[Note: there may be some words below that are links to
other websites. If you follow them,
they may take you to others' websites. You will need to
navigate BACK to this website to
return to this page. All of the links are again listed at
the end -- you can wait until then to see them
if you wish.]
For some people who label themselves as "gay Mormons," they might not be using the word "Mormon" to mean that they're active, church-goers. They might be using the label Mormon just to identify their history, heritage, or culture, while at the same time not being active members of the Church or, official members of the Church (they perhaps have voluntarily left the Church, or were excommunicated). I personally don't claim to be gay and a member of the Church -- not any more anyway. But I do identify with being a "gay Mormon" -- okay gay (ex)Mormon. Through my experiences of meeting and talking with and corresponding with gay Mormons, I find that we usually fit into one of the following six categories (often moving through the categories as though they were "stages"):
2) Men and women who feel a sense of same-sex attraction, who feel that it is a "defect" to be overcome (and certainly never act upon the feelings), and who strive to be active members of the Church like their straight counterparts. These people "confess" their feelings to their church leaders, and seek counseling from LDS social services, and perhaps even from Church-endorsed organizations such as Evergreen, which seek to change homosexuals to heterosexuals through sexual reorientation.
3) Men and women who feel a sense of same-sex attraction, who do not feel that it is a "defect" to be overcome, but who accept their homosexuality as a natural, God-given state. But because they have a testimony and wish to be active members of the Church like their straight counterparts, and put aside their personal beliefs of their acceptance of homosexuality, they remain celibate (thus satisfying the Church’s requirement of "keeping the commandments" in order to be active priesthood and callings holders.). They believe that the Church will eventually become enlightened to the point of accepting gay members and accepting gay marriage, thus allowing them all the same "benefits" of Church membership as their straight church member counterparts. These people walk the fine line of having their own self-accepting feelings about being homosexual, and not "supporting and sustaining" the Church and its leaders’ counsel.
4) Men and women who accept their homosexuality as a natural state. They are comfortable considering themselves homosexuals, queers, lesbians, fags, dykes, etc. These people still have some testimony or faith in the Church and/or the gospel, but cannot participate actively in the Church, because they cannot reconcile or accept the Church’s stance on homosexuality. Many of these people feel some anger and resentment against a system and church leaders who have rejected them, sometimes to the point of excommunication. These people hope that one day, that the Church will "wake up" and accept homosexuals into the Church. But until that time, these people cannot and will not participate in Church.
5) Men and women who accept their homosexuality as a natural state. These people still have spiritual needs and interests, but cannot participate actively in the LDS Church, because they cannot reconcile nor accept the Church’s stance on homosexuality. These people have sought out and joined other Christian and non-Christian faiths and organizations to fulfill their spiritual needs.
6) Men and women who accept their homosexuality as a natural state. These people no longer seek or need a structured spiritual environment, nor look to "organized religion" as a necessary component of their lives. Most retain belief in some kind of deity or higher power or energy with which/whom they relate to in their own individual, personal way; others have become atheist.
There are many gay people who are members of the Church -- active members -- I was one of them for many years. This statement invites a closer look at what being "gay" means, and what "being a member of the Church" means.
When I hear someone say that to be gay is to sin, or is a sin, I often have a hard time comprehending what that means, or making sense of it (even though when I was younger, I bought right into the assertion that to be gay is "evil"). For me now, it would be like hearing someone say "to have blue eyes is a sin." Part of the assumption fueling that belief is that to be gay is a choice. The raging debate. My position is that it's not a choice -- you either are or you're not, but whatever you are, you can't change your very being. (The mainstream medical profession has come to this same conclusion.) The old cliché "a leopard cannot change his spots" comes to mind for me. Of course the cliché fails, because a leopards’ spots are an external, visible manifestation -- you could dye the spots. You can’t "dye" away being gay.
I should know -- I've been there. I find it interesting that the people who claim that it is a choice are the people who've never been faced with the supposed choice. (Okay, there may be a handful of people who claim to be "reformed homosexuals" -- but I haven’t met any of them yet, nor am I convinced. You may wish to visit the website of ex-ex-Gays.) Have you ever questioned your sexual identity or faced trying to deny your natural sexual orientation just to fit in with what your family, or Church, or your peers said was "right"? Can you imagine what it would be like for you, as a straight person, to face life daily, trying to pretend to be gay -- to be pressured to date -- even marry another person of your same sex? Assuming it were a choice, that would not be an easy choice to make, would it? You certainly wouldn't do it (if you could even do it at all) unless there were some pretty compelling pressure to do so. Gay people feel incredible pressure to conform, so many spend decades trying. And Mormons in particular, the gay issue aside, are taught that you are not complete unless you’re married, so even more pressure...
Yes, we do have choice on what we choose to "act" on. Meaning that yes, I can "pretend" to be heterosexual -- I can date, I can marry, I can father children. And I did in fact did do all of those things, following the "counsel" of my well-meaning but misinformed church leaders. You'll note that Church leaders (if they follow the official direction coming from Salt Lake these days) no longer recommend that course of action to its gay members. We used to be counseled to marry in spite of our feelings; they now know that this only leads to more problems down the road. So even church leaders now realize that the answer is not to try to live the lie (pretending to be who you're not). But I digress... ...back to "the choice." I can choose to act straight, but I cannot choose to actually be straight. Just like you can choose to act gay if you want to, or to be of a different ethnic background, or whatever -- but regardless of the external act, you are still who you really are inside -- and you'll always know it.
