Category Archives: Homosexual behavior

Walt Whitman, the First Great American Poet

Posted on by

Walt Whitman left a legacy as an American poet that cannot be ignored.  Yet, nearly 120 years after his death, polarization of opinion about his work and his influence is still strong.  It seems that you either love him or you hate him, and in most cases that view depends upon your moral convictions.  There is no doubt that his work was controversial in his day, evidenced by the labels of “obscene” and “pornographic” given by some reviewers.  For those who have seriously studied his work, the general consensus of opinion is that Walt Whitman was a great American poet and in fact, is considered the first great poet of America.  However, to many in this great nation, instead of singing the body electric, Whitman’s poetry demeans and degrades the human spirit.  And while his works may have shocked the sensitivities of some readers in his day, it is tame by today’s standards, giving us an early preview of America as the land of porn.

A Short Biography

Walt Whitman was born in 1819 in New York and died in 1892 in New Jersey at age 72. He was the second of eight surviving children in a poor family struggling to barely subsist, both physically and emotionally. Biographers have surmised that his father was probably an alcoholic.  There was some mental instability in his family among his brothers and sisters. Although his formal education ended at age 11, Whitman was a very successful autodidact, a self-educated man. He worked for a time in the newspaper industry as a journalist, editor and printer. He tried his hand at teaching for a few years but did not enjoy it and quit abruptly, with some speculating that it was due to an unwanted romantic advance toward one of his young male students.

Leaves of Grass

Returning to journalism at age thirty, he began what became his life’s work: Leaves of Grass, a collection of poetry written in a distinctly American style using free verse and a cadence based on the Bible.  He self-published his book in 1855 and published multiple editions in his lifetime. The book was and is powerful, abandoning traditional verse for free verse poetry. It was also deemed by some to be controversial as they found his repeated sexual imagery content to be offensive.  When he presented copies to his family, his own brother said it not worth reading.  Although he did not list himself as the author, he did include a now-famous portrait of himself facing the title page, with an open-neck shirt, jaunty hat and one hand on hip.  In the body of the text he identified himself as, “Walt Whitman, an American, one of the roughs, a kosmos, disorderly, fleshly, and sensual, no sentimentalist…”  He was, in all respects, a natural man.

O Captain, My Captain

Whitman’s sexual orientation is generally assumed to be homosexual or bisexual.  He never married but had several long-term intimate relationships with other men in his lifetime. Whitman achieved international recognition and worked tirelessly to promote his book. He obviously lived during the Civil War and that was a big influence in his life. He travelled to Washington looking for his brother who he had heard had been killed, but was only wounded. He spent time on the battlefields and in hospitals caring for the sick and the wounded. He came to greatly admire Lincoln and was deeply affected by his assassination. His most famous poem, O Captain, My Captain was about Lincoln and he gave many lectures on the president’s life. He suffered serious health problems in his later years, surviving three paralyzing strokes.

America’s National Poet

Walt Whitman answered Emerson’s call for poets to expound the new world of the United States. There is no doubt that he did this powerfully, uniquely and in a highly acclaimed manner. He was considered America’s national poet, at first more by Europeans than by his fellow Americans, at least in his own day. Using free verse, Whitman created a new style of writing that was uniquely American. He used natural voice and diction to imitate the natural flow of thought and feeling. He had a grand vision of speaking for America and explaining what it was all about. He saw and described scenes that leave you feeling like you were also there with him. He was innocent enough to believe that there really was such a job as a national poet.

An Epic to Celebrate America

Whitman was on the forefront of the American literary scene and was well prepared to promote it. His language was uniquely American, not British or European; powerfully American. His language had fewer rules; it was looser, courser, rougher and more promiscuous. He felt he was actively involved in the struggle for democracy with Leaves of Grass. He also said that he hoped his book would heal the nation and even prevent Civil War. He wanted to inspire and stir people with his work.  He viewed his book as a true epic. What would an epic be like?  It would celebrate America, the American self, the “I.”  In fact, he sings of America throughout the book.

