This post is loosely a part of my general conference series, but it also makes the case that LDS teachings on sex are contradictory and untenable.
First, consider what Mormon leaders historically taught regarding birth control:
The world teaches birth control. Tragically, many of our sisters subscribe to its pills and practices when they could easily provide earthly tabernacles for more of our Father’s children. … The first commandment given to man was to multiply and replenish the earth with children. That commandment has never been altered, modified, or canceled. The Lord did not say to multiply and replenish the earth if it is convenient, or if you are wealthy, or after you have gotten your schooling, or when there is peace on earth, or until you have four children. – Ezra Taft Benson, April 1969 General Conference
God made sex, but not for entertainment. It was provided for a divinely appointed act of creation in which we, to this extent, become co-creators with him. – Mark E. Peterson, April 1969 General Conference
[I]f anything were done to postpone [the responsibility of motherhood], the Church would become a party to birth control, and the Church will have nothing to do with that evil. – David O. McKay, April 1949 General Conference
Sexual laxity among young people, birth control, and intemperance are its insidious and vicious enemies. – David O. McKay, October 1947 General Conference
Another erosion of the family is unwarranted and selfish birth control. – Spencer W. Kimball, October 1979 General Conference
We hear so much about emancipation, independence, sexual liberation, birth control, abortion, and other insidious propaganda belittling the role of motherhood, all of which is Satan’s way of destroying woman, the home, and the family—the basic unit of society. – N. Eldon Tanner, October 1973 General Conference
The above is just a small sampling of the church’s statements on birth control. You can read many others at these links.
In his memoirs, apostle Hugh B. Brown (1883-1975) wrote:
[W]hile we have not taken the unyielding attitude of some other churches toward artificial birth control, we cannot officially endorse it because too many young people would stop having children. Even so, I think we will one day have to modify our position.
And modify it they did. The LDS Church’s current policy toward birth control is articulated in its 1998 Church Handbook of Instructions:
[Birth control] is the privilege of married couples who are able to bear children to provide mortal bodies for the spirit children of God, whom they are then responsible to nurture and rear. The decision as to how many children to have and when to have them is extremely intimate and private and should be left between the couple and the Lord. Church members should not judge one another in this matter.
How did birth control go from being “evil” and “selfish” to being a private “privilege”? Simply put, birth control became popular among Mormon couples. The LDS Church muted its long-standing denunciation of birth control so as not to offend or lose members.
The same thing happened with oral sex. In an official 1982 letter, the First Presidency stated that “unnatural, impure, or unholy practices” would prevent you from entering the temple. They explicitly identified oral sex as one such practice. A later letter, however, clarified that leaders shouldn’t inquire into members’ sex lives. Some leaders understand this as tacit approval of oral sex. I recently had two married Mormon friends independently tell me that their stake presidents okayed oral sex (though still forbid anal sex, inexplicably).
I’ve argued before at this blog that the church’s permissive stance on birth control and oral sex is at odds with its opposition to homosexuality. If homosexuality is wrong because it’s non-procreative, then so too must the non-procreative practices of birth control and oral sex be wrong.
A few weeks ago, I raised this point at a Mormon bachelor party (of all places!). One of my friends there responded that the LDS Church understands sex to be more than strictly procreative. “Sex is also a means of expressing love and strengthen emotional and spiritual bonds between husband and wife,” he said, quoting the Church Handbook. This added nuance initially stumped me. It soon became apparent, however, that procreation is still at the crux of Mormonism’s objection to homosexuality.
“Can’t sex express love and strengthen bonds within gay couples?” I asked.
“Sure,” he conceded, “but the reason it’s important to have loving, committed relationships is for raising children.”
“Millions of children around the world are already being raised by gay parents, though.”
“Yeah, but they have to adopt them. Gay people can’t produce children.” he said with discernible annoyance in his voice.
“Ahh, so procreation is the dividing line after all.”
Realizing that the Mormon argument was losing, another friend ended the debate with an admission that the church’s opposition to homosexuality was arbitrary. We then continued our game of Risk (what else can you do at a Mormon bachelor party?).*
Here’s the point I’m driving at: In order to be consistent, the LDS Church needs to condemn birth control and oral sex—as it once did—or tolerate homosexuality. I bet it will eventually take the latter route, given the church’s history of abandoning controversial teachings and practices. And if the LDS Church doesn’t acclimate itself to changing attitudes toward homosexuality, it will find itself increasingly lonely and irrelevant.
*The friend I debated at the bachelor party begs to differ with my portrayal of our discussion. I remember and maintain that I won the debate, whereas he remembers that I lost. Go figure. I guess that’s a testament to the malleability of human memory. Ha ha. I invite him to share his side of the story, because I don’t want to be unfair to him or his opinion.
Also, I hope I did not convey that this friend is ignorant or bigoted. He is neither.
“What else can you do at a Mormon bachelor party?” LOL!
I agree; they’re going to have to come around on homosexuality. It’s only a matter of time.
Nice juxtaposition.
I don’t think the Church will ever come around on homosexuality – not at least in the next few hundred years. I suppose it could before then but I think many would feel the Church/prophet is going astray. I suppose it depends on the general attitude among the members like you’ve shown with birth control and oral sex. Until the majority of its members change their feelings towards homosexuality then it might be safe for the Church to have a revelation or “policy” change.
If it takes that long, I’d say the church will effectively be non-existent by then. I strongly doubt it’ll take nearly that long because long before then, homosexuality will be socially normative, and a majority of Mormons will be pro gay rights. I’d say within 1.5 generations the church will significantly change its policies towards LGBT people.
