Below you will find Prince’s research excerpts titled, “17a – Oaks-Wickman Interview.” You can view other topics here.
Search the content below for specific dates, names, and keywords using the keyboard shortcut Command + F on a Mac or Control + F on Windows.
17a – Oaks/Wickman Interview, 2006
1729:
ELDER OAKS: This is much bigger than just a question of whether or not society should be more tolerant of the homosexual lifestyle. Over past years we have seen unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal, and to characterize those who disagree as narrow-minded, bigoted and unreasonable. Such advocates are quick to demand freedom of speech and thought for themselves, but equally quick to criticize those with a different view and, if possible, to silence them by applying labels like “homophobic.” In at least one country where homosexual activists have won major concessions, we have even seen a church pastor threatened with prison for preaching from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful. Given these trends, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints must take a stand on doctrine and principle. This is more than a social issue — ultimately it may be a test of our most basic religious freedoms to teach what we know our Father in Heaven wants us to teach.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Let’s say my 17-year-old son comes to talk to me and, after a great deal of difficulty trying to get it out, tells me that he believes that he’s attracted to men.… What do I tell him as a parent?
ELDER OAKS: You’re my son. You will always be my son, and I’ll always be there to help you.…
I think it’s important for you to understand that homosexuality, which you’ve spoken of, is not a noun that describes a condition. It’s an adjective that describes feelings or behavior.…
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: If a young man thinks he’s gay, what we’re really saying to him is that there is simply no other way to go but to be celibate for the rest of his life if he doesn’t feel any attraction to women?
ELDER OAKS: That is exactly the same thing we say to the many members who don’t have the opportunity to marry. We expect celibacy of any person that is not married.
ELDER WICKMAN: We live in a society which is so saturated with sexuality that it perhaps is more troublesome now, because of that fact, for a person to look beyond their gender orientation to other aspects of who they are. I think I would say to your son or anyone that was so afflicted to strive to expand your horizons beyond simply gender orientation. Find fulfillment in the many other facets of your character and your personality and your nature that extend beyond that. There’s no denial that one’s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person, but it’s not the only one.…
In this life, such things as service in the Church, including missionary service, all of this is available to anyone who is true to covenants and commandments.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: So you are saying that homosexual feelings are controllable?
ELDER OAKS: Yes, homosexual feelings are controllable.…
We’re not talking about a unique challenge here. We’re talking about a common condition of mortality.…
ELDER WICKMAN: One of the great sophistries of our age, I think, is that merely because one has an inclination to do something, that therefore acting in accordance with that inclination is inevitable. That’s contrary to our very nature as the Lord has revealed to us. We do have the power to control our behavior.…
ELDER OAKS: We do not accept the fact that conditions that prevent people from attaining their eternal destiny were born into them without any ability to control.…
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You’re saying the Church doesn’t necessarily have a position on ‘nurture or nature.’
ELDER OAKS: That’s where our doctrine comes into play. The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn’t have a position on.
ELDER WICKMAN: Whether it is nature or nurture really begs the important question, and a preoccupation with nature or nurture can, it seems to me, lead someone astray from the principles that Elder Oaks has been describing here. Why somebody has a same-gender attraction… who can say? But what matters is the fact that we know we can control how we behave, and it is behavior which is important.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is therapy of any kind a legitimate course of action if we’re talking about controlling behavior? If a young man says, “Look, I really want these feelings to go away… I would do anything for these feelings to go away,” is it legitimate to look at clinical therapy of some sort that would address those issues?
ELDER WICKMAN: Well, it may be appropriate for that person to seek therapy. Certainly the Church doesn’t counsel against that kind of therapy. But from the standpoint of a parent counseling a person, or a Church leader counseling a person, or a person looking at his or her same-gender attraction from the standpoint of ‘What can I do about it here that’s in keeping with gospel teachings?’ the clinical side of it is not what matters most. What matters most is recognition that ‘I have my own will. I have my own agency. I have the power within myself to control what I do.’…
Case studies I believe have shown that in some cases there has been progress made in helping someone to change that orientation; in other cases not.…
ELDER OAKS: Amen to that. Let me just add one more thought. The Church rarely takes a position on which treatment techniques are appropriate, for medical doctors or for psychiatrists or psychologists and so on.
The second point is that there are abusive practices that have been used in connection with various mental attitudes or feelings. Over-medication in respect to depression is an example that comes to mind. The aversive therapies that have been used in connection with same-sex attraction have contained some serious abuses that have been recognized over time within the professions. While we have no position about what the medical doctors do (except in very, very rare cases — abortion would be such an example), we are conscious that there are abuses and we don’t accept responsibility for those abuses. Even though they are addressed at helping people we would like to see helped, we can’t endorse every kind of technique that’s been used.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Is heterosexual marriage ever an option for those with homosexual feelings?
ELDER OAKS: We are sometimes asked about whether marriage is a remedy for these feelings that we have been talking about. President Hinckley, faced with the fact that apparently some had believed it to be a remedy, and perhaps that some Church leaders had even counseled marriage as the remedy for these feelings, made this statement: “Marriage should not be viewed as a therapeutic step to solve problems such as homosexual inclinations or practices.” To me that means that we are not going to stand still to put at risk daughters of God who would enter into such marriages under false pretenses or under a cloud unknown to them. Persons who have this kind of challenge that they cannot control could not enter marriage in good faith.
On the other hand, persons who have cleansed themselves of any transgression and who have shown their ability to deal with these feelings or inclinations and put them in the background, and feel a great attraction for a daughter of God and therefore desire to enter marriage and have children and enjoy the blessings of eternity — that’s a situation when marriage would be appropriate.
President Hinckley said that marriage is not a therapeutic step to solve problems.
ELDER WICKMAN: One question that might be asked by somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is, “Is this something I’m stuck with forever? What bearing does this have on eternal life? If I can somehow make it through this life, when I appear on the other side, what will I be like?”
Gratefully, the answer is that same-gender attraction did not exist in the pre-earth life and neither will it exist in the next life. It is a circumstance that for whatever reason or reasons seems to apply right now in mortality, in this nano-second of our eternal existence.
The good news for somebody who is struggling with same-gender attraction is this: 1) It is that ‘I’m not stuck with it forever.’ It’s just now. Admittedly, for each one of us, it’s hard to look beyond the ‘now’ sometimes. But nonetheless, if you see mortality as now, it’s only during this season. 2) If I can keep myself worthy here, if I can be true to gospel commandments, if I can keep covenants that I have made, the blessings of exaltation and eternal life that Heavenly Father holds out to all of His children apply to me. Every blessing — including eternal marriage — is and will be mine in due course.
ELDER OAKS: Let me just add a thought to that. There is no fullness of joy in the next life without a family unit, including a husband, a wife, and posterity. Further, men are that they might have joy. In the eternal perspective, same-gender activity will only bring sorrow and grief and the loss of eternal opportunities.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: A little earlier, Elder Oaks, you talked about the same standard of morality for heterosexuals and homosexuals. How would you address someone who said to you, ‘I understand it’s the same standard, but aren’t we asking a little more of someone who has same-gender attraction?’ Obviously there are heterosexual people who won’t get married, but would you accept that they at least have hope that ‘tomorrow I could meet the person of my dreams.’ There’s always the hope that that could happen at any point in their life. Someone with same-gender attraction wouldn’t necessarily have that same hope.
ELDER OAKS: There are differences, of course, but the contrast is not unique. There are people with physical disabilities that prevent them from having any hope — in some cases any actual hope and in other cases any practical hope — of marriage. The circumstance of being currently unable to marry, while tragic, is not unique.…
If we believe in God and believe in His mercy and His justice, it won’t do to say that these are discriminations because God wouldn’t discriminate.…
ELDER WICKMAN: There’s really no question that there is an anguish associated with the inability to marry in this life. We feel for someone that has that anguish. I feel for somebody that has that anguish. But it’s not limited to someone who has same-gender attraction.…
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Elder Wickman, when you referred earlier to missionary service, you held that out as a possibility for someone who felt same-gender attraction but didn’t act on it. President Hinckley has said that if people are faithful, they can essentially go forward as anyone else in the Church and have full fellowship. What does that really mean? Does it mean missionary service?…
ELDER WICKMAN: I think the short answer to that is yes! I’d look to Elder Oaks to elaborate on that.
ELDER OAKS: President Hinckley has helped us on that subject with a clear statement that answers all questions of that nature. He said, “We love them (referring to people who have same-sex attractions) as sons and daughters of God. They may have certain inclinations which are powerful and which may be difficult to control. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church.”
To me that means that a person with these inclinations, where they’re kept under control, or, if yielded to are appropriately repented of, is eligible to do anything in the Church that can be done by any member of the Church who is single. Occasionally, there’s an office, like the office of bishop, where a person must be married. But that’s rather the exception in the Church.…
We realize there may be great loneliness in their lives, but there must also be recognition of what is right before the Lord.”…
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Let’s fast-forward the scenario that we used earlier, and assume it’s a couple of years later. My conversations with my son, all our efforts to love our son and keep him in the Church have failed to address what he sees as the central issue — that he can’t help his feelings. He’s now told us that he’s moving out of the home. He plans to live with a gay friend. He’s adamant about it. What should be the proper response of a Latter-day Saint parent in that situation?
ELDER OAKS: It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”…
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: At what point does showing that love cross the line into inadvertently endorsing behavior? If the son says, ‘Well, if you love me, can I bring my partner to our home to visit? Can we come for holidays?’ How do you balance that against, for example, concern for other children in the home?’
ELDER OAKS: That’s a decision that needs to be made individually by the person responsible, calling upon the Lord for inspiration. I can imagine that in most circumstances the parents would say, ‘Please don’t do that. Don’t put us into that position.’ Surely if there are children in the home who would be influenced by this example, the answer would likely be that. There would also be other factors that would make that the likely answer.
I can also imagine some circumstances in which it might be possible to say, ‘Yes, come, but don’t expect to stay overnight. Don’t expect to be a lengthy house guest. Don’t expect us to take you out and introduce you to our friends, or to deal with you in a public situation that would imply our approval of your “partnership.”
There are so many different circumstances, it’s impossible to give one answer that fits all.…
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Let’s fast-forward again. My son has now stopped coming to church altogether. There seems no prospect of him returning. Now he tells me he’s planning on going to Canada where same-gender marriage is allowed. He insists that he agrees that loving marriage relationships are important. He’s not promiscuous; he has one relationship. He and his partner intend to have that relationship for the rest of their lives. He cannot understand that a lifetime commitment can’t be accepted by the Church when society seems to be moving in that way. Again, if I am a Latter-day Saint father, what would I be expected to tell him?
ELDER WICKMAN: … There is no such thing in the Lord’s eyes as something called same-gender marriage. Homosexual behavior is and will always remain before the Lord an abominable sin. Calling it something else by virtue of some political definition does not change that reality.…
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: What of those who might say, “Okay. Latter-day Saints are entitled to believe whatever they like. If you don’t believe in same-gender marriages, then it’s fine for you. But why try to regulate the behavior of other people who have nothing to do with your faith, especially when some nations in Europe have legally sanctioned that kind of marriage? Why not just say, ‘We don’t agree with it doctrinally for our own people’ and leave it at that. Why fight to get a Constitutional amendment [in the United States], for example?
ELDER WICKMAN: We’re not trying to regulate people, but this notion that ‘what happens in your house doesn’t affect what happens in my house’ on the subject of the institution of marriage may be the ultimate sophistry of those advocating same-gender marriage.
Some people promote the idea that there can be two marriages, co-existing side by side, one heterosexual and one homosexual, without any adverse consequences. The hard reality is that, as an institution, marriage like all other institutions can only have one definition without changing the very character of the institution. Hence there can be no coexistence of two marriages. Either there is marriage as it is now defined and as defined by the Lord, or there is what could thus be described as genderless marriage. The latter is abhorrent to God, who, as we’ve been discussing, Himself described what marriage is — between a man and a woman.
A redefinition of that institution, therefore, redefines it for everyone — not just those who are seeking to have a so-called same gender marriage. It also ignores the definition that the Lord Himself has given.
ELDER OAKS: Yet the question is asked and the matter is put forward as if those who believe in marriage between a man and a woman have the burden of proving that it should not be extended to some other set of conditions.…
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: There are those who would say that that might have applied better in the 1950s or earlier than in the 21st century. If you look at several nations in Europe, for example, traditional marriage is so rapidly on the decline that it is no longer the norm. If marriage is evolving, ought we to resist those kind of social changes?
ELDER OAKS: That argument impresses me as something akin to the fact that if we agree that the patient is sick and getting sicker, we should therefore approve a coup de grace. The coup de grace which ends the patient’s life altogether is quite equivalent to the drastic modification in the institution of marriage that would be brought on by same-gender marriage.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: You talked about the harm that could come on society by redefining marriage. What would you say to those people who declare: “I know gay people who are in long-term committed relationships. They’re great people. They love each other. What harm is it going to do my marriage as a heterosexual to allow them that same ‘rite?’
ELDER WICKMAN: Let me say again what I said a moment ago. I believe that that argument is true sophistry, because marriage is a unified institution. Marriage means a committed, legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman. That’s what it means. That’s what it means in the revelations. That’s what it means in the secular law. You cannot have that marriage coexisting institutionally with something else called same-gender marriage. It simply is a definitional impossibility. At such point as you now, as an institution, begin to recognize a legally-sanctioned relationship, a committed relationship between two people of the same gender, you have now redefined the institution to being one of genderless marriage.
As we’ve mentioned in answer to other questions, [genderless marriage] is contrary to God’s law, to revealed Word. Scripture, ancient and modern, could not be clearer on the definition that the Lord and His agents have given to marriage down through the dispensations.
But it has a profound effect in a very secular way on everybody else. What happens in somebody’s house down the street does in very deed have an effect on what happens in my house and how it’s treated. To suggest that in the face of these millennia of history and the revelations of God and the whole human pattern they have the right to redefine the whole institution for everyone is presumptuous in the extreme and terribly wrong-headed.
ELDER OAKS: Another point to be made about this is made in a question. If a couple who are cohabiting, happy, and committed to one another want to have their relationship called a marriage, why do they want that? Considering what they say they have, why do they want to add to it the legal status of marriage that has been honored and experienced for thousands of years? What is it that is desired by those who advocate same-gender marriage? If that could be articulated on some basis other than discrimination, which is not a very good argument, it would be easier to answer the question that you have asked, and I think it would reveal the soundness of what we’ve already heard.
There are certain indicia of marriage — certain legal and social consequences and certain legitimacy — which if given to some relationship other than marriage between a man and a woman tend to degrade if not destroy the institution that’s been honored over so many thousands of years.…
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Would you extend the same argument against same-gender marriage to civil unions or some kind of benefits short of marriage?
ELDER WICKMAN: One way to think of marriage is as a bundle of rights associated with what it means for two people to be married. What the First Presidency has done is express its support of marriage and for that bundle of rights belonging to a man and a woman. The First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself concerning any specific right. It really doesn’t matter what you call it. If you have some legally sanctioned relationship with the bundle of legal rights traditionally belonging to marriage and governing authority has slapped a label on it, whether it is civil union or domestic partnership or whatever label it’s given, it is nonetheless tantamount to marriage. That is something to which our doctrine simply requires us to speak out and say, “That is not right. That’s not appropriate.”
As far as something less than that — as far as relationships that give to some pairs in our society some right but not all of those associated with marriage — as to that, as far as I know, the First Presidency hasn’t expressed itself. There are numbers of different types of partnerships or pairings that may exist in society that aren’t same-gender sexual relationships that provide for some right that we have no objection to. All that said… there may be on occasion some specific rights that we would be concerned about being granted to those in a same-gender relationship. Adoption is one that comes to mind, simply because that is a right which has been historically, doctrinally associated so closely with marriage and family. I cite the example of adoption simply because it has to do with the bearing and the rearing of children. Our teachings, even as expressed most recently in a very complete doctrinal sense in the Family Proclamation by living apostles and prophets, is that children deserve to be reared in a home with a father and a mother.
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: On the issue of a Constitutional amendment prohibiting same-gender marriage, there are some Latter-day Saints who are opposed to same-gender marriage, but who are not in favor of addressing this through a Constitutional amendment. Why did the Church feel that it had to step in that direction?
ELDER OAKS: Law has at least two roles: one is to define and regulate the limits of acceptable behavior. The other is to teach principles for individuals to make individual choices. The law declares unacceptable some things that are simply not enforceable, and there’s no prosecutor who tries to enforce them. We refer to that as the teaching function of the law. The time has come in our society when I see great wisdom and purpose in a United States Constitutional amendment declaring that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is nothing in that proposed amendment that requires a criminal prosecution or that directs the attorneys general to go out and round people up, but it declares a principle and it also creates a defensive barrier against those who would alter that traditional definition of marriage.
There are people who oppose a federal Constitutional amendment because they think that the law of family should be made by the states. I can see a legitimate argument there. I think it’s mistaken, however, because the federal government, through the decisions of life-tenured federal judges, has already taken over that area. This Constitutional amendment is a defensive measure against those who would ignore the will of the states appropriately expressed and require, as a matter of federal law, the recognition of same-gender marriages — or the invalidation of state laws that require that marriage be between a man and a woman. In summary, the First Presidency has come out for an amendment (which may or may not be adopted) in support of the teaching function of the law. Such an amendment would be a very important expression of public policy, which would feed into or should feed into the decisions of judges across the length and breadth of the land.