The Great Equalizer

Before Leaves of Grass he wrote editorials but he saw that they were mostly ineffective so he created a more profound work through his free-verse writings. He addressed the soul and the psyche of the nation, to create a real sense of community. He threw his book out there with a lot of hope for a nation that would soon divide apart. Whitman wanted his book to be written by the nation and for the nation using his voice. In his preface he says that the poet is the great equalizer and the one who is in balance. He obviously had a great ego and assumed a lot, but believed in his age and his country. He felt that he had a national mission to fulfill because he could see and tell of a world of experience in a way that nobody else could or did. He wanted to preserve the Union, to hold things together and yet maintain our unique identity. The many contradictions and differences of our nation did not bother him.  He wanted us to accept them and him and was truly puzzled by those who could not or would not accept either.

Legacy of Walt Whitman

Leaves of Grass is Walt Whitman’s personal literary journey of national significance. His desire was to sing of the new country with a new voice and he felt the time was ripe. There is no doubt that Whitman’s vision and ego helped him produce his masterwork. His profound vision created a tremendous contribution to American literary history. Numerous poets have tried to place themselves in his wake or have reacted violently to him. There is no getting around him.  He was a celebrity in his day and is celebrated today.  He had disciples that surrounded him in his later years and still has a large following today. But why is he so important?  It is because he stirred up such controversy and got people talking. More importantly, he broke the boundaries of poetic form and elevated common people through his portrayals of American life.

A Religious Skeptic

Leaves of Grass had a major impact on the literary world; His work cannot be ignored. His poetry has been set to music and inspired musicians, both classical and popular. Europeans said that you couldn’t really understand America without Walt Whitman. Some modern poets have said that Whitman is not just America’s poet, but he is America. Whitman considered himself to be a messiah-like figure in poetry; so did his admirers. His vagabond lifestyle was adopted by the beat movement as well as by anti-war poets.  He took what Emerson and Thoreau started with the transcendentalist movement, thoroughly Americanized it and then set it free to enjoy a new life through his free-verse poetry.  His style speaks to many people who think as he did and do not live within the constraints of limitations imposed by moral boundaries of religious America.  Though he was born to a Quaker family, it would be more proper to classify Whitman as a man of spirituality and not a man of religion.  He as deeply influenced by Deism and denied that any one faith was more important than another. Similar to Benjamin Franklin, who was also a religious skeptic, he embraced all religions equally.  And though he accepted all churches, he believed in none.  It is safe to say that Whitman’s religion was like his verse: free and easy.

A Mass of Stupid Filth

But it is his forays into eroticism that elicited such strong responses from his critics.  They said that his poetry was “a mass of stupid filth” and that Whitman was like a pig “rooting among the rotten garbage of licentious thoughts.”  For example, in section 11 of Song of Myself, Whitman warned us that he was going to celebrate himself, get bawdy and lusty and otherwise embrace the passion, pulse and power of life.  The 29th bather is a powerful example of how he makes that happen.  In section 3 of Song of Myself he had already exposed us to the urge of sex, and now he sprays us with a beach orgy. Section 11 is famously known as the 29th bather, a fantasy that starts from a female narrative and ends with a homoerotic shocker.  It caused one reviewer to exclaim that he was guilty of violating “the rules of decorum and propriety prescribed by a Christian civilization.”  Another accused him in Latin of homosexual behavior.

Raw Sexuality

While some biographers are certain in their declarations that there was never any evidence of homosexual activity, what is certain is that he used the imagery of raw sexuality liberally throughout Leaves of Grass. “Urge and urge and urge, always the procreant urge of the world…always sex” are found along with scenes of “hugging and loving bedfellows.  He takes on an all-knowing and condescending spirit that tells us to forget about “creeds and schools,” religion and education, and just listen to what wisdom he is about to belch forth.  With arrogance he states that “what I assume, you shall assume,” as if to say that our views could only possibly be his views. He is going to introduce us to the common laborers of America, the average people who are cheerfully and skillfully working to build the great American dream.

I Celebrate Myself

Throughout his work we will witness numerous vignettes of life in the America of Walt Whitman’s day, not life in halls of congress or places of business, but in homes and gathering places. And through it all, we are to be subjected to the lusty, bawdy, fleshy side of life that Whitman, or his muse, wants us to see, hear and experience.  With Walt, we will hear the delicious singing, the “party of young fellows, robust and friendly, singing with mouths open their strong melodious songs.”  He is positively giddy. “I celebrate myself, and sing myself… undisguised and naked…mad to be in contact with” the sensual nature of this physical and worldly existence.  We will soon be reading biography, sermon and poetic meditation of this muse all lustily embracing the fleshy body as it expresses itself through the life of Whitman.