I think that the comparison between the stance the church takes on oral sex and contraceptives and the stance it takes on homosexuality can’t even come close to being compared. From the days of the Bible, homosexuality was seen as an abomination…now does that mean that the people who practice such things are an abomination? I personally don’t think so, there is an old adage that says “hate the sin, love the sinner” which I think many church members do. There are those members who seem to be hypocritical, but for the most part, once you leave Utah and the Mormon culture, you’ll find more members that are more accepting. But back to my point, the comparison can’t even be made, because contraceptives and oral sex were still within the confines of a heterosexual relationship, which is endorsed by God in the Bible and other scripture, as opposed to a homosexual relationship which has never been condoned in any scripture. And if there is a scripture that shows the endorsement of God, in any religion, I’d be interested in reading it. I don’t mean to offend, I’m not anti nor pro-gay…..I feel like people can live their lives how they want, but I do believe that throughout the Bible as well as other scripture that God has been pretty consistent on his view of homosexuality and I don’t feel that the church would ever change it’s stance as God has not yet done so to the best of my knowledge.
“From the days of the Bible, homosexuality was seen as an abomination…”
The Bible also condemns wearing mixed fabrics, touching pigskin, eating shellfish, etc., and condones slavery, genocide, and rape. So I doubt the Bible’s moral authority, for one. Second, we impose our modern morality on the Bible, and cherry-pick those passages that conform to our pre-existing paradigm (and thus we conveniently ignore the uncomfortable passages and highlight those regarding homosexuality).
There is no doubt that the Bible condemns forms of homosexuality (like pederasty), but its writers would not have been familiar with homosexuality as it is often manifest today (committed, loving, consensual, monogamous, etc.). That is not to say that the Bible supports homosexuality, just that it’s condemnation is less relevant today.
“But back to my point, the comparison can’t even be made, because contraceptives and oral sex were still within the confines of a heterosexual relationship, which is endorsed by God in the Bible and other scripture”
And why does god endorse heterosexual relationships? Ostensibly because of its procreative ability, which is defeated by the use of birth control. Why else favor heterosexual relationships? It’s not enough that the endorsement be arbitrary–there needs to be a reason undergirding it.
Even if god endorses heterosexual relationships, that doesn’t mean everything is permitted within the confines of that relationship. Onan was struck dead, for example, because he “spilt his seed on the ground” instead of impregnating his brother’s wife. God effectively smote Onan for practicing birth control.
“The Bible also condemns wearing mixed fabrics, touching pigskin, eating shellfish, etc., and condones slavery, genocide, and rape. So I doubt the Bible’s moral authority, for one.”
Where are the scriptures that “condone” these things? Also, there are scriptures that refute what you just said, for example, in Deut. 22: 25 it says that if a man rapes a women, he is worthy of death. And as for the condemnation of mixed fabrics, touching pigskin, eating shellfish etc. that was all before the crucifixion of Christ. The Law of Moses was a very strict and physical law in the sense that in order to obey it a person has to abide strict rules. You could only walk so far on a sabbath, and you weren’t supposed to work on the sabbath, you were supposed to sacrifice an unblemished primogenito of an animal a certain way. The law was more physical than spiritual. Therefore, after the crucifixion when Peter has his dream about being able to eat pork, he understands 1. that the Law of Moses had been completed just as Jesus had promised and 2. that the new and higher law that hey received from Christ and his atonement would be more spiritual than physical i.e. all the explanations about how if a man lay with a women he committed adultery, but now if he lusted after her in his heart he committed adultery. Also, as far as I have read…..I don’t see the Bible making any distinctions about homosexuality, in every case that it appears in the Bible it was seen as an abomination, it didn’t distinguish whether it be pederasty or not. And on what information are you basing your belief that there weren’t committed and loving homosexual relationships in the days of the bible?
In response to your comment about Onan, the reason he was struck down because he spilt his seed is easy to understand if you look at it objectively. In hebrew law, if a woman is widowed it is the responsibility of his next closest kin to give the widow children in order to create a primogenito that would receive the birth right. But if that woman never conceives, the birth right would go to the dead husbands next closest kin. Therefore if you understand that the reason that Onan didn’t get her pregnant, therefore breaking a commandment he had received not only from his father Judah, but also from the Lord through the law of Moses, you can see that he stood to gain all of his brothers possessions if his brothers widow never conceived.
And to finalize, there are many scriptures like you pointed out that show that the relationship between a man and a women is primarily to procreate. But also, in 1 Cor. 11:11 Paul states that “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” to lead us to believe that they are two halves of a whole. Like a ying and a yang. Also, to compare contraceptives then as to now, is a little hard to do. What was the infant mortality rate in those days? How did people sustain families? What is the infant mortality rate today? How do people sustain families today? My point is that it is much harder now to sustain a family because the majority of us have to work for money……we don’t cultivate our own land and we aren’t capable of making everything that we need. Therefore, since it is more difficult to support a family in the sense that we need to have a pretty stable income, it is better that some people wait to have a child until they are able to do so rather than rushing into being parents when they are not financially or mentally able to do so.
I don’t mean to sound rude or condescending in any way……I just feel that some of the arguments and comments that I have seen on here don’t necessarily present a solid argument, as I’m sure people see the same in my comments. Thanks for letting me participate and share what I feel!
“Where are the scriptures that “condone” these things?”
I imagine that you’re asking about slavery, genocide and rape in particular. I’ll address each of these topics one by one.
Slavery
Exodus 21:20-21: “And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.”
1 Peter 2:18: “Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.”
Genocide
1 Samuel 15:2-3: “Thus saith the LORD of hosts … go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.”
Numbers 31:15-18: “And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? … Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.” (This verse is doubly wicked, as it condones both mass murder and rape.)
Rape
It’s unfortunate that you chose to quote chapter 22 of Deuteronomy, as there are a couple of verses that conditionally condone rape.
Deut. 22:23-24: “If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife.” (In other words, it’s only rape if the woman screams and people hear her.)
Deut. 22:28-29: “If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.” (Here, where the victim isn’t engaged, rape is no more than a minor offense. Worse, the victim has to marry her rapist!)
Are there verses that contradict the above ones? Sure. The Bible was written by many authors over many centuries, and thus will reflect a myriad of (often conflicting) perspectives. My argument wasn’t that the entire Bible is morally bankrupt, only that the Bible isn’t a consistent or exemplary moral guide.
You dismiss the verses about eating shellfish and such by saying the Law of Moses was fulfilled with the crucifixion. Why are you so quick to dismiss these verses, but still found the allegedly anti-rape Deut. 22 verse worth quoting. It just seems people cherry-pick what they want to believe from the Bible. The ‘silly’ parts of the Law of Moses you’ll discard, but why not also those verses that condemn homosexuality (most of the Bible’s condemnations of homosexuality are found in the Old Testament)?
“Also, as far as I have read…..I don’t see the Bible making any distinctions about homosexuality, in every case that it appears in the Bible it was seen as an abomination, it didn’t distinguish whether it be pederasty or not.”
True, but they didn’t distinguish it precisely because they conflated homosexuality with pederasty. They didn’t recognize the distinction like we do today.
“And on what information are you basing your belief that there weren’t committed and loving homosexual relationships in the days of the bible?”
I don’t doubt that such relationships existed, but they weren’t likely the most common manifestation of homosexuality in ancient culture. I’m open to being wrong on this point; the information comes from an interview of a Bible scholar in the film “For the Bible Tells Me So.”
About Onan: It was an admittedly poor example, but the larger point was that there are still things deemed impermissible within the confines of heterosexual relationships, like sodomy or (arguably) birth control.
“[S]ince it is more difficult to support a family in the sense that we need to have a pretty stable income, it is better that some people wait to have a child until they are able to do so rather than rushing into being parents when they are not financially or mentally able to do so.”
I agree with you, but several of the church leaders I quoted disagree. Benson in particular seems to anticipate your argument when he said: “The first commandment given to man was to multiply and replenish the earth with children. That commandment has never been altered, modified, or canceled. The Lord did not say to multiply and replenish the earth if it is convenient, or if you are wealthy, or after you have gotten your schooling…”
And moreover, if you don’t have the means to have a child, why then just advise not to have sex? That’s the Catholic approach. The reason the church caved on birth control seems obvious enough: It was an unpopular stance.
Thanks for your thoughts. Contrary views are welcome here. I hope you continue to spark new discussions.
Yeah, I realized that Deut. 22 probably wasn’t the best to quote after I went back and read it. But I do have to ask, what is the difference between a servant and a slave? The egyptians I feel had slaves while the Jews or Hebrews had servants. Granted that there are exceptions in everything, but I feel servants receive just recompense while slaves are owned and receive only the basics necessary to support life. And with Genocide, I think that the part you quoted was an isolated incident, but the underlying reason that they were commanded to do so was to see their obedience, also the reason that they wandered in the wilderness for 40 years, it wasn’t that they were lost, because when they were righteous and obedient, Jehovah led them by a pillar of fire at night and a cloud during the day. So time and time again, like I said in a previous post….the Law of Moses needed to be obeyed exactly, just like the commandments that they were given, like to wipe out all the men, women, children, and sucklings. And lastly, even though the law of Moses was fulfilled, that didn’t erase the principles taught within it……it only released people from having to do sacrifices and complete the physical tasks in a precise manner, but it did not relieve them from the teachings and principles of the Law of Moses which was a preparatory law to the one that Christ would teach and after his crucifixion would replace the old law.
It’s safe to say that nearly all LDS teachings are contradictory and untenable. Mormonism is contradictory and untenable.
Wow… How close-minded can one get?
How is that closed-minded? Making a judgement about a thing doesn’t make one closed-minded. Not being open to contradictory evidence or a better argument does.
It is my opinion, as an atheist who was once a believing Mormon that the teachings of Mormonism are both self-contradictory and contradictory with reality, both of which make them untenable.
Also considering how the churches opinion has already softened over the decades it would seem inevitable but still a ways off. Hinkley even went so far as to defer to the scientific community when it comes to the cause of homosexuality if I’m not mistaken.
A post like this only helps to highlight the evolution of Mormonism, and of all religion. The Bible itself shows the evolutionary history of Judeo-Christian theology, from bashing childrens heads in, to loving your enemy.
The LDS church will always be a step behind on their changes when compared to everyone else. Look at Blacks and the priesthood and the history surrounding that. However, they definitely draw thick, dark lines on some things, and I think homosexuality is one of them.
I guess it all makes sense… but wait,; every civilization that accepts and treats Homosexuality as a norm is destroyed within 100 years… Hmmm.
There’s a lot of reasons why that’s not an argument but let’s start with the simple one: Correlation does not imply causation (Post hoc ergo propter hoc).
I think this change is at the very core of the Mormon faith. The Plan of Salvation in Mormon theology makes the case that we all chose to come to earth. In Samuel chapter 8, the prophet’s sons govern the people unjustly, the people ask for a king. The prophet prays and God says “no”. However, continued pressure on the prophet, God accepts the will of the people and calls Saul to be the king. In D&C 89, it is explicitly stated that the Word of Wisdom is “not by commandment or constraint,” but this was changed when Brigham Young put it to a vote which was sustained unanimously by the body of the church members. Even in Joseph Smith’s own life we have the story of the 116 page manuscript where JS asked 3 times to entrust the manuscript to Martin Harris. Even the killing of Christ was endorsed by a vote from the people and not by any legitimate law. God has let all these things happen because the will of the people and the natural right of all people to use their own agency demanded it.
The majority of the people in the Mormon church and those who would suggest that the people are controlled by a small group of old white men is a horrible misunderstanding of church doctrine which is unfortunate for outsiders as well as church members. Everything down to the issuing of callings for people that work in church libraries, or take attendance, has been done by a democratic vote. Excommunications are done by a democratic vote (I guess excommunications would seem more republican due to the fact that the whole body of members doesn’t vote on it). But to blame the any backward teaching on the leaders of the church is to inappropriately pass one’s own blame onto another individual. Those who leave the church for the same reason who have not done their part in my opinion are hypocrites as well. If those people that truly felt so strongly about things that they left the church had stayed, you could believe that the church would be a different organization today.
In regards to homosexuality, I honestly think that one day the church will allow such unions to exist. The sealing power granted to a prophet doesn’t come with any stipulations. It is just the power to seal things in the heavens and on earth. If the church truly acknowledges that some of the people sealed to Joseph Smith were not for procreative purposes, but to seal people to him in the eternities, then to seal a woman to Joseph Smith after his death (a practice I am told which took place for a number of years) to save entire families, is in no way different than to seal Joseph Smith to another man. Certainly brothers and fathers and sons can be sealed together. I don’t at the present time see how the church could seal a homosexual couple together that would grant exaltation, due to the fact that exaltation as defined in D&C is based on your “increase” or offspring, and that the glory of God is his children (Moses 1:39). But there could still be a place for homosexual couples in the Celestial kingdom, just not in the highest degree.
Either way does it matter? I am not aware of any other church that preaches a doctrine of eternal families. Most others, such as the Methodists, preach that we will all be like brothers and sisters in the hereafter. So in the end if homosexual marriages only merited such a relationship in the next life, I guess nobody would be worse off.
Great thoughts, Landon. Thanks for sharing them. I hope you’ll continue to participate at this blog.
Landon, You make some really good points and I really appreciate your thoughts. The idea of the prophet’s sealing power being without stipulations is one that I have honestly not considered and I think it is one that demands further exploration. However, the other side of the coin lies in the old (and rather quieted) teaching that God has many wives who bore him spirit children in the pre-existence. The snag is in the difference between marriage and sealing, given that in the marraige, the man is to be the head of the new family being created, while sealing binds children to parents, etc.
I also have to respectfully disagree with the business of the “democratic vote.” In my opinion, the vote is merely a formality. There is an immense social stigma that comes with voting “opposed” and very, very little that results from it in its rare incidence. There is also the issue of Groupthink. I do not mean to be offensive, but I believe groupthink occurs on phenomenal scales when it comes to organized religions (certainly not the LDS church exclusively). Forgive me if the following is completely old/offensive information, but I’d like to elaborate on my position.
In groupthink, “members of a cohesive group emphasize concurrence at the expense of critical thinking in arriving at a decision” (taken from a textbook to avoid offense). Groupthink is cyclic in nature because as group cohesion and agreement intensify, the social stigma against disagreement also strengthens. Everyone longs for acceptance and if you’re not Jon Adams, you seek to prevent confrontation. It’s simply how we are as a species; conformity is hardwired in all of us in varying degrees. The result is more groupthink and less critical thinking (or at least, a decrease in expression of critical opinion).
Within groupthink, there is also the phenomenon of Group Polarization, which “occurs when the group discussion strenghtens a group’s dominant point of view and produces a shift toward a more extreme decision in that direction” (also taken from a textbook).
Weekly church meetings could be considered a form of group discussion, but because these “discussions” only present one side, the group automatically polarizes in that direction. Without dissention, there is automatic polarization toward agreement with the doctrine and the group essentially thinks in unison (give or take a few outlying personal variables). For example, some members may think independantly that Brother John Doe is a douchebag, but within the context of the group (say, sacrament meeting), their votes will agree with the doctrine. The “text” of that particular groupthink situation is that God has ultimate authority and the man he tells the Stake President to call as Bishop is the man for the job, even if you think that man is a douchebag. Because I share that belief of the group in a state of groupthink and they are polarizing toward “voting in favor,” I will do the same.
And I’m not meaning to blow smoke in any faces. I didn’t want to vote affirmative when Monson moved up, but I did because everyone else did and I knew my vote was meaningless. Plus, a small part of me still trusted that it was God’s will, even though I felt uneasy about it. The rest of the group was trusting God, why shouldn’t I?
Sorry for writing you a thesis. I’ll take my graduate degree now and be on my way ;)
I would like to applaud any members who ask questions, disagree and think critically while still maintaining testimony. If there is a God, the human intellect is too amazing to be a blunder of creation.
Re: Courtney- I do agree with the idea of group think, which is why I mentioned it as “unfortunate for outsiders as well as members of the church.” The problem is that it has become a formality. However, one could argue the same about the democratic process in the United States. People say the same thing about being a voter in Utah. There really is no point in voting (even if you are a Republican) because the Republicans will always win. But I believe that if people were to try and truly voiced how they felt, big changes would happen. I have always felt that if there is an adversary, the way to follow him would be apathy. In Helaman, the whole book is about how the Nephites believed that they were righteous (because they always had been, you could say it was more or less a formality that the Nephites were always on the good guys team and the Lamanites on the bad guys side). But in Helaman the Nephites have had their society completely infiltrated by the Gadianton Robbers. It is the Lamanites that actually turn out to be more righteous and have a more successful society. Moroni talks about this later in the book of Ether and explicity states that the people of today will be asleep to everything that’s going on (8:24). A cunning adversary would simply try to alienate those who see Christianity in a different light. I think the Christian thing to do would be to accept all people in the church. But the mobocracy that exists because people vote as a formality and nothing more is what truly guides the church. This usually means that good people with good Christian ideals end up leaving because they see hypocrisy in the system. They don’t fit into the mold and so they leave. And it’s that type of mentality that needs to change. It’s that reactive attitude that feeds the backwardness of the church. It is a simple truth that if everybody votes for backwardness, then that is what you’re gonna get. A vote, unlike the American belief is not choosing between the lesser of two evils, it is choosing something that you will support and believe in. If one always votes for the lesser of two evils, then we will always end up with evil. And if we literally say that we will “sustain” something that does not agree with our beliefs, then we are nourishing something that would and should die.
Interesting points, I however don’t see a change in policy as a contradiction, (although the quote mentioning that the church would never endorse birth control obviously contradicts the modern reality). The LDS faith is a fluid entity based on modern revelation and the will of god. I feel that it is not as locked into strict orthodoxy and preservation of traditions as other faiths primarily because of the possibility of modern revelation, and an “unchanging god” is taken to be much less literal than some religions.
I for one am glad that sexual rules are less stringent. However the spirit of many of the rules are still present. Holding off children should not be done for purely selfish reasons, thus birth control can be misused. Sexual intimacy should be respectful and show ones love for their spouse, so “animalistic” (which is the term my stake president used) which I take to mean anal sex, or anything aggressive/degrading etc. is still discouraged. (I didn’t probe because he was old and it was awkward).
The arguments about gay sex are different and I, like others, am not entirely sure how to respond. It is possible that these will be revoked. As much as I am for social freedoms, I doubt it will be any time soon. I agree that sex is not entirely about procreation, but I think the difference lies in Gods plan and a more fundamental design for man and woman. (The act of course may be similar ie oral/anal, but there is still a fundamental difference in the relation, and that may be what is objectionable, not the act itself) If however procreation no longer becomes necessary, or this design is no longer needed, I wouldn’t have a problem with church leaders changing the position in light of promptings. As with priesthood and polygamy, there will always be those who will be offended by the church changing its policy, but I think its important for members to respect leaders and revelation. As for now the answer to gay marriage has to be “because God said so” which I admit is unfulfilling in a rational discussion.
Interesting post, and enlightening discussion which has followed (especially from Landon and James). I’ll admit that the issue of homosexuality is a difficult one for the church, and a touchy subject for many. I feel that it is complicated, to say the least. I do not profess to have any serious grasp on the subject, as I feel one would need to dedicate a great deal of time to studying all of that is involved, and simply do not have that kind of time right now.
With that said, a few thoughts on the issues you raise:
1. I don’t see the “birth control” issue as one of the Church changing position. A variety of apostles and prophets condemning the use of birth control does not mark an official church position, and even the the Hugh B. Brown quote provided demonstrates that prior to the supposed “modification” the official church policy was not as “unyielding” as the other quotes provided imply. Specifically, the pre-presidential Ezra Taft Benson quote cannot be taken seriously, as Benson is quite well-known for having strong opinions on controversial issues that are not necessarily in-line with the official Church position. Is there any official pronouncement on birth control (that pre-date’s the 1998 position) which did in fact ban the use of birth control?
2. As for your “oral sex” issue, I do not see how your alleged change in policy can amount to more than hearsay (Not that I doubt what your friends said). Furthermore, Stake Presidents obviously do not posses authority to declare Church wide policy. I am not trying to argue that oral sex is currently banned by the Church (I am not aware of a policy either way, and as my wife and I were getting married neither the Bishops nor Stake Presidents which we counseled with mentioned the issue at all), only that I do not find your “evidence” significant or compelling.
3. Even still, I do not find changes in policy or practice as negative or damning. I think that such changes are necessary and even good as the Church appropriately adapts to the spiritual and temporal needs of its members. I do not feel that with either of these changes any doctrines were altered.
As far as the assertion that the LDS position is inconsistent and untenable, I have to disagree. I feel that there are some ways to reconcile the permitting of birth control and oral sex while not allowing homosexual relations. Here are just a few idea’s:
1. Oral sex could be allowed as part of foreplay, wherein it is only apart of an overall experience which would culminate in more traditional sexual activities (which would permit for procreation as a possible result).
2. BOTH love and commitment AND procreation could be viewed as central to a healthy sexual relationship. Thus, temporary birth control can be accepted, however sexual relations which do not allow for BOTH aspects (i.e. homosexual relations) is not appropriate.
Personally, I do not believe that the issue’s of birth control or oral sex have any relation to how the Church approaches homosexuality. I think there are deeper, more theologically based reasons. Homosexuality just does not fit into the LDS Plan of Salvation. Mormons (and the greater Christian community in general) believe that God made Man and Woman for each other, to love, serve, and help each other as “one flesh.” LDS uniquely believe that that oneness between man and woman is meant to extended beyond this life and into eternity. As such, sex related issues such as oral sex, birth control, and polygamy can all find ways to fit into the LDS view so long as the sexual relations remain exclusively between man and woman. Once that dynamic is changed (i.e. woman and woman, or man and man), than we have stepped outside the framework of LDS doctrine. That, I feel, is why the Church can not and will not except homosexual relations now, and I do not believe that they will in the near future either.