ELDER WICKMAN: Let me just add to that, if I may. It’s not the Church that has made the issue of marriage a matter of federal law. Those who are vigorously advocating for something called same-gender marriage have essentially put that potato on the fork. They’re the ones who have created a situation whereby the law of the land, one way or the other, is going to address this issue of marriage. This is not a situation where the Church has elected to take the matter into the legal arena or into the political arena. It’s already there.
The fact of the matter is that the best way to assure that a definition of marriage as it now stands continues is to put it into the foundational legal document of the United States. That is in the Constitution. That’s where the battle has taken it. Ultimately that’s where the battle is going to be decided. It’s going to be decided as a matter of federal law one way or the other. Consequently it is not a battleground on such an issue that we Latter-day Saints have chosen, but it has been established and we have little choice but to express our views concerning it, which is really all that the Church has done.
Decisions even for members of the Church as to what they do with respect to this issue must of course rest with each one in their capacity as citizens.…
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: The emphasis that has been placed in this conversation on traditional marriage between a man and a woman has been consistent throughout. Do you see any irony in the fact that the Church is so publicly outspoken on this issue, when in the minds of so many people in the United States and around the world the Church is known for once supporting a very untraditional marriage arrangement — that is, polygamy?
ELDER OAKS: I see irony in that if one views it without the belief that we affirm in divine revelation. The 19th century Mormons, including some of my ancestors, were not eager to practice plural marriage. They followed the example of Brigham Young, who expressed his profound negative feelings when he first had this principle revealed to him. The Mormons of the 19th century who practiced plural marriage, male and female, did so because they felt it was a duty put upon them by God.
When that duty was lifted, they were directed to conform to the law of the land, which forbade polygamy and which had been held constitutional. When they were told to refrain from plural marriage, there were probably some who were unhappy, but I think the majority were greatly relieved and glad to get back into the mainstream of western civilization, which had been marriage between a man and a woman. In short, if you start with the assumption of continuing revelation, on which this Church is founded, then you can understand that there is no irony in this. But if you don’t start with that assumption, you see a profound irony.…
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: What about various types of support groups for those with same-gender affliction?
ELDER WICKMAN: I think we neither encourage nor discourage them, but much would depend on the nature of those groups. We certainly discourage people getting involved with any group or organization that foster living a homosexual lifestyle.
Ultimately, the wisest course for anybody who’s afflicted [DISEASE?] with same-gender attraction is to strive to extend one’s horizon beyond just one’s sexual orientation, one’s gender orientation, and to try to see the whole person.…
ELDER OAKS: The principle that Elder Wickman has talked about, in a nutshell, is that if you are trying to live with and maintain ascendancy over same-gender attractions, the best way to do that is to have groups that define their members in terms other than same-gender attractions.” (“Same-Gender Attraction,” Newsroom.LDS.org, August 2006)
1975:
[Family Fellowship response]
INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
When our children confront their homosexuality, they have four choices: 1) remain celibate and be active in the Church, 2) enter high-risk heterosexual marriages, 3) live non-celibately without a permanent partner outside of the Church, or 4) live non-celibately in a committed relationship outside the church. Understandably, statements in the interview speak in favor only of the first possibility (and, under strictly specified guidelines, the second). However, most Latter-day Saint homosexuals, including a significant percentage of the children of the families in Family Fellowship, have rejected the first option. We as parents and other family members of homosexual Latter-day Saints have to face the reality that most choose one of the latter two options. All of us associated with this document favor the final option for those who do not choose celibacy or who choose not to enter high-risk marriages. In other words, we prefer our children to live in committed relationships with fidelity. We wonder how many other parents would choose differently when their children reject the first option.?…
IMPORTANCE OF THIS ISSUE TO THE CHURCH
The pressure for homosexuals to conform to a heterosexual “life” has proven unhealthy to many of our children who have married or attempted marriage while attempting to ignore their feelings of attraction to the same gender. In some instances this has led to suicide and to other familial and societal problems.…
SON WITH SAME SEX ATTRACTION
Most dictionaries categorize “homosexuality” as a noun that describes a person’s sexual orientation to someone of the same gender. If our children have persistent, long standing attractions which are labeled as “certainly a core characteristic of any person,” we feel it matters little whether these feelings are described as a noun or an adjective. It is not possible to make the feelings go away regardless of what we call it. That is the real issue.…
CELIBACY AS A LIFE CHOICE
That is, physically affectionate experiences that are characterized by romantic or erotic desire, which are at the core of heterosexual companionship and which psychologists and sociologists see as fundamental for full human development under most circumstances, are categorically denied to homosexuals. In other words, we believe that families need to acknowledge that homosexuals are asked to sacrifice a part of their human experience that the near majority of heterosexuals, even in the Church, not only are not asked to but likely would refuse to sacrifice.…
How the Church responds to homosexual members whose relationship is sanctioned by either legal marriages or civil partnerships (for example in Massachusetts, Canada, and in certain countries in Europe) is another matter altogether and one that Church leadership has not yet, to our knowledge, fully addressed. We think there should be a way for the Church to reach out to such couples, many of whom are children of faithful LDS members and who have themselves served missions and held responsible church positions and given significant Church service. We believe such Latter-day Saints, if given the opportunity, have the potential to bless those around them. Rather than excluded we would like to see them included and made welcome in our worship services and church community.…
THE CHURCH HAS NO POSITION ON NATURE OR NURTURE AS A CAUSE
Although some church leaders have at times stated otherwise, Elder Oaks’ answer is in keeping with the statement by President Hinckley that makes it very clear that he does not know whether sexual orientation is a learned or inherited human trait. We are extremely grateful that this statement does not deny, like a certain Ensign article by Byrd (September, 1999), that homosexuality may have a genetic origin.
The question as to the origin or base cause(s) of homosexuality is neither idle nor trivial. Elder Oaks acknowledges that questions of cause are “scientific questions.” Regarding such science, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that at the very least homosexuality has biological roots that lie beyond volition and are most likely immutable.…
The recent neutral position on nature/nurture taken by certain Church leaders is encouraging. However, many of our children continue to feel judged in our Mormon community by those who feel that homosexuals choose their sexual orientation and can change or adjust it if they would only choose to do so.…
SEEKING TREATMENT IS A MATTER OF INDIVIDUAL CHOICE
In a departure from previous positions, Church leaders here state that therapy cannot be expected to alter sexual orientation and they do not endorse any particular therapy of this type. This is a welcome clarification.…
To our knowledge there have been no reliable, long-term, scientifically-controlled studies that suggest therapy can make the feelings go away. While some therapists and the Evergreen support group, among others, have used isolated cases or limited populations to argue general principles, their conclusions have not been well received by the scientific community.…
LDS Family Services personnel have tracked over 800 cases of LDS married and unmarried males (see www.ldsresources.info) who have sought therapy to “cure” or cope with their same-sex attraction. In the vast majority of cases the feelings still persist. We know that for years such reorientation and reparative therapies have been recommended at BYU and at LDS Family Services wherein persons were promised a “transition out of homosexuality”, but in the vast majority of cases this has not happened. In rare cases when those with homosexual attraction have been able to establish successful marriages these individuals have been bisexual.
We are extremely pleased the Church is moving away from the endorsement of these therapies. Elder Oaks seems to recognize that the Church can easily end up being complicit in abusive therapy practices if the Church endorses them in any way.…
CAUTION RECOMMENDED FOR HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE
This is indeed a positive and welcome clarification, especially in light of counsel given by many church leaders over the years that marriage is or might be a solution for homosexuals.…
We have felt for some time that in addition to President Hinckley’s statement, there needs to be a strong statement about protecting the “daughters of God.” Therefore, this statement by Elder Oaks should be stressed throughout the Church since men comprise about 90% of those who come to Church-affiliated support sources for help with same sex feelings and almost half of them are already married.…
SAME SEX ATTRACTION IS A MORTAL CONDITION ONLY
We are puzzled by this because many of us feel that “same spirit” could mean sexual orientation. Alma teaches that the “same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world.”…
However, our greatest concern as parents is the implied suggestion here that those with homosexual orientation are fundamentally flawed and this shames our children rather than bringing them to God.…
CELIBACY IS DIFFICULT BUT NOT UNIQUE TO HOMOSEXUALS
To ask our LDS young adult children of same sex orientation to accept celibacy is to impose an enormous burden on them.… When forced to make a decision, it is now obvious that young homosexuals are overwhelmingly choosing to leave the Church in spite of their strong identification with and desire to be affiliated with it.…
While some relatively few individuals, including those who are asexual or who have low libido, or those with extraordinary levels of self discipline, choose to forsake sexual intimacy for life, this is the exception rather than the rule.…
In addition, heterosexuals who transgress the law of chastity, who enter into co-habiting relationships, or even who bear children out of wedlock, are often fellowshipped by church leaders and members, often without any disciplinary action being taken against them. In general, homosexuals do not enjoy such considerations.…
CHURCH PARTICIPATION AND SERVICE ARE NOT DENIED TO HOMOSEXUALS
The recent clarification that all church service opportunities other than those that require marriage are open to chaste homosexual brothers and sisters is a welcome one, but one that has not yet fully permeated the church rank and file. Sadly, there are numerous instances of otherwise fully worthy same sex oriented members (including some of our own children) being released from callings as visiting and home teachers and as auxiliary and priesthood leaders, and being essentially shunned by church members when their orientation is made public by themselves or others. Also, to be realistic, no homosexual male is likely to be called to a leadership position (certainly not bishop, stake president, patriarch or high counselor), nor is either gender homosexual likely to be called to be an ordinance worker in the temple. Also, revealing deep- seated prejudice, no known homosexual male would likely be called to work with young men or homosexual female be called to work with young women, even though heterosexuals are just as likely as homosexuals to pose a danger to young people.
There are some bishops and stake presidents who are unwilling to submit the names of young men and young women (including some of our own children) to serve missions when they learn of their homosexual orientation.…
HOMOSEXUALITY SHOULD NOT BE THE DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC OF A PERSON’S LIFE?
We contend that most homosexuals in our families don’t regard their sexual orientation as the “defining fact of their existence” any more than do heterosexuals, and yet it is clearly one of the defining facts of their existence.
DOES SHOWING LOVE ENDORSE HOMOSEXUAL ACTIVITY?
It’s also significant to recognize that unmarried heterosexual partners are found in nearly every ward and in many LDS families in the Church, living together in an unmarried status, and yet most of us allow them to sort out their own lives without continual judgment or censure. Surely our children involved in homosexual relationships deserve no less.…
We agree that whether heterosexual or homosexual, the same rules would seem to be in order when bringing unmarried partners to the family home.…
BIBLICAL TEACHINGS ABOUT MARRIAGE
As parents we know that in modern times, prophets and apostles have vigorously defended the plurality of wives as correct when it is ordained of God. Why could not same sex marriage also be correct when ordained by the same divine source? Obviously that hasn’t happened but many homosexual Latter-day Saints and their families hope that the possibility exists.…
NEED TO UPHOLD CURRENT DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE
On the other hand, we feel there is some validity to the argument that permitting homosexual marriage may in fact strengthen heterosexual marriage in that it would likely prevent the break-up of so many marriages between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Further, the more people in a culture who are in permanent, committed relationships strengthens the idea that such commitment is preferable to casual, non-committed relationships.
REASONS FOR NOT LEGALIZING SAME SEX MARRIAGE
It is instructive to observe what has happened in Canada, a country with very similar social, cultural and historical foundations as the United States. Same- sex marriage was legalized across Canada by the Civil Marriage Act of July 20, 2005. Court decisions, starting in 2003, had already legalized same-sex marriage in eight out of ten provinces and one of three territories, whose residents comprised about 90% of Canada’s population. Before passage of the Act, more than 3,000 same-sex couples had already married in these areas. Most legal benefits commonly associated with marriage had already been extended to cohabiting same-sex couples since 1999.…
Rather than excommunicating those who are among the most marginalized and therefore the most in need of Christ’s love and fellowship in his Church, perhaps Church members could open their arms and say to our homosexual children what they say to heterosexual members living in unmarried relationships, “Please come and worship with us. You are welcome here.”…
(FAMILY FELLOWSHIP RESPONSE TO AN INTERVIEW WITH ELDER OAKS AND ELDER WICKMAN ON SAME GENDER ATTRACTION AS CONDUCTED BY THE CHURCH’S PUBLIC AFFAIRS STAFF IN AUGUST, 2006)
3355:
“The LDS church’s latest statements on homosexuality were not given over the pulpit at General Conference, in an article in the church’s official publication, a pamphlet to be distributed to all bishops, the letter from the First Presidency or a press release.
Instead, they were quietly posted two weeks ago in the newsroom of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Web site, www.lds.org, in the form of an interview between an anonymous public affairs official an Elder Dallin H. Oaks, of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles and Elder Lance Wickman, a member of the First Quorum of Seventy.…
When asked what prompted the interview, LDS spokesman Scott Trotter said this week that the format enabled Mormon leaders to address the issue in full context ‘without having their message diluted through the news media.’…
Gary Watts, co-chair of Family Fellowship, a support group for Mormon gays, was disappointed by the pair’s explanation of why homosexuality and same-gender marriage are important to the church.
‘Elder Oaks chose to emphasize that it was important because church policy was being criticized and was receiving unrelenting pressure from advocates of that lifestyle to accept as normal what is not normal,’ says Watts, who lives in Provo. ‘I would have preferred to hear him say that it was important because so many of our good church families with homosexual children were hurting and were having a difficult time reconciling the reality of their lives with a church policy that, too often, seemed to divide, rather than unite their family members.’…
Buckley Jeppson’s reaction to the interview was even more harsh. ‘It was,’ he says, ‘objectionable, insulting, untrue, and manipulative.’ Jeppson, of Washington, D.C., was troubled by Oaks’s comments on civil unions, particularly because he and Mike Kessler were married in Toronto two years ago. ‘It was the closest we could come to showing our commitment to each other and to our belief in the importance of a family structure,’ he says. ‘I feel like this statement makes clear that my marriage should never be viewed as lawful, valid, or genuine.’” (Peggy Fletcher Stack, “’Interview’ on LDS Church website discusses homosexuality,” Salt Lake Tribune, August 31, 2006)
3356:
“The 8,500-word document reaffirms some important facts, including President Gordon B. Hinckley’s admonition that marriage should not be seen as a therapeutic step to ‘cure’ homosexuality. It also includes, perhaps for the first time ever, a timid condemnation of aversion therapy. Despite these positive points, a careful reading of this document reveals that the real purpose of this interview is not to ‘help’ gay and lesbian people and their families, but to spin and deny the accusation of being ‘homophobic.’ In this interview, Elders Oaks and Wickman further insult gays and lesbians by comparing them to people with mental retardation and demonstrating ignorance about the science of human sexuality.
Regarding the accusation that the church is homophobic, the LDS Church’s record over the past two decades speaks for itself: Gay and lesbian Mormons are routinely excommunicated from the church, cast out from their families, and cast as a satanic threat to family life; Brigham Young University has an embarrassing history of spying on gay and lesbian students, submitting them to so-called ‘electroshock therapy,’ and summarily expelling them. The prophet of the LDS Church recently railed against homosexuality in the context of a reference to Sodom and Gomorrah, and a high-ranking leader suggested a comparison between the gay rights movement and the rise to power of Hitler. The LDS Church has mounted aggressive political campaigns in Alaska, California, Utah, and many other states to fight against marriage equality, with the ultimate goal of amending the US Constitution to ensure that gay and lesbian couples will never have the right to marry. It is hard to know how to characterize these aggressive actions and the extreme language used by Church representatives except as homophobic.
Elder Spencer W. Kimball once called gays perverts; Elder Boyd K. Packer once dubbed them selfish; now Elders Oaks and Wickman compare them to ‘the handicapped.’ Placing gays and lesbians in the same category as those who are ‘born with … disfigurements or mental or physical incapacities.…
Elders Oaks and Wickman refuse to even acknowledge the existence of gay and lesbian people, employing instead euphemisms and misnomers such as ‘somebody who is struggling with same-sex attraction’ and making offensive references to ‘the homosexual lifestyle.’ It is ironic that a church, which is so preoccupied with the names by which it is called in the media, would refuse to extend to gays and lesbians the courtesy of referring to them by the names by which they refer to themselves.…
Elder Oaks claims that ‘in at least one country’ a church pastor was ‘threatened with prison for preaching from the pulpit that homosexual behavior is sinful.’ This isolated anecdote, for which Elder Oaks cites no specific laws nor resulting convictions, stands over against the laws and customs of many Islamic countries where women are second-class citizens and homosexuals are regularly jailed, tortured, and executed. In Saudi Arabia, for example, homosexuals are routinely imprisoned, flogged, and executed under existing anti-gay laws.…
In their aggressive campaign against same-sex marriage, Elder Oaks and other LDS leaders are simply out of step with contemporary science. As recently stated by the American Anthropological Association, ‘the results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies.…” (Hugo Salinas, “New LDS Message is More Homophobic,” Q Salt Lake, September 16, 2006, p. 12)