The 29th Bather

In Leaves of Grass, Walt writes of getting “undisguised and naked,” and sensually urges his readers to “Undrape!  You are not guilty to me,” but “stout as a horse, affectionate, haughty, electrical.” But these words and phrases are nothing compared to the scene that unfolds in the 29th bather.  The young lady lets her imagination take her to the beach to join the crowd of young men, describing the beards of the young men glistening with wet that ran from their long hair, little streams that passed all over their bodies. “An unseen hand also passed over their bodies; it descended tremblingly from their temples and ribs.”  And then the action turns decidedly homoerotic as actions are performed on the young men by whom – the unseen 29th bather or by each other?  If Whitman intended to shock the sensibilities of his readers, he wildly succeeded.  But then, this is nothing compared to sex-soaked erotic content of a more modern classic such as Portnoy’s Complaint, which dwells on the lusty subject of masturbation.

The Good Gray Poet

How this erotic and sexually dissident poet was adopted as America’s national bard and anointed “the Good Gray Poet” is hard to understand.  He never did reach the common people but was celebrated by the intellectuals of the day, especially from other countries.  Did Whitman presage the view of America as the land of porn? If not, then he certainly did contribute a fair share for his day.  The real work in analyzing and appreciating Whitman’s poetry is in looking past the celebration of the natural man and seeing in it the celebration of America, the great land of opportunity and the dream that all can succeed and that anything can be created and promoted.  All it takes is the kind of confidence and belief in oneself that Walt Whitman had in abundance.  In that respect, Walt Whitman was truly an American genius of a rock-star caliber for his day.  If Whitman could successfully promote and sell out every edition of his book each time it went to press, in spite of the moral constraints of his day, just think what we should be able to do today!

Controversy Promotes

Of course I’m not suggesting that we rush out to write a bunch of pornographic prose as he did, but I am saying that, like Whitman, we should celebrate this great nation for the freedoms of expression that we enjoy and that can really be found in no other nation of this world today. And, like Whitman, if we embrace the spirit of controversy and promotion of something unique, as was his free-verse style, then we should be able to reach out to millions of people through the modern leaves of grass – the Internet.  Isn’t that what many of today’s bloggers are hoping to accomplish?  They are the Walt Whitman’s of our day, bypassing the established norms of book publishing for the new media of the Internet.  And they succeed because of their controversial content and endless self-promotion.  If only what they promoted was uplifting to the human spirit.  Controversial content is what drives the readers to the blogs and websites where they want to express their own opinions in the comments.  Walt Whitman knew what would sell and he knew how to sell it.  Just think of what he could have done if he lived in the Internet age!

Getting Past Prejudices with the Musical Rent

Posted on by

The warning signs outside the theater were ominous: “Adult content not suitable for children.”  Looking around as we entered, I had to remember that the college-age students there were not children.  That’s hard to do when you have offspring older than most present, including the actors performing the show.  Carol and I were there by assignment to see the musical “Rent,” the Tony and Pulitzer award winning rock-opera drama about life in New York’s Lower East Side in the late 1980’s.  It takes place in the neighborhood known as Alphabet City, an area primarily inhabited by bohemian young people wanting to break into theater, TV or music.  Sadly, the area also had high levels of illegal drug activity, violent crime and HIV/AIDS.

Undoubtedly the themes of homosexuality, AIDS, drug addiction and homelessness prompted the warnings about the adult content.  The characters include a gay male couple in which both partners have AIDS, an on-again/off-again lesbian couple, and a straight couple in which both partners have AIDS and both have a history of intravenous drug use.  It’s not exactly “You’re a Good Man, Charlie Brown,” and was written intentionally to shake things up, but also to address the concepts of love, loss and community.  Those are the themes that I would like to address in this essay.  If we can overcome bigotry and be compassionate towards people living with AIDS for a few moments then we can be uplifted by some beautiful elements of Rent.

I’ll admit I was a little put-off when I read some of the articles and reviews of the play in advance of witnessing the production.  I wanted to know more about the story before I saw it.  I like to think I’m not homophobic but from what I had read in some reviews, the lifestyle went beyond mere portrayal; it was celebrated, endorsed and flaunted in your face.  I didn’t want to see that.  I’m old-fashioned in that I believe that some things should be left private, and sexual activity is one of them.  However, the production that we saw must have been a tamed-down version because there was only occasional gay kissing and touching, nothing too disturbing.  I was more bothered by the decibels of the musicians, which sometimes drowned out the singers.