Just my thoughts. Again, I certainly do not profess to know much of anything on this matter, so take my words for what they are worth.
Crap, I should’ve refreshed the page before posting what I said, since Neal here says a lot of what I said, only better.
What about straight couples that can’t procreate, such the infertile, old, or the like? This isn’t a sin to the church, and it doesn’t end in children being created.
I like what you wrote, Jon, and think you did a pretty good job of demonstrating that Mormons can’t really use the sexual acts themselves as reasons to prohibit homosexual relationships. However, I seem to remember having a conversation, reading an article, or otherwise coming across a defense of the stance that ran something like this:
Homosexual acts are wrong because they’re inherently done outside of marriage, since the church doesn’t offer gay marriages [I wonder about gays kissing / making out / holding hands]. Gay marriage will never [heh] be offered by the church, not because of the sexual acts themselves, but because two men and two women can never provide the right kind of parenting / role models / whatever. God’s plan requires a male father, cause men are one way, and a female mother, because women are another particular way.
Now it totally creeps me out to see gender roles so ingrained in a theology, but it seems consistent with things like the family proclamation, excuses for not giving women the priesthood, etc.
I’ll start by saying I am an aetheist, and for gay rights. I think your friends are wrong on multiple levels. I mention that because I’m posting for the sole purpose of pointing out the hole in your logic.
You’re giving a false coice, and strawman fallacy. Either they accept homosexuality, or they outlaw oral sex/contraception.
The strawman fallacy is found when you make a comparrison between the two different things (non-procreative in your case), and then say they are then equal. Stop signs are red, and fire engines are red. If you hate fire engines, you MUST hate stop signs. homosexuality, and oral sex are both non procreative, but there are many many other aspects of this that the church probably inspected in their decision.
The false choice is that they MUST accept all or none. There is no rational reason why they must accept both. I do not like onions. I’m 27 years old, but I gag like a 5 year old when I find onion in my food. However, I can eat a nice marinara with plenty of onion in it and really enjoy it. Just like I am not bound to an all or none idea with my dislike of onions the church could take a similar stance. For example, “We do approve of oral sex, as it is non-procreative, but kissing is also non procreative. We can not however approve of homosexual acts as our interpretations of the old testament, and Mr. Smiths magic golden plates lead us to believe that it is unnatural”.
A better argument is that it’s absurd to tell people what two consenting adults can(oral) or can not(gay sex) do to each other. Especially when you beliefs about this come from the unproven teachings of an invisible man in the sky, the inconsistently documented existent of a magic man that lived 2000 years ago, and the ravings of a man who posesed a magic crystal from space angels.
Good responses, all. I’ll respond as best I can, but first I need a nap ha ha.
“Yeah, but they have to adopt them. Gay people can’t produce children.” he said with discernible exasperation in his voice.
“Millions of children around the world are already being raised by gay parents, though.”
“Yeah, but they have to adopt them. Gay people can’t produce children.” he said with discernible exasperation in his voice.
In my opinion, a gay couple (or a couple of any sexual orientation) who adopt a child performs almost a more “noble” deed in that they’re willing to nurture a child not of their own blood or making (whereas it’s easy to love a baby that you produced seeing as it’s just an extension of yourself).
The huge surplus of unwanted babies in this world isn’t diminishing any time soon; LDS families should maybe take a pregnancy hiatus and focus on the quality of parenting…rather than quantity (I know this only goes against the early historical teachings which encouraged popping out as many babies as possible, but it seems this idea is still reinforced in the church’s current mindset).
Why is adopting a child noble?
The only way I could imagine adopt a child as being noble is if you do it INSTEAD of having your own, even though you would probably prefer to have your own. It would be noble then because you are going against what you want for the better of someone else.
It is NOT noble to want to have a child, and if adoption is your ONLY option then it isn’t inherintly noble.
Is it noble for a celebrity to adopt because she doesnt want to ruin her figure? No.
Is it noble for a couple to adopt because the male is infertile? No.
Is it noble for a couple to adopt because they can’t afford a surrogate? No.
So why would it be noble for a gay couple to adopt? It’s their only option. I’ll toss you a bone and say if they didn’t want to adopt because they loved their carefree lifestyle, but adopted anyway because it would help a child it would be pretty g’damn noble.
It’s like saying small town people are noble for using locally owned businesses. They really don’t have a choice.
As far as LDS/Mormon parenting quality, I think the first step would be to not raise them in the church.
Those are all great points above.
1) “Is it noble for a celebrity to adopt because she doesn’t want to ruin her figure? No.”
I agree with the above, but how many celebrities do you know whose primary reason for adopting is because they want to stay thin? The pressure to uphold their figure might subtly be floating around their subconscious but it’s unreasonable to assume that it’s their primary/only reason for adoption (even to say that it’s a motivational reason). Some examples:
Angelina Jolie – six children (first three adopted, three that she later bore)
Madonna – three children (two that she bore, one adopted)
Jamie Lee Curtis (two adopted but definitely NOT afraid to lose her figure if you’ve seen her statement in More Magazine)
Michelle Pfeiffer – two children (first adopted, second she bore)
There are many more celebrities who choose adoption as a conscious first choice before bearing children of their own so yes, I view those individuals as noble. I think that to say female celebrities adopt because they fear that pregnancy will lessen their demeanor is rather unfair and bitter.
2) “Is it noble for a couple to adopt because the male/female is infertile or because they can’t afford a surrogate? No.”
It’s true that adopted children may be sensitive to the idea that their infertile parents might not have adopted them if they had other choices. It becomes obvious to parents during the process of adopting that the creation of a family isn’t dependent on passing on a set of genes but giving a child (bio or not) a warm, loving home. So even if they did explore all avenues of infertility treatments before turning to adoption, adoptive parents can assure their adopted child that they ARE their first choice because they’re honest about the resolution of their infertility and the true meaning of family. So yes, I think this is a noble act and a noble revelation.
3) “So why would it be noble for a gay couple to adopt? It’s their only option.”
Yes, gay couples have only one option of parenthood (unless we come out with a biological breakthrough anytime soon). They HAVE to adopt if they want to raise a family. Do I think this makes them any less noble? No. Their alternatives are limited (non-existent really) but it’s their willingness/desire to care for a child that makes them noble (just like anyone else who chooses adoption as a first or even “second” choice). When someone says “Hey, I’m gladly and wholeheartedly willing to love and exert utmost care to a child who’s not of kin (and, in so doing, permanently transferring all rights and responsibilities legally and emotionally)” I feel that is absolutely noble (and by noble I mean great-hearted and brave even because you’re taking a chance…just like any other parent).
I think you’re reaching a little. I have two children. I adopted my wifes son, his previous father had given up all parental rights to get out of paying child support. He was already a dependant, was entitled to my military benefits, and even claimed on my taxes. To adopt him only meant that I would have to pay child support if my marriage didn’t work out (it has for 6 happy years now). I adopted for the singular purpose of telling him I cared enough to adopt him, and I wanted him to share a last name with the rest of the family. I also had a daugter with my wife. I had the urge to have another child, like most people who have children.
If I were a homosexual, and married a man who had a step-son. I would have adopted his child, and then moved to adopt another child out of the system. Nothing would have changed except that a child would have been taken out of the system. My intentions would be the same, to complete a family, yet now since I am a homosexual I get the privelage of being labeled “noble”.
There is nothing noble about being a homosexual and wanting a family. There is nothing bad about it either. It is normal…
Like being black and wanting a family…
or being straight and wanting a family…
being physically disabled and wanting a family….
I have absolutely no problems with homosexuals at all. My father-in-law came out of the closet recently after he dicorced his wife. Of his 4 children only 2 tolerate it, I am very happy, and proud to be married to one of the 2 that not only tolerate it, but accept him with open arms and attempt to augment him with the derth of his other 2 childrens company. I’m not trying to be rude, I just don’t think the entirety of homosexuals deserve brownie points for having normal human desires. If they are noble for pursuing children in the most logical manner, than I should be noble for pursuing my children in the most logical manner. At that point we are all noble, and the word uses its meaning. So why not just use the word “normal”.
If a SINGLE homosexual couple display noble qualities, then they are of course noble. To say that ALL homosexuals that adopt are noble is stereotyping, I mean… what if their terrible parents…
As someone who was adopted, I personally feel that adoption is a very good thing. It gave me opportunities I probably wouldn’t have been able have with a single young mother. And the need is incredible and growing. Try to avoid critiquing why people chose this, and focus on the blessings and opportunities they are providing, and I would encourage everyone to seriously consider adoption. I wouldn’t say gay adoptions are more noble than others, for many, the motivation is exactly the same.
Also, I read an article on gay parenting. There are finally some families for data points and if I remember correctly, children of gay parents were better socially adjusted.
Oh, and I don’t think in most LDS families you sacrifice quality for quantity. Just anecdotal observations, but if parents raise awkward kids, quantity really has nothing to do with it, and larger families often have children that and easier to live with compared to single children.
To be more clear, I think that adoption in general (whether you be straight, homosexual, etc.) is a noble commitment. Just as I think having children (and raising them well) is admirable. Adopting children is not more/less noble than raising children well; they are both excellent courses in life so perhaps I stand fault in not giving credit to parenthood as a whole in my previous post. If anyone feels I’m using the word “noble” too loosely then that’s a matter of opinion.
Here’s a fact: Parenting and adoption aren’t for everyone. Not everyone wants to or can take on the challenges. But if you choose to do it and do it exceptionally, there’s something to be said. A skill is a skill because not everyone can do it; the same idea applies to adoption which is why I view it so fondly.
And James, I agree with you completely. My life wouldn’t have been the same if my step-dad (who I call just Dad) didn’t adopt me. No way would I have made it this far. Which is why I think it’s ridiculous to judge celebrities who adopt because, quite frankly, they’re doing a wonderful thing. People make fun of Angelina Jolie for having adopted so many kids, but what’s wrong with that? If she has the money and emotional capacity to do it, then she’s doing the world a favor. People should follow.
I always wondered the mormons views on Oral sex and Anal. Thank you for this article Jon. So if sex is only meant to pro-create and strengthen the bond between couples then how often can couples have it? Where do you draw the line between bonding and freaky?
A family friend of mine used to work in a hotel in Las Vegas that gave massages. One day, the winner of “Best Gang Bang – Anal” in a porn awards show came in, suddenly got off the massage parlor, ran to the toilet, but didn’t make it. She had lost sphincter control. I imagine that would probably be crossing the line.
There really shouldn’t be overly strict limits or suggestions. A lot of what the church teaches is that it is up to you to decide how you will follow God’s commandments. While teachings from the outside may appear strict, to most Mormons its a choice to show devotion. Similarly, I feel it is up to the couple to draw the line between bonding and freaky. And honestly, sex in our generation can be quite disrespectful or hurtful. Because sex is so sacred it should be done out of love and respect.
Church leaders give a lot of suggestions and guidelines, but most are not meant to be followed absolutely as commandment.
Thank you both for your input… That story filled my head with nasty images lol.
@James
“And honestly, sex in our generation can be quite disrespectful or hurtful. Because sex is so sacred it should be done out of love and respect.”
1) what are you talking about by “sex in our generation”?
2) what do you define as disrespectful/hurtful?
3) you forgot about lust. It’s as important part of sex as love and respect are. Also sex and love are two totally different things, though it should always be respectful.
@Mike, I really didn’t need that. REALLY. lol
I think the quandry regarding the church’s views on sex is a very common one among its members. In Utah, it’s actually very common for therapists to see couples who have been married for 3 months and still not had sex. There is a large level of sexual dysfuction among the young members and I think it stems from imbalance. There are the couples having NO sex and the couples who fight about it because one spouse always ALWAYS wants it. (Ironically, the stigma agianst men fails and the latter party is often the wife). Sex is so vaguely defined and placed on such a high pedistal, that many members remain in the dark. It’s one of those things that is sooooooooooooo sacred, it becomes a dark and dirty secret. I think it’s time the church took sex off its pedistal. Yes, it is an intimate and special experience, but it doesn’t need to be a secret. It is NORMAL. People have urges and tendencies and sex is on the list of basic human needs for very good reason.
Also, if procreation is going to be the sole arguement against homosexuality, those of us from families with adoption histories and fertility problems will have something loud and angry to say about it. If sex is only for procreation (as the past leaders indicated), the God of the LDS church is truly a cruel one.
“God made sex, but not for entertainment” = “Have sex to have kids and don’t you DARE enjoy it!” Good luck with that one, friends!
Sorry, I spent all my professionalism and civility on my reply to Landon. Needed to poke a little fun ;)
@Courtney
I agree. It’s nearly impossible to have a good, healthy, normal sex life when you’ve been taught your entire life that you mustn’t ever touch yourself, (EVER!) let alone another person.
The Mormon patholigisation of sex and sexuality is one of the most damaging things about the religion. Because it is such a basic need/function, and because we’re such hyper-sexual animals, it’s pretty easy to manipulate and control people though controlling and manipulating the way they view sexuality and have sex. And that’s what makes it so insidious and destructive. Teaching people to hate/fear something which is a basic unchangeable part of themselves and of human existence is pretty evil.
@Craig
Oh dear, you’re making it much harder for me to use my nice words. All I’ll say is that I concur and exactly the same logic should be applied to the church’s stance on homosexuality. The research suggests that it is an interaction of environment and biology, in varying proportions for each individual. Are some people “born gay”? I think so. More importantly, “repairative therapies” for sexual orientation flat out DON’T WORK. Period. In fact, therapies that fit under that umbrella, though still practiced by certain quacks with questionable credentials, are considered damaging and against the APA ethics code (the almighty hippocratic oath for ppl in applied psych). The teaching that homosexuality is wrong is psychologically damaging and any who believe sexual orientation can be reversed or suppressed have no business working with people in any capacity. I think that especially applies to church leaders.
Good lord, the ranting just won’t stop. Somebody’s gonna call my mommy on me.
Meh. Who needs nice words?
And yes, I know all too well how disgusting “reparative therapy” is. It fucked me up for years and years. And years.
I’m really sorry to hear that Craig. I hope I didn’t sound insensitive or as though I was speaking to a child. It was more of a rant for the public with a dash of “don’t you dare disagree with me.” Rather emotional issue…
I met a guy who was “training” to practice “repairative therapy” and about throttled him on the spot. It’s so embarassing and shameful that it even exists anymore.
Oh, you didn’t sounds insensitive at all. I really appreciate your passion on the issue.
Jon, I’m sorry for flooding this page with comments, the issues in this post just hit a lot of nerves and I’m a compulsive writer from August to June.
I think the issue is of homosexuality is one where the church is REEEAAALLY shooting itself in the foot. As James pointed out, we do have some research on children raised by gay couples now. It indicates that the aforementioned kids are well-adjusted and show no markable differences from kids raised by heterosexual couples. Behavior problems are essentially the same per-capita, intelligence is stable, and ability to form relationships is normal. (individual differences occur but with no notable effect size between the two groups). One of the biggest slippery slope arguments against Prop 8 was that if it passed, LDS Family Services could be forced to adopt children out to same-sex couples. My response is only this: SO?!
The church is spitting in the faces of people who desperately want to be parents, to offer loving and supportive homes for children who will otherwise grow up in foster-care and group homes. I’m a pretty huge advocate for childhood interventions, so this absolutely infuriates me. Why is this loving home not good enough? Why are you playing with the odds against you and waiting for another, less homosexual couple to come around? Why are you willfully setting these kids up for disconnective relationship patterns, emotional disturbance and behavior problems? I’m certainly not saying that kids who grow up in foster care have no hope. There are a lot of good and loving foster homes out there, but the fact is that many people use foster care as a means of child abuse and obtaining government checks. Why is a church that professes God’s love for his children, denying children love?
My advice to the church: Get over the sex thing and think about the children. Remember that story about the guy throwing the starfish?
“I get all the arguements against it. I even get the one that says “I don’t know if I want to bring another kid into this world.” But how do you argue with the logic of loving one that’s already here?” -Martian Child (I’m such a sap)
Yea I agree with the group.