Between a Rock and a Hard Place

-I’m a single, celibate gay man (closeted) in a church that seems to be more the Church of the Family than the Church of Jesus Christ

indeed it is. you have chosen to remain fully active in it as a celibate gay man, and that is a very tough path. at ths point in the evolution of the church, there isn’t a lot of sensitivity toward non-family situations, although things may be improving a (very) little. I believe that Paul the Apostle was challenged with a nonfamily situation as well. knowing that your situation may have strong historical precedent helps, perhaps.

-In spite of all the good things about my traditional LDS upbringing, it has taken me over a decade and a half to peel away the layers of guilt, shame, and self-loathing I internalized as part of the culture

I hear you loud and clear… it is past now, but it doesn’t make it much easier.

-I’m very frustrated by the lessons in Sunday School and Priesthood. One of things I love about the Church is its rich theology—yet Church seems so frustratingly dumbed-down

correlation=least common denominator. i thought as you did, but then, as gospel doctrine teacher, i learned that most LDS crave pablum rather than stimulation. i learned from an AME minister that stimulating doctrine doesn’t teach, doesn’t preach, doesn’t uplift or edify except for a very few. realizing that we are at church to serve others helps me understand that if pablum and milk are on the menu, that is exactly what we serve up.

i don’t have to teach it dumbly, though. finding a way to serve up milk and pablum with flair is a challenge i relish.

I love the Sacrament. I need the Sacrament and a Sabbath day. Unfortunately, many things about Church make me miserable. I’ve tried just not going—but it also makes me miserable. I wonder if I ought to ask to be released from my callings so that I can just go to Sacrament meeting. But this would go against my understanding of the active nature of the Gospel. I know that I am happy when I serve. I’m just so terribly unhappy with the family rhetoric, and the guilt trips, and the dull, boring meetings.

I wish to be a disciple of Christ, and I believe that the LDS church has the ordinances and keys of the priesthood. I feel like I can’t live with it, and I can’t live without it. Aack! :crazy:

yep. i understand. it isn’t easy.

I have a question that I have to ask prior to offering any advice – since the answer will change everything about the advice I give.

Is you Bishop (or Elder’s Quorum President or Stake President or High Councilor or High Priest Group Leader or someone else in a position of “authority”) understanding and open enough for you to talk with him about your situation?

If so, I would suggest strongly that you talk with him – but I would introduce and frame everything in the following way:

I am completely temple worthy. I am striving to live as expected right now for temple attendance. I am trying to live the standards of the Church to the very best of my ability and have a strong testimony of the Restoration of the Gospel.

I then would say exactly what you wrote in this post – word-for-word. That was:

-I’m a single, celibate gay man (closeted) in a church that seems to be more the Church of the Family than the Church of Jesus Christ

-In spite of all the good things about my traditional LDS upbringing, it has taken me over a decade and a half to peel away the layers of guilt, shame, and self-loathing I internalized as part of the culture

-I’m very frustrated by the lessons in Sunday School and Priesthood. One of things I love about the Church is its rich theology—yet Church seems so frustratingly dumbed-down

I love the Sacrament. I need the Sacrament and a Sabbath day. Unfortunately, many things about Church make me miserable. I’ve tried just not going—but it also makes me miserable. I wonder if I ought to ask to be released from my callings so that I can just go to Sacrament meeting. But this would go against my understanding of the active nature of the Gospel. I know that I am happy when I serve. I’m just so terribly unhappy with the family rhetoric, and the guilt trips, and the dull, boring meetings.

I wish to be a disciple of Christ, and I believe that the LDS church has the ordinances and keys of the priesthood. I feel like I can’t live with it, and I can’t live without it.

I then would say:

As the Church has said recently in its latest pamphlet about same-sex attractions, I can’t help my feelings. I am grateful for the direction the Church is going with regard to members like me, since, again, it has taken me a long time to overcome all of the incorrect rhetoric with which I was raised. I think there is a long way to go yet until we as a church can deal lovingly and productively with gay members like me, but I’m grateful that we are moving in that direction.

Part of what I need is to have the really mean, ignorant, sometimes vicious things that people say about people like me to stop. It’s incredibly hard to attend church and hear some of the stuff I hear all the time. It’s kind of like a divorced, single parent who goes to church and hears every single Sunday, without end, how messed up her or his life and family are. Even with a strong testimony, it’s hard to get punched in the face constantly without it starting to affect you.

I need help. Can you help me?

I understand how difficult that is, and I suggest it ONLY if there is someone whom you trust. If there isn’t anyone in that situation, is there someone who is a regular member who can have the conversation with your leader on your behalf – not mentioning a name, but going over the general issue?

Finally, I am sending you a PM with one more suggestion.

I’d really like to see a church where the members understand that nobody chooses their sexual orientation. That therapy only sometimes works. That we need a church where people aren’t deathly afraid to declare a homosexual orientation. A place where, rather than simply demanding celibacy and walking away, there are viable, institutionally supported celibate life paths for those whose circumstances do not allow for traditional heterosexual marriage.

Me too Turinturambar, me too! FWIW I think your continued presence in the pews will help us to eventually reach that goal. I know it’s little consolation but I pray for your strength and for the hearts of the membership to soften.

Musing a bit…

I know of a case from a friend, where two active LDS gay members lived in a domestic couple situation, and one of them was a member of a bishopric, and the other was dying of AIDS. I inquired as to how they could reconcile their full activity and TR worthiness status with the Church’s position on gays, and my friend told me that they “lived within the bounds the Lord has set.” I’m still puzzled as to how this worked, and I think it was before the church position on gays hardened to where it is today, but I don’t know the details.

But it gets me thinking. Suppose two gay people decide that they are going to live the Law of Chastity, which is to not have “sexual relations”/”sexual intercourse” outside of marriage. They date, and as they date, they are not public in any expression of affection, nor do they violate the Law of Chastity in any way. Should/would the church take action against them for dating?

Let’s go one step further. Eventually, they get married in one of the few jurisdictions that allow gay marriage. They live the Law of Chastity throughout, not having any sexual relations before marriage.

Now, at this point, they’re married, so in theory, they are technically within the Law of Chastity. As well, church policy does not enter the bedroom to specify what kind of sex people have, so they’re free to explore sexuality that is neither abusive or exploitative.

So in this ‘test case’

– Prior to marriage, the couple did not violate the Law of Chastity.

– They got married civilly, complying with the local law that allowed it. Therefore they are legally and lawfully wedded.

– After marriage, they are technically within the Law of Chastity, which states that you should not have any sexual relations except with your husband or wife, to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded.

Should/would the church take action against them for dating?

While I don’t think the church should take action, I am quite certain that this would result in excommunication anyway, although technically, no law or church commandment has been broken. I also think that this test case is the principle reason that the Church is so adamantly opposed to gay marriage — given the wording of the Law of Chastity, recognition of gay marriage would require the church to accept committed, married, faithful gay couples in full fellowship in the church.

And really, is that such a problem? “The church hath need of every member.”

As I said, I’m just musing here… I am not recommending this, because I do think it would invariably mean excommunication — and perhaps I am steppping over the line even with this line of thinking.

Again, that’s my biggest issue with this situation – that a gay couple could get excommunicated even though they weren’t having sex, while nobody ever would dream of excommunicating a straight couple if they weren’t having sex.

so…help me understand this. If two gay men date, without any violation of the LoC, they’re excommunicated? or are your referring to if they get married?

Do we know this? have there been any test cases where someone has tried to live in a committed but celebate relationship as a gay couple and been excommunicated?

Is it worth asking?

My thoughts on my dialog on mormon.org (previous message).

1. These ‘missionaries’ on LDS.org are just guessing like the rest of us…hard to get an authoritative answer in the church.

2. the initial answer is intended to be vague but accommodating.

3. Once you dig, you find out that they REALLY don’t know. The church needs to clarify the position here: is there a current law in church doctrine against homosexual relationships or are they just winging it?

4. The comment about how if something is cultural, members of the church in that culture should adopt the LDS culture and commandment. This is cultural imperialism at its worst.

and, yeah, the missionaries are just doing their best to answer questions they can’t answer adequately.

in the end, it kind of demonstrates to me that in large measure, the church really has no clue what is official doctrine and why it’s there.

When I look at the records since the 1800s on any ‘revelations’, there really aren’t very many. And the ones that we’ve had are so laboriously decided.

we probably all agree that abortion is sin, and after deep personal searching, I felt that in cases of rape, incest, and mother’s health, it may be justified after counseling– and guess what? that’s the church’s position as well. But why? Who had a revelation on it?

regarding homosexuality, the missionaries brought up Romans 1 and Leviticus. The latter is absurd beyond belief, and the former is not clearly a commandment. I fully understand the concept of the Law of Chastity, and accept it as relevant and mandatory. But who revealed that “homosexual activity” is any more sinful or different than premarital heterosexual activity? Who had a revelation on it? what is the doctrine? does anybody know or are they just making it up as they go along?

in 1972 they tried a FP letter virtually prohibiting birth control – they recinded it.

they tried to govern what kind of sex a married couple could have — they recinded that too.

who had a revelation that masturbation is sin?

If I want to have faith and trust in these brethren, i think it important to understand what I’m supposed to have faith and trust in… it seems to be a moving target, no?

but back to the OP — turinturambar is seeking support and help (he comes and goes, though, at infrequent intervals…). What specific advice should he get? The problem is that the standard is arbitrary and capricious.