Outstanding Music

The songs in Rent are the first of the beautiful and uplifting elements that I noticed.  The entire play is a musical.  It seemed like there were very few lines spoken that were not actually sung.  Even the hilarious little phone messages peppered throughout the play were delightfully sung to us, adding much entertainment to the dramatic production.  Who hasn’t heard “Seasons of Love,” especially since it has been playing in some TV commercial lately?  Although not particularly uplifting to me, La Vie Boheme was immensely entertaining.  Other enjoyable songs included Your Eyes, Goodbye Love, Light My Candle, Tango Maureen, Out Tonight, One Song Glory, I Should Tell You, Take Me Or Leave Me, No Day But Today, and Living in America.

I can’t think of one thing with more universal appeal than the idea of love.  Who doesn’t want to be loved?  I have met people who have said no when I asked them if they wanted to be happy in life but I have never met someone who said no when asked if they wanted to be loved or at least accepted for who they are.  Of the three major themes I saw in the play, the idea of being loved came across the strongest.  Although they had a lot of emotional handicaps and baggage, these were people dealing with building relationships.  I can’t identify with being a drag queen but when Angel was dying, I found myself shedding a tear for Collins’ loss.

Living with Loss

These people lived with loss every day.  That’s why one of the recurring songs was entitled, “No Day but Today.”  How they dealt with that loss teaches a lot about the idea of community.  They came together in their grief.  They comforted one another.  They took care of one another the best they could.  Mimi was not judged for her drug addiction but was encouraged to live without it and find something better to take its place.  Since so many of their friends were dying, they adopted the motto to live for the day and to reach for their dreams one day at a time.  How hard it must be to make plans for the future when you are living with a disease like AIDS.

It was love and loss that built their community.  They only had each other.  Rejected by so many outside their world, they had to give each other strength, and they did.  Although the ending was a little hokey with Angel becoming the angel who told Mimi to go back when she was dying, the love that developed between Roger and Mimi was delightful to witness.  How can you not love a happy, feel-good ending where the main characters find happiness in each other?   Except there’s one big problem – they still have AIDS and will die someday.  But then, so will we all.  See, it really does have universal appeal.  The play mirrors life that someday will end.

After seeing the play, Carol read the script and I read dozens of reviews.  I was fascinated by the dichotomy of opinions expressed.  It seems that most reviewers either loved it or hated it.  One said she had never walked out of a play before in her life but walked out on Rent.  She must have had a family member in our audience because a couple in front of us walked out at the first encounter of affection expressed between Angel and Collins.  Were they homophobic?  In all probability, yes they were.  I mean, the music was loud and the show could be confusing if you weren’t paying close attention, but it was obvious that they didn’t like what they were seeing.

Reviews from Viewers

Here’s a quote from one of those reader reviews I found in the NY Times about the time the show was closing after a twelve-year run:  “If you want homosexuality and drug addiction rubbed in your face, then this is the play for you. I basically hated it, if you haven’t figured that out yet.”  In contrast, “Rent is a fabulous roller-coaster ride of emotion. The characters are extremely real, and so are the troubles they face. The songs are beautiful and the energy and electricity of it is so wonderful that you are a complete moron if you don’t like it. The only reason anyone wouldn’t like this show is if they are homophobic, intolerant, and weak.”

But my favorite had to be, “So let’s see… a group of drug addicted promiscuous squatters are the heroes and the one person who breaks from the group and becomes successful and buys the building (which they live in illegally) is the bad-guy because he wants rent… hhhmmmm… and let’s see, we have loud screeching that we’re supposed to call singing but it’s “cool dude” ’cause the lead is just so hot looking and has the teeny bopper girls squealing in delight.  This is a show for the MTV-Put-Upon Generation… pure junk.”  Opinions of performances are one thing but this reviewer was obviously passing judgment and commenting on the lifestyle choices.

The Composer

Part of the impact of the show is the death of the composer and writer, Jonathan Larson, who died of an aortic dissection, believed to have been caused by Marfan syndrome, on the night before the play opened off Broadway.  In spite of his death, the show went on.  Glowing reviews began to appear. The six-week run sold out immediately.  In the months to come, Rent moved to Broadway, won four Tony awards, including the prize for best musical, and Jonathan Larson won the Pