of grace. My point is that there is knowledge and Truth outside of whatever Holy texts one is following, and not only can it at times be incorporated with no harm done, it can enliven and solidify the often dry tomes of wisdom telling us to stop reading and get a life. They are brilliant, yet incomplete with out some doubt.

[Daniel]

An interesting- and intense- series of posts.

ClosetCougar- I can see you have the makings of a psychologist. I mean this as a compliment. Would that I had been as self-aware as you seem to be when I was attending an Assembies of God School years ago. My self-awarenss of being gay- of being different- lead me to question everything. And one of the more subtle matters was the lingo I heard used. It became increasingly clear to me how I was inducted into a system of thought where phrases and words brought with them an agreed-upon meaning. Subsequent study of Eastern religions and meditation in particular lead me to conclude that these words and phrases were not concrete.

Maklelan- For you, matters are very concrete indeed ("My religion does fill all the gaps"). And you seem to be iin a great hurry to dispense with any messy self-inquiry ("we have to give up our individuality to be part of it"). While no scholar of original languages myself, I do remember that the good book asserts that the "Kingdom of heaven is within you."? Of course, I could be glib and say that I found it in my boyfriend's eyes as well as on the cushion- but it would also be the truth. Love is a great teacher.

[Daniel]

ClosetCougar-

This isn't a term that I normally think of using, but I understand and applaud the self-knowledge that leads you to do so. (I guess I would, if pressed, use the phrase 'self-realization', but this hardly seems the point.) I recall just such a moment- or rather a series of moments. They came after periods of intense introspection and have informed, as such things do, a great deal of my thinking.

[closetcougar]

I take your words as a compliment and owe it to gay individuals who have dared to break the mold, and question "reality," before me that I am able to be as comfortable as I am in my own skin. Many Mormons forget that the LDS church originated with a 14 year old boy who challenged the religious movement at that time, and many saw him as a heretic and psychotic (delusions and hallucinations), while many more today believe him to be a prophet of God.

[closetcougar]

Perhaps a bit tangential for his thread, but when you speak of such moments in your life, which come to mind? I am just interested in understanding the overarching principles that help people listen to their own voice. It seems that this is in line whith the Soulforce agenda of helping people see gay and lesbian individuals as people and, even if they still disagree, can be concilliatory in allowing us the basic rights that are afforded every other human being in the U.S.

[Daniel]

Not tangential at all. The overarching principals for listening to that 'still small voice' reflect and make use of, for me at least, the following conditions (there are many books and perspectives as well as 'methods' on this subject):

1) Making time to be quiet. At least 20 minutes a day if possible. Studies have shown that there is a lasting, favorable and measurable effect on the brain when a person undertakes a meditative or spiritual practice.

2) Conscious relaxation: this means focusing one's awareness from head to toe and letting each area become 'relaxed'. A jumpy body implies a jumpy mind. Getting it calmed down is key.

3) Deep Slow Breathing. Long exhalations slow down one's brainwaves, heart rate and respiration. It's the one skill that is now taught to people to reduce their stress and was proven from research in bio-feedback studies.

4) Eye Fixation: meditative/prayer methods- across the boards- make use of this in one way or another. Breath and eye movement come to a standsill when you are concentrating intently. Try to thread a small needle and you will see what this means.

We don't seem to cultivate this kind of inner awareness- or practices that lead to it- very much unless we are impelled to do so by our circumstances. Realizing I was gay was the kicker.

Getting quiet is about active listening. How can we have dialogue with each other when all we hear is a lot of chatter in our heads? It takes a degree of skill to quiet things down enough to see what is really going on in there. Then one can Act instead of React.

[cris]

Hi Dan,
I welcome your sincere interest in grappling with the issues that you raise here. I am not afraid of debate or discussion, which is something I have dealt with most of my life. But I really question your openness, not only to what others are saying, but also to what your church teaches.

Are you being honest with yourself about the beliefs of your church? I find it ironic that your main issue with Soulforce is regarding the Freedom Riders’ “invasion” of your sacred space, BYU, and your perceived attack on the beliefs of Mormonism. The irony is in the fact that one of the key components of the growth of your church has been through proselytizing. It has been in fact one of the tactics encouraged in your missionaries for years.

My family moved to a small town in Utah when I was 14. I spent my four years of high school in that community, where we were first scorned as “outsiders” and “Gentiles” until the goal changed to make every effort to convert those of us who were not LDS. I had to “defend my faith” on a daily basis at school. The goal of my peers, and even friends, was to convince me that my beliefs were wrong, and that I must accept the Book of Mormon and the Mormon Church as the true church of Christ.

I still love my friends, but it took me years to overcome my resentment of that experience in my life. It was so rough on us that some in my family think this is what “turned me”gay. Well, I’m able to tell you that it had nothing to do with where I lived. It’s only that while I lived there, I came to terms with my sexuality, although I kept it well hidden from anyone other than a close friend.

Please don’t assume that I am bitter or resentful against Mormons. I look back on that time with gratitude for what it taught me. In God’s own creative and sometimes humorous way, I have overcome any feelings of anger through timely encounters with other Mormons that I have known since that time, especially very recently, and even more so through having a relationship with another man, who had been a devout Mormon his whole life, was married for 15 years and had 5 children, until finally facing the fact that all the reparative efforts of bishop and church were to naught, and he was and will always be gay. (Probably our break-up was partly the result of his continuing struggle with guilt issues that never really allowed me into his life.) He and many others like him, some that I know personally, are suffering for their honesty, being openly ex-communicated from the church because of it. He was “safe” when putting up a good front, but his heart would not let him live a lie. Who would choose to do this if there really was a choice, as you seem to believe? Why would any of us make that initial choice, knowing that we risk social or religious disgrace?

When you say that you don’t really know why God would change his mind about polygamy or black men becoming priests, I wonder why you do not research the reason for these changes. Do you not know? The polygamy change came at the time of Utah’s attempts to join the Union and came more out of compulsion. Many practicing polygamists today do not believe that this change was a mandate that must be followed. As for the priesthood I well remember the change in the ruling on blacks and the priesthood, when a Portland bishop openly baptized a black man, creating a firestorm of publicity. Many other changes such as permission to drink Coke or tea that is in a bag have come recently. Why? Check it out for yourself. What would happen if you were to enquire into your church’s history, even as to the changes in the Book of Mormon since its original printing?

Am I being critical? Perhaps. But my intention is really to ask you if it is so impossible for organizations such as BYU to change their policy of discrimination. Most of the 3,000+ same-sex couples in the Salt Lake area hold little hope that the policy of the church will change in their lifetimes, but they continue their efforts nevertheless. In the same way that my former denomination, Southern Baptists, excused support of slavery on the grounds that it was scriptural but have only recently recanted, I believe that other religions will one day face the reality that being homosexual is not a choice. It is who we are, part of the creative assortment as assigned by God. Why would God create someone as gay or lesbian? Why would God in fact assign some as hermaphrodites? Is it evil or just a part of the natural selective process present in his creation?

Instead of being encouraged to make good choices as a gay man, your moral standard says that no matter what I choose, I am living in sin. Thus, many young people, such as those at BYU, who are trying to find their own way as lesbians or gay men, are given no set of standards as to how they should live. They’re not empowered to make wise and safe choices within the realm of their own sexuality. They are expected to behave as you do, even though it is not part of their true makeup.

In the same way that these Freedom Riders have no intention of changing anyone else’s religious beliefs, this is really not about you or your church. It is about those who are gay or lesbian, who want to be a part of your church-based school, who are fearful because of a policy that singles them out on the basis of who they are. (If you say that there is no discrimination against them for this, only for their behavior, I respond by reminding you that you have a choice of dating and marrying. They don’t.) For me it is worth facing the scorn and anger if someone can be reached with a message that I have learned: God does not reject you. Be whole!

Please seriously consider what I’ve written.

Yours sincerely,
Cris

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by awediot

Your interpretation, nothing to do with what I said... But do you mean you have given up your individuality for your gapless religion? I don't see The Truth wiping out individuals. There's way too many aspects within it to homogonize all its followers.

What I'm saying is that your gap is another man's glory, and for that to be filled would rob another of their happiness. If God must pander to our desires then He must do exactly that, but His charge to us is not to do whatever makes you feel good. His charge is to keep the commandments and find a superlative happiness that transcends the pleasures sought for by most people in the world.

Originally Posted by awediot

Well, the Book of Mormon is certainly not Biblical to the majority of Christians (another topic).

(The automatic damnation of those who add to scripture being another).

You're right, it's not biblical, and that's because the Bible is one book, and the Book of Mormon is another (and the Bible is a Catholic creation). The idea that the canon has closed is also a Cathoilic notion set forth in the mid sixteenth century when Revelation was added to the end and the canon was closed to try to cut the knees off of any reformers that might bring forth additional scripture. That would undermine the authority of the Catholic church and their subsidization would cease. Look it up, if you really want to know the truth rather than what is told you by others. Your "damnation" doctrine is a Catholic propoganda tool and absolutely nothing more.

By the way, that's one person who has condemned me to the zero people I have condemned.

Originally Posted by awediot

But, I absolutely agree. This is not meant as a justification to bend the Bible to my will (though that is exactly what God Himself has forced me to do).

So your desires supercede inspired scripture and doctrine?

Originally Posted by awediot

I am simply forsaking that which does not fit: Him thinking me an Abomination being a big one.

He does not think you are an abomination, and my religion does not teach that. I don't know who told you that, but they were sadly mistaken.

Originally Posted by awediot

My point is that there is knowledge and Truth outside of whatever Holy texts one is following, and not only can it at times be incorporated with no harm done, it can enliven and solidify the often dry tomes of wisdom telling us to stop reading and get a life. They are brilliant, yet incomplete with out some doubt.

I agree. I've read many different holy texts, from the Bahgavad Gita to the Lao Tzu and I find amazing truths in all of them. I also find sublime truth in atheism, nature and science. I feel everyone can be inspired, and I never said that one must confine their existence to a book, but what I am saying is that we must not confine God to our desires. Giving our agency to Him is the only thing we can give Him that he doesn't already have. I believe you refuse to do that, and that's your prerogative. I also believe you think it's a measure of self-mastery that is too much to ask of you. If the men and women in the Bible gave up their lives for the gospel what makes you think your recompense will be equal by refusing to give up the pleasures of the flesh? I understand it differently than you and I'm not trying to convince you that I'm right. What I'm trying to do is show you that we have spent a good amount of time trying to find out what God wants from us (which we believe is more important than what we want from God), and we feel good with what we have. We just ask that you allow us to practice those beliefs without interference.

[awediot]

What I'm saying is that your gap is another man's glory, and for that to be filled would rob another of their happiness.

Not in the perfect religion we were discussing (or say when the Kingdom is established again) I see the the two existing simultaneously as contradictory.

You're right, it's not biblical, and that's because the Bible is one book, and the Book of Mormon is another (and the Bible is a Catholic creation). The idea that the canon has closed is also a Cathoilic notion set forth in the mid sixteenth century when Revelation was added to the end and the canon was closed to try to cut the knees off of any reformers that might bring forth additional scripture. That would undermine the authority of the Catholic church and their subsidization would cease.

Well too late for the Catholics. Alot of us snuck out. Maybe WE on this site ARE reformers, just like you.

By the way, that's one person who has condemned me to the zero people I have condemned.

Put back in context: " I am simply forsaking that which does not fit: Him thinking me an Abomination being a big one. (The automatic damnation of those who add to scripture being another)"... I did the exact opposite and was actually defending you... Or perhaps I was condemning your actions, not your person...

So your desires supercede inspired scripture and doctrine?

No, desires are controllable. The nature of my Soul supercedes the claim of inspiration. That I have no choice in.

If the men and women in the Bible gave up their lives for the gospel what makes you think your recompense will be equal by refusing to give up the pleasures of the flesh?

I cannot blame you for seeing my human need to bond and love and share and nurture as mere pleasures of the flesh. The fact it is as ingrained and Holy as your longing for a woman (?) and family is impossible for you to understand, and I will remain deludeing myself in your eyes. It is a measure of self mastery that is too much to ask. I nearly mastered suicide first and know the idea of giving up my life for the gospels INTIMATELY...

He does not think you are an abomination, and my religion does not teach that. I don't know who told you that, but they were sadly mistaken.

My core, my essence and very Soul is the abominable sin you think I can just master. If I'd just get over that, I'd be ok. The inability to see we are GAY, not fighting off Gayness, does indeed teach I am an abomination.

It is teaching the same to your friend as well.

[maklelan]

You define yourself by your sexuality, and I don't. You're perfectly allowed to believe the things you want, and I'm not telling you to stop, I'm just trying to defend my right to do the same. Do you still feel you need to attack that right?

[awediot]

Others use my sexuality to define me. I am not juicy gossip to myself. My 'attacks' are not on your right to believe, they are on the belief itself. It is easy for you to allow me to believe what I want, mine don't hurt anybody. Sorry if I can't return the favor, but yours nearly killed me...

Can you defend them without resorting to "they told me so"?

[Zerbie]

Maklelan,

You have the right to believe what you want. No one is attacking your right to believe anything. Many of us vigorously disagree with your belief itself, we think it's incorrect. You think we are incorrect. That has been established. But you have a right to believe what you wish, that right is not under attack anywhere, least of all on this board. Even if we raise questions about the belief itself. Perhaps especially.

Awediot tells you that the kind of teaching you reiterate on this thread nearly drove him to suicide, and you respond as if completely unmoved. The sense I get from your posts is that you ARE completely unmoved by the severity of suffering caused by the widespread proseltyzing of a belief that is anti-gay to its core (yes now I know that you don't find it to be anti-gay, it's established that we disagree about that qualification too. That's fine. It's okay to disagree). But I am amazed that you continue to post here day after day, not allowing this worn old thread to die in peace, but instead you come back after awediot tells you that he was a near-suicide because of internalized homophobia and you turn around and call that information an attack on your belief?!

It is *information!* It is a personal tragedy! It is anything else but an attack.

You and I believe vastly different things. We are the north and south pole. No, farther apart than that. Waaay farther. But we are each allowed to believe whatever we want to believe. If you are secure in your belief, you can read and hear arguments against it and come back with your belief reinforced. Or you might even - heavens! choose to revise your belief in the light of further information. Your choice, your right. So why do you come here repeatedly claiming to defend your right to believe? Why are you so interested? Or are you merely trolling?

[closetcougar]

Maklelan,

First of all, I can't help but feel positively toward you. You are my brother, my uncle, my father, my best friend... Next,

My, my, my... How hasty you are to forget the history of your own religion. Joseph Smith was considered by many to be a heretic, a treasure hunter, and a hebaphile, (he married a 14 year old woman). He is hailed as a martyr and saint by millions. Your and my ancestors (Robert D. Lee, Jacob Hamblin, Emma Smith, etc.) fought civilly for the right to express their beliefs and they did not stop until that right was granted. They traveled almost as far as the Freedom Ride is traveling, in order to have the right to worship however and whomever they may. They pissed a lot of people off in the process. They did not only worship with permission. They worshipped regardless, because they believed in it.

Why do you discourage the same behavior from others? I know that you are saying we have the right to believe what we do and you yours, but you also say that your beliefs as a church will never change.

Hmmmmm....
If there were a world wide web in the 1960's (which, by the way, I am disappointed that God did not give the glory of such an invention to a fellow Mormon) the subject matter would be black people and the priesthood.

If there were a world wide web in 1900, the subject matter would be polygamy. Your beliefs claim that polygamy is an eternal principle that may no longer be practiced on earth, but will be again in Heaven. Can you not then, for little ol' me, still consider homosexual sex an eternal abomination, but suspend this eternal principle and allow us to cohabitate your campus, just for the temporal life?

I would agree with you in that the Freedom Riders are not going to change the policies today, or tomorrow, or even next year. They will, however, affect you, your friends, my brother, my sister, my cousins, and my classmates.

Also, your newspaper, just yesterday stated this:
Community journalism, of which this department professes to practice, involves a discussion on why a story is deemed newsworthy. It strives to bring out the opinions of those members of the community who are affected, but not normally those who are the opinion makers. Opinions are those moments when standing for something is imperative to that person's moral judgment.
This past week, it was reported that a BYUSA staff member had been terminated, in part, due to his participation in this form of free expression.
We stand up for his right to speak his opinion. While the topic - BYUSA -- is a controversial and "touchy" subject on the part of the administration, this member of our community has a right to speak out without consequence. We, too, have spoken out on the subject of the BYUSA presidency and council. We, too, have been challenged for our opinions.
We, the members of The Universe's editorial board, are first to admit that we, too, have room for improvement. Our errors and foibles are displayed daily, and we are subjected to scrutiny of the faculty, staff and administration.
But there is no shame another department on this campus should face the same scrutiny, and that that scrutiny should not result in the firing of a "whistle-blower" or someone with an alternate opinion. When free speech is held back because of repercussion, or implied repercussion, there is no free speech.
Please help me understand this discrepancy.

[closetcougar]

Letters to the editor from BYU's daily newspaper:

I write this letter in response to Janet Scharman's e-mail, and Wednesday's editorial on Soulforce. I would like to add some thoughts regarding showing true respect and love.
In the first place, "soulforce" is a beautiful term that I feel is used completely out of context, since the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. (the man who coined the term) was fighting against real oppression, and Soulforce is fighting against an imagined enemy, much like Don Quixote.
BYU and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have never uttered "anti-gay rhetoric." This church and its affiliates have spread a message that is widely seen to be one of love, tolerance, equality and (once again) love.
Finally, I encourage all of us to be as Ammon and his brothers. Instead of fearing to offend, I believe we should pray for opportunities to have good, open conversations with the Equality Riders. And in faith, filled with the Spirit, we should go up to them. I personally would like to understand their viewpoint, and I would like to show them that as children of God, they are worthy of a love that may be far beyond what they have ever imagined.
Why should we hide? Why should we hide this candle under a bushel?
Jared Garrett
Anchorage, Alaska


I appreciated Wednesday's editorial encouraging us to respond civilly and respectfully to the presence of Soulforce on campus in April. However, while we are patting ourselves on the back for our "Christian" attitude of tolerance, it seems that we are merely pursuing a self-interested attempt to maintain an image and, as the Universe's editorial stated, "take the higher road." Although the e-mail sent to all students so kindly assured us that "no one is under any obligation to visit with or listen to a member of this group," perhaps the true higher road would be to listen to and recognize the importance of the message Soulforce is trying to communicate to us.
Regardless of personal views or religious convictions regarding such lifestyle choices, it is imperative that we recognize there are many people in the church and at BYU who struggle with the stigma and condemnation associated with their sexuality. Soulforce's agenda may not correspond directly with the church's approach to homosexuality, but both have in common an interest in and love for all of our brothers and sisters, and both advocate acceptance of individual agency and personal understanding of God's will.
It is ironic that the Universe and BYU's administration are encouraging us to follow President Hinckley's counsel and treat the Equality Riders with love and respect, while overlooking Soulforce's underlying goal of seeking love and respect for the GLBT people the organization represents. We might consider that a more Christian approach would be to seek to understand the reality of the oppression and persecution faced by these people in homogeneous societies like our own and to grant them the humanity they deserve.
Katherine Fisher
Salt Lake City


Letter from the editor:In 1998, the Southern Baptist national convention was held in Salt Lake City. That year, the Southern Baptists had reaffirmed their official stance that The Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a Christian church, and they planned on doing missionary work to help the LDS people understand true Christianity. Utahns were bracing themselves for the Baptist onslaught, and some were undoubtedly brushing up on their Bible bashing techniques.
That same year, before the convention, President Gordon B. Hinckley addressed the issue in his April General Conference address. "We must teach our children to be tolerant and friendly toward those not of our faith," he said. In the same talk, he told the church, "A holier-than-thou attitude is not becoming of us . . . . Love and respect will overcome every element of animosity."
After all was said and done, the Baptist convention came and went without making too much of a ruckus. No great theological battles were reported, and though the media made a big deal out of the whole affair, the Baptists came and went pretty quietly.
A similar situation will be occurring in Provo on April 10. The Soulforce Equality Riders will be at Kiwanis Park "to tell BYU that their anti-gay rhetoric causes [gay, lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender] suffering," according to the group's Web site. Monday, Janet S. Scharman, BYU's student life vice president, sent out a campus-wide e-mail, encouraging everyone to act civilly toward Soulforce members that may come on campus. We at The Daily Universe echo Scharman's suggestions and encourage students to continue practicing that same civility at Kiwanis Park, where the main rally will take place.
The Soulforce visit is still a couple of weeks off, but we as a campus should be ready and must decide to take the higher road before they arrive. Students who aggressively confront the Equality Riders with a "holier-than-thou attitude" will only reinforce the group's beliefs that Latter-day Saints, and BYU students in particular, are intolerant and prejudiced. More bad than good will come from students feeling the need to call the group to repentance. This message will be transmitted on from them to others across the nation and will only paint the university and the church that owns it in a negative light.
BYU students should follow President Hinckley's council and treat the Equality Riders with love and respect. Those students who can't find it within themselves to do so should just avoid the group all together.

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by cris

Are you being honest with yourself about the beliefs of your church? I find it ironic that your main issue with Soulforce is regarding the Freedom Riders’ “invasion” of your sacred space, BYU, and your perceived attack on the beliefs of Mormonism. The irony is in the fact that one of the key components of the growth of your church has been through proselytizing. It has been in fact one of the tactics encouraged in your missionaries for years.

If you are not afraid of debate then I hope you will accept my criticism and correction of some of your remarks. Many, many people who come to know the Mormons are guided into a circle of understanding that does not quite encapsulate what we really think and what we really believe. This comes as a result of observing the actions of members who don't always act in accordance with the teachings of the church; members who speak out erroneously about beliefs and history as if they had some authority; and accepting the definitions and explanations of non-members. I see some of that has crept into your perception of my church and that is perfectly normal.

First, we do not "invade" or "attack" anything as missionaries. Our goal as missioanries is to let our light so shine in a manner that will testify to those we come in ontact with that we possess something special. This is our one and only tactic. We achieve this through the interposition of the Holy Ghost, whic hwe seek to obtain via strict obedience to God's comandments and the promptings of said Holy Ghost. There are many missionaries who enjoy "Bible bashing", attacking, invading and arguing, but they act in defiance of our beliefs and the instructions we receive before being set aart as misionaries. I ask that these poor examples not represent to you the essence of our missionary work.

Originally Posted by cris

My family moved to a small town in Utah when I was 14. I spent my four years of high school in that community, where we were first scorned as “outsiders” and “Gentiles” until the goal changed to make every effort to convert those of us who were not LDS. I had to “defend my faith” on a daily basis at school. The goal of my peers, and even friends, was to convince me that my beliefs were wrong, and that I must accept the Book of Mormon and the Mormon Church as the true church of Christ.

This is the effect that people can have when their priorities are screwed up. Those people are not following the Spirit, and are not in harmony with the teachings of the church. My father is not a member, but is good friends with several peope from my ward in Dallas. A while ago a newly assigned home teacher made a special effort to befriend my dad. My dad said, "If you really want to be my friend that's great, but I'm ot interested if you just want another notch on your belt. The man responded that he did indeed want another notch on his belt. This is a similar example of how many people in our church drop the ball when it comes to their responsibilities as members. I am not thinking of converting anyone when I make friends outside the church. I am thinking of making a good friend. If my example or spirit happens to touch that person then I'm ecstatic, but my priority is to people, not to numbers. I'm sorry the church was so horribly represented, but it is in no way indicative of what we're taught.

Originally Posted by cris

Who would choose to do this if there really was a choice, as you seem to believe? Why would any of us make that initial choice, knowing that we risk social or religious disgrace?

If you read my quote you will see that I never said I believed being gay was a choice. What I believe is that there is a choice on this side of every single action we take. To have those feelings is no sin or choice. I also said that we wil be judged based on the manner in which we obey the light and knowledge that we personally have acquired in this life.

Originally Posted by cris

When you say that you don’t really know why God would change his mind about polygamy or black men becoming priests, I wonder why you do not research the reason for these changes. Do you not know? The polygamy change came at the time of Utah’s attempts to join the Union and came more out of compulsion. Many practicing polygamists today do not believe that this change was a mandate that must be followed.

I hope you will forgive my directness, but I have studied this subject more than you could ever hope to, and I understand it very, very well. It seems to some that it was a decision made of compulsion, but that is what you see when you merely glance once at what someone else has assumed about it. I'd like to quote from the president of the church responsible for the change: "I should have let all the temples go out of our hands; I should have gone to prison myself, and let every other man go there, had not the God of Heaven commanded me to do what I did do." The decision was made because God commanded it to be made. You will say that t is suspiciously convenient, but Wilford Woodruff kept a journal every single day for almost 63 years, and we have his most intimate recordings of all that led to this decision. It occured as he said. It is true that part of the reason was to protect our temples and our people (statehood had nothing to do with it), but Wilford Woodruff would never have made the call unless the Lord commanded it. He and all our people were quite used to being thrown in jail and they were not afraid of it.

Originally Posted by cris

As for the priesthood I well remember the change in the ruling on blacks and the priesthood, when a Portland bishop openly baptized a black man, creating a firestorm of publicity. Many other changes such as permission to drink Coke or tea that is in a bag have come recently. Why? Check it out for yourself. What would happen if you were to enquire into your church’s history, even as to the changes in the Book of Mormon since its original printing?

I have looked into every single change made to the Book of Mormon. I am also tired of the requests of people (outside my church) begging me to learn as much about my own church as they think they know. Do you really believe that you could share something with me that I haven't already heard a hundred times? Again, you are judging our church on assumptions, weak members and incomplete data. There has been no "permission" given to drink Coke, nor has there been a prohibition on drinking Coke. It is and always has been a choice that is between the person and the Lord. Tea in a bag? Are you serious? The church is indeed backing away from the specific and direct counsel it has often offered in the past, but this is to separate the wheat from the tares. It is to purge the church of people who cannot find the answers from the guidance of the Spirit. If people ar eto be commanded in all thingsthey have no real faith. D&C 58:26.

Originally Posted by cris

Am I being critical? Perhaps. But my intention is really to ask you if it is so impossible for organizations such as BYU to change their policy of discrimination. Most of the 3,000+ same-sex couples in the Salt Lake area hold little hope that the policy of the church will change in their lifetimes, but they continue their efforts nevertheless. In the same way that my former denomination, Southern Baptists, excused support of slavery on the grounds that it was scriptural but have only recently recanted, I believe that other religions will one day face the reality that being homosexual is not a choice.

You presuppose that all of these religions are false, and I do not. If a religion be true, then it cannot be guided by false principles. I believe we are a true religion, and I do not apologize for my beliefs, just as I do not expect you to apologize for yours. A member of my church that supposes it has a better understanding of God's will than the prophet and the twelve Apostles has no testimony of their calling, their authority, their divine guidance or the truthfulness of the church itself. Why do those people insist on trying to change a church they don't even believe in?

Originally Posted by cris

Instead of being encouraged to make good choices as a gay man, your moral standard says that no matter what I choose, I am living in sin. Thus, many young people, such as those at BYU, who are trying to find their own way as lesbians or gay men, are given no set of standards as to how they should live.

This is simply not true. We believe having homosexual sex is a sin, but being gay (a very subjective categorization) carries the weight of no intrinsic sin. What of those with an insatiable desire for children? By whose morals are they to live?

Originally Posted by cris

In the same way that these Freedom Riders have no intention of changing anyone else’s religious beliefs, this is really not about you or your church.

The mission statement and the e-mail I received regarding BYU states that their goal is for us to see the light and change our policies. Our policies are ditated by and are 100% consistent with our beliefs. They are inseperable. BYU will send every administrator to jail and close its doors forever before it will change its policies regarding homosexual sex. You can spout litany all you want about it being wrong, but we have our beliefs, and we will not change them.

Originally Posted by cris

It is about those who are gay or lesbian, who want to be a part of your church-based school, who are fearful because of a policy that singles them out on the basis of who they are. (If you say that there is no discrimination against them for this, only for their behavior, I respond by reminding you that you have a choice of dating and marrying. They don’t.)

And your beliefs grant you the right to engage in pre-marital sex, as well as many other liberties that my beliefs preclude me from participating in. Who's being discriminated against more?

Originally Posted by cris

Please seriously consider what I’ve written.

Joseph Smith once said that the first thing you should do when presented with criticism is to make a concerted effort to find the truth in the criticism, and then thank the person for giving you the opportunity to better yourself. I recognize that our members could do a much better job of treating gays and lesbians. I also recognize that we could do a better job at representing the church. I hope you believe me when I say that I have considered your arguments.

To the closet cougar, I have explained why those things happened, and no beliefs were changed, only administration. There were black men ordained to the priesthood during Joseph Smith's day, and polygamy has moved in and out of God's church in the past. Nothing was a stark reversal of morality. Yours is a false analogy.

[closetcougar]

Maklelan, just a quick question - purely personal.
If you knew someone to be actively gay at BYU, would you turn them into the honor code office?

[themattperry]

Meklelan,

I want to mention a few things that your post brought up for me, and also ask you to please be careful about a certain matter.

Originally Posted by maklelan

Joseph Smith once said that the first thing you should do when presented with criticism is to make a concerted effort to find the truth in the criticism, and then thank the person for giving you the opportunity to better yourself. I recognize that our members could do a much better job of treating gays and lesbians. I also recognize that we could do a better job at representing the church. I hope you believe me when I say that I have considered your arguments.

In the spirit of Joseph Smith's advice, Meklelan, I can say that GLBT people have not always been very focused in our demands for justice. Many are the undisciplined, the frustrated, the angry, the hurt and the plain careless who over-reach the simple request that we all seem to share that religious organizations of all kinds end overt discrimination against glbt people, and instead move into the territory of personal and spiritual invictive. I for one, take what you say as a caution to clearly keep away from attacking your beliefs ... I don't wish to do that. I just want to focus on matters of justice and ending discrimination.

Originally Posted by maklelan

If you read my quote you will see that I never said I believed being gay was a choice. What I believe is that there is a choice on this side of every single action we take. To have those feelings is no sin or choice. I also said that we wil be judged based on the manner in which we obey the light and knowledge that we personally have acquired in this life.

I guess my question about this Mekelan, is just ... how then would you have us live? What is your vision for God's glbt people? If it's not a choice, and the feelings themselves not a sin, then please tell me how I am to live out this un-asked-for, morally neutral state of being. (By the way, that is precicely how I do actually view my own sexuality -- I'm glad we can agree about that.) Aparently you would recommend celibacy? Or is it conversion I should seek out? Given my created state, how exactly do I, or any glbt person, need to live out our lives as sexual and loving creatures?

Originally Posted by maklelan

We believe having homosexual sex is a sin, but being gay (a very subjective categorization) carries the weight of no intrinsic sin. What of those with an insatiable desire for children? By whose morals are they to live?

This is where I must ask you, in all humility, to please be careful. The drawing of parallels and comparisons between gay and lesbian people and pedophiles has a long and terrible history, and I am hoping that you will simply tell me that you in no way wish to continue it by what you say above. At best, you've made a poor choice of words, at worst ... I'm not sure what. But at least, please be careful when drawing parallels between the type of love and desire that my partner and I share (however "subjectively" that love ends up categorizing me) and the desire of some people to be sexual with children. I am not going to waste space explaining the difference.

Again, I don't have any desire to attack your beliefs ... I doubt that anyone here really does. All I want is the simple removal of discriminatory language wherever it may still be found, and an end to the opression of glbt people at BYU and everywhere else.

[Jamie McDaniel]

Originally Posted by maklelan

This is simply not true. We believe having homosexual sex is a sin, but being gay (a very subjective categorization) carries the weight of no intrinsic sin. What of those with an insatiable desire for children?

Originally Posted by maklelan

BYU will send every administrator to jail and close its doors forever before it will change its policies regarding homosexual sex. You can spout litany all you want about it being wrong, but we have our beliefs, and we will not change them.

This thread is being closed. While I do believe some things were learned about BYU and the Church of Latter-day Saints, I've decided the anti-gay comments are now well beyond the boundaries we've set up in the guidelines.