When you get into a discussion about this with Church leaders or other Church members, they're often likely to bring up the "everyone has problems to overcome -- just don't act upon the homosexuality" point as their answer to our "problem". But as we've pointed out, it's not really a realistic, workable, practical solution. It just doesn't work. Affirmation is full of people who can testify otherwise. And the Church is hard-pressed to point to any examples of people who claim to have been "cured" of (or are living a happy straight lifestyle in spite of) their homosexuality -- and with homosexuality affecting up to 10% of the population (that includes the Church membership folks -- if they haven't been excommunicated yet), you can be sure that these people would be speaking at every scheduled youth and young adult fireside if they existed.
I have heard some argue on a biblical level that "God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve." Well, actually, God did create "Adam and Steve." If you are "a believer," then you realize that God created us all -- straights and gays. I don't think Adam and Eve necessarily were the final example and model of all of the diversity God has created or will create. Even if I believed in God and the Adam and Eve story, I wouldn't interpret it to mean that we're all to be Adam and Eve clones, up to and including our sexuality.
I will concede that yes, sexually active gay people are technically breaking the commandment related to adultery (as currently interpreted by the LDS Church) when we have sex outside of marriage. But, we are given no alternatives by the Church, since the Church defines adultery only in a heterosexual context. The church itself states that celibacy is not good, nor intended for anyone (see what Bruce R. McConkie wrote in Mormon Doctrine) -- of course it says this with heterosexual people in mind, for whom the Church has marriage as the ultimate goal. Gay Church members don't have that option in the Church, so they on a practical level are forced out, and forced (through lack of an alternative, viable choice) to break commandments.
Most gay people who were born into the Church, or who were converts would probably have happily stayed in the Church, and in all other respects would have been "pillars" of their wards if they hadn't been forced out.
The theological implications and ensuing discussion on these very issues is very complex, obviously. This is not my area of interest, frankly. I long ago gave up on trying to "make sense" of organized religion's (not limited to the LDS) explanations of the world. For those interested, there is a thoughtful exploration of the Bible and homosexuality on the website of the national organization of Affirmation, a longer one, and a shorter one.
Because I feel one way or another about the Church or religion, that's not to say that I deny you the right to believe in and act upon what ever religious ideals suit you -- you are entitled. I personally am no longer interested in being a member of the Church. While I don't necessarily endorse the site or its goals, some (ex)Mormons have found the Recovery from Mormonism (National) and Recovery from Mormonism (San Francisco) websites to be of interest. But let me make it clear that it is not my intent or goal to convince anyone that they should be a Mormon or not, that they should stay in the Church or not, or that they should believe in any particular faith or principal or not. We all must come to our own conclusions on these very personal issues.
Those gay Church members still trying to follow "the Gospel" as they understand it, who are still active in the Church, or wish that they were allowed to be, believe that there is just simply more to be "revealed" on this subject, and that Church General Authorities have admitted that this is something they have not "inquired of the Lord" about, because they believe they already know the answer. A hundred years ago, you might have been quoting me scriptures and Church leaders’ comments to support polygamy, and twenty years ago, it would have been for reasons why Blacks could not hold the priesthood. So it would seem to me that by the Church’s own practice, doctrines and interpretations of God's will (or maybe God's will itself) apparently can and does change. On the very issue of homosexuality, the Church has already displayed some slow, initial positive movement in thought.
Many active straight LDS will say that if we (gays) love the Church or the Gospel, that we would do all that we could to keep the commandments (as interpreted by the Church), and turn away from being gay. And that's what many, many gay people do. They try to follow the commandments (as described and interpreted by the LDS church and its leaders). They serve missions, they go to BYU, they marry, they have families, they are bishops and stake presidents and relief society members and presidents. All the while, they are miserable, knowing they are living a lie. (If you've wondered what it might be like for a gay man to "come out" at BYU, you may want to watch the film Legacies.) Some become abusive -- to their loved ones or to themselves, even to suicide. Others finally conclude that living the lie cannot be the answer, and so finally face up to the truth, and begin to reassemble their lives, and live as openly gay people.
Other LDS will be of the opinion that "okay, you can be gay, but you just can’t act on it. If you do that ("keep the commandments"), you can remain active, accepted members of the Church." I personally don't see the point in trying to live honestly and belonging to an organization that would teach you to hate yourself and encourage hate and intolerance of people not like yourself.
I'm sure that there are a lot of things out there in the world that LDS people don't/won't/can't "approve of" as active LDS people. Many have non-LDS friends and family who are not living a LDS-approved lifestyle (maybe they don't keep the Sabbath day holy, or maybe they drink alcohol, or maybe they have pre-marital sex), but they probably don't consider them "sick" people because of it. But many Church member would consider gay people as "sick." It would be my hope that Church members could at least begin to understand and see us for the good people that we are, not as people with some kind of sickness to be hated or feared, just because we are not conforming to what the Mormon Church thinks is the one and only "right" way to lead ones life.
References, Links and other Notes: