The Forbidden Book - Part 2

Here, I finish up my clarification of some controversial writings put out by Spencer W. Kimball while he was an apostle in the LDS Church.  Moving forward in some of his most "provoking" remarks, we see that he emphasizes the seriousness of homosexuality as a lifestyle, then states that justifying oneself in its "perversion" is almost as serious in terms of sinfulness.  To start with what might be irritating to some, I looked up the word "perversion" online with Merriam-Webster.  Its definition states that a perversion is sexual behavior that people think is not normal or natural.  Though the LDS Church understandably has a somewhat shady history in their approach, verbal or otherwise, to homosexuality, I cannot help but notice that do so many other sects of Christianity.  Indeed, I would argue that the whole of Christianity has typically shown some degree of prejudice or bias against homosexuality overall.  From a neutral, objective viewpoint, I see it, as a practice, violating the most fundamental beliefs of Christianity.  Now, so do the attitudes of fear, hatred, prejudice, and so forth of people who claim to be Christian.  My point?  Calling homosexuality a "perversion" is not a slur against those who identify as homosexual under some label or another.  Rather, it is an affirmation of belief in a Christian sect, from a leader who happens to also be LDS.  Also, within the context of this remark is that he was emphasizing the detrimental effects of self-justification, which is not only true for homosexuality, but also for every other behavior Christianity deems as sin.  With that aside, then, let's move forward into the real meat of this quote.

President Kimball states firstly that many have been misinformed that they are powerless in this matter.  For some, they believe President Kimball is stating that sexuality is a choice.  However, if one interprets this as him stating that any LGBT Mormon can choose to live a life centered on the teachings of Jesus Christ, then that makes much more sense.  Any attraction or temptation does not hold such power that it overrides human choice.  Now, freedom can be limited, which is the power to carry out a choice one has made inside the mind, a choice that hasn't yet been executed.  But, an infinite God whose power extends beyond the limitations of mortality can give sufficient strength for a mortal to live virtuously under any circumstances.  Regardless of what the oppositional experience might be, we can honestly ask ourselves, "is anything too hard for the Lord?" (Gen. 18:14)  There is no situation in life in which any individual is completely powerless.  If a human being is sentient and intelligent enough to choose to act on feelings of homosexuality, the opposite must also be true - even if it is like walking upstream versus floating downstream.  Both are still possible, though one requires greater fortitude and perseverance.



Next, we read the troubling statement that LGBT individuals are misinformed that they "are not responsible for this tendency".  This one is tricky, and I do not blame anyone for misinterpreting it.  At first glance, this might imply what the first one could - that people choose their attractions, or that they haven't worked hard enough to be heterosexual.  It places the burden of these attractions' creation in the hands of the individual who is currently experiencing them.  Again, though, we must look at the meaning of a key phrase in this quote, so as to reveal context and true intent from the author.  The phrase "not responsible for" indicates that there is a person to assume responsibility for something else, whether within (as in emotion) or externally.  Let's take a commonplace example. Perhaps you had chores to complete or maybe you assign chores to your children.  Sometimes, when someone requests another to do a chore for them, the other replies, "No.  That is not my responsibility."  This reply exemplifies the true meaning of the statement, "not responsible for", because one person is telling another, "I am not responsible for your chores you have to do."  Thus, President Kimball is telling us that it is false to assume that we have no responsibility, or, accountability, in relation to what we do with our sexual orientation.  This centers again on the truth that we always have a choice in how we act in any circumstance, whether it's about sexuality or not.

Continuing forward, he declares that people are misinformed who say "God made me this way."  Of all the arguments that one could take one, this one probably is among the most sensitive.  However, I must say that I agree with President Kimball when he says it is a lie and blasphemy to say such.  We are created in the image of God, a heterosexual being who married a woman.  That is why LDS people believe in a Heavenly Mother.  I see this as the strongest reason for discarding the falsehood of being "born that way".  Also, with something that is so directly tied into our eternal destiny as children of God, I do not believe God would give one of His children such an unfair disadvantage upon entering this life.  Some of God's children inherit physical disabilities, others, mental illnesses.  Yet, to allow a child to be attracted to the same gender from birth seems to strike an improper chord with me.  Now, this second part beyond being created in God's image is just my opinions and speculations.  At the deepest of all my reasons for disbelieving in the "born that way" argument is the feelings of the Spirit I get when I consider that being "born that way" might be a reality.  It does not feel right.  I have always said, though, all this solemn philosophizing aside, that it does not matter if we are born this way, it matters what we do with it once we know it's an experience we have.  I can preoccupy my mind with more petty matters of being born gay, or I can center my mind on Christ and how I can be more like Him.  Personally, I view the latter as being more productive in terms of my salvation and exaltation.

Finally, we read one statement which seems to jab at every little to big sore our LGBT experience creates.  In seeming ignorance and mockery, he writes, "...let this individual repent of his perversion, force himself to return to normal pursuits and interests and actions and friendships with the opposite sex, and this normal pattern can become natural again."  I would ask us to approach this in context, while also looking at the proper meanings of words.  Just before this, President Kimball writes about mutual masturbation and lavishing time, affection, and gifts on someone of the same sex.  In other words, this is same-sex attraction in a deviant sense - one not really created from initial attraction, but more from excessive energy combined with an inappropriate sexual practice.  I've written before about different components of attraction (see my post, "In Love, Loving, and Chemical Romance") and how they can be confused with one another.  An infatuation, combined with lust (i.e., chemical romance), can imitate tendencies of homosexuality.  It would make sense, at least to me, that if someone devoted both sexual and emotional energy into a new relationship -speaking generally, not romantically - with someone of the same sex, it could create an attraction similar to, but not the same as, same-sex attraction.  It's more the undecided human heart and the proverbial tumbling-dryer of the mind fabricating something that strongly resembles homosexuality.  I believe President Kimball is speaking of the sort of attractions created by experimentation and emotional preoccupation with the same sex, not the ones people experience naturally as part of the course of life.  Thus, he urges that this individual repent of their sexual sin, push himself to pursue the opposite sex again, and watch the normal pattern of things return.  I have seen this more than once with men who, out of curiosity and not initial attraction, got caught up in gay pornography.  Once they rid themselves of their addiction, their attractions to men completely vanished.  A few I mentioned have gone on to marry and raise families.  So, this does happen.  It's not a quote about repenting of feeling attraction for the same sex, forcing oneself to pursue the opposite sex, and then changing orientation by making that "normal" for them.  Difficult to see, perhaps, but liberating once realized.

With this particular chapter in "The Miracle of Forgiveness", LGBT Mormons can choose to be offended, hurt, and angry, or they can delve deeper for understanding and find peace in President Kimball's words.  What a difference interpreting things correctly can make!  We go from seeing a chapter of so-called bigotry, hate, misunderstanding, ignorance, and so on, to a chapter all about seeking Christ, repenting, staying close to our Heavenly Father, and the importance of properly using agency.  For LGBT Mormons like me who want to live the gospel, we always, always, always emphasize the importance of agency and accountability in our journeys together.  The mission of North Star talks about believing that the Atonement of Jesus Christ can make it possible for us to joyfully and meaningfully live the gospel.  What does that tell you?  For those of us who understand the reality of His sacrifice and His grace, we know it IS possible to live the gospel while being LGBT.  It's more difficult than words can express at times, though, and honestly I believe that is what President Kimball is understanding and communicating between the lines.  Why else would he clarify truths regarding agency, accountability, our identity as sons and daughters of God, and all the rest of it?  I see an apostle of Christ trying to show us the most important truths we need to lead that joyful, meaningful life that North Star talks about.  It might take a bit of work to see beyond the rough edges of his words, but I am glad I had this opportunity to show everyone what he truly meant.  Remember, doubt your doubts before you doubt your faith.  This apostle knew what he was talking about.  Love you guys!!! :) :) :)

Opening the Forbidden Book - Part 1

For members and nonmembers alike, "The Miracle of Forgiveness" by President Spencer W. Kimball (an apostle when he wrote it) has always drawn differing amounts of amusement, attention, contempt, and the like.  Most know why.  Throughout this entire book, it seems as though President Kimball enumerates just about every kind of sin mankind commits, using bold, strong language to condemn all of it and outline in plain terms why repentance for all sin is completely essential for everyone.  It leaves no doubts in the reader's mind as to what is right and wrong, at least from an LDS perspective anyway.  Church members such as me commonly express its uncanny ability to incite guilt, no matter how well we think we are living the principles of our religion.  Human imperfection will always leave gaps between what God has commanded us to do, and what we are currently doing.  Personally, I love this book because it ends on a very profound note of love, hope, and mercy promised through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  It also causes me to look deep within my spirit, and find the darkness there  I had not previously seen.  Thus, I can improve upon my sins and weaknesses, drawing closer to Jesus Christ and creating a purer relationship with Him.  But, like many LGBT Mormons, I struggled with one chapter in particular, a chapter that I know many have come to purposefully ignore/forget about, or even fiercely hate.  Understandably, this chapter from "The Miracle of Forgiveness" would provoke such a reaction, if interpreted from a different perspective.  My purpose today, though, is to tame this literary lion, by offering a new perspective on what President Kimball truly meant when he wrote this, based on verbatim quotes and context clues, not speculation.

For a moment, I am going to take the standpoint of those offended by these words, and consider why they could be so very upsetting to many.  Verbally playing on the "opposite team" here, I feel, will better illustrate the overall picture.  Essentially, I'm being the devil's advocate.  To start, this chapter is entitled, "Crime Against Nature".  Really? What  kind of person calls being gay a "crime against nature"?  After all, it's not like gay people can help being gay, any more than a straight person can help being straight!  Plus, what "crime" is there in being gay?  It's not like it's some extreme violation against the laws of nature to be gay or anything.  Nature continues on in its course, and all is well with the world still, I think.  To me, it seems like the word "nature" also could mean not just Mother Nature, but also the nature of humanity, meaning that heterosexuality is what is "normal", and so gay people are in the wrong for being who they are!  What a sad existence for gay people, then, if we cannot simply be who we are without being some kind of abomination or violation in the balance of society.  Sure, we cannot have children, but we can adopt and raise kids just like straight couples can. We're not exactly creepy either (for the most part), so why the attitude of rejection and ostracizing in American society?  But it gets even better throughout this whole chapter.  Here's a few quotes that just make my skin crawl with disgust:

"Homosexuality is an ugly sin, repugnant to those who find no temptation in it, as well as to many past offenders who are seeking a way out of its clutches."

And, with a subtitle of "Curable and Forgivable - With Effort" (shudder), he says,

"After consideration of the evil aspects, the ugliness and prevalence of the evil of homosexuality, the glorious thing to remember is that it is curable and forgivable."  Wow.  That is revolting.

And another..."Next in seriousness to nonrecognition of the sin is the attempt to justify oneself in this perversion. Many have been misinformed that they are powerless in the matter, not responsible for the tendency, and that "God made them that way." This is as untrue as any other of the diabolical lies Satan has concocted. It is blasphemy. Man is made in the image of God. Does the pervert think God to be 'that way'?"

Plus, my favorite: "...let this individual repent of his perversion, force himself to return to normal pursuits and interests and actions and friendships with the opposite sex, and this normal pattern can become natural again."

Now, returning to my normal tone of writing... The key to understanding the context of this is simple. The writer, President Spencer W. Kimball, was either speaking of homosexuality as a one-package deal - attractions, romantic involvement, sex, etc - or he was speaking of the practice of homosexuality, separating it from the attractions that lead to the practice.  But how does one tell? Context clues.  And these quotes, my dear readers, are rife with those.  First, we have homosexuality being called "an ugly sin, repugnant to those who find no temptation in it."  This is an introductory quote, taken from the beginning of only the 2nd paragraph.  In writing a book such as this, the author will almost always introduce their main ideas in the first two paragraphs. Here is one, defining homosexuality as a sin and a temptation, separate from one other.  It outlines those who practice it, and those who do not because they find no temptation in it.  Now, would it not be possible for someone tempted by something to not do it?  Of course!  People do it all the time, even non-religious people, like people giving up drugs or ceasing to drink alcohol.  So, homosexuality could be defined as either a practice or a temptation?  Interesting how President Kimball makes that distinction in his opening remarks of this chapter.  Such is the first key to understanding the context of these writings on homosexuality by President Kimball.  Moving on...

Second, homosexuality is described as "curable and forgivable - with effort"  From an all-in-one package view, I would be just as angry, sarcastic, and belligerent as the man I was pretending to be as the "devil's advocate" earlier.  I do not blame people in the least who are viewing it from that perspective, because I would feel exactly the same way and probably with even more intensity.  But, I have chosen to view it as a split-up package, where it here means attractions, and where LGBT Mormons are choosing to go with them.  Back to our description, then.  The word, "curable", according to merriamwebster.com, means, "possible to bring about recovery from".  Since any sin is viewed as spiritual sickness in the LDS Church, to some degree or another, it is an apt definition to call the practice of homosexuality curable.  Some would take this word, run with it, and cry out, "President Kimball taught Mormons that being gay is changeable!  He said they can become straight if they want to!!"  Naturally, viewed from this perspective, of course it looks that way, because typically this word means to get rid of an undesirable condition.  However, when homosexuality is viewed here as a practice, I see it under LDS belief as being a sickness of the spirit because of spiritual bondage from sin.  Not an advocacy for changing sexual orientation.  This leads perfectly into the next part of the phrase, "and forgivable -with effort".  Since LDS people believe repentance (seeking forgiveness from God) is a process, it does take considerable effort sometimes, especially if the sin is sexual in nature.  Unfortunately, because of suppressed passions and the like, homosexuality in practice often creates much sexual sin to be repented of, and it takes a lot of effort as a result to reverse that spiritual damage sin creates.  LDS people are not strangers to work when it comes to obtaining forgiveness from Heavenly Father.  We believe it is necessary, so we can come to a better place of spiritual purity and understanding.  More on this subject in my next post... love you guys!!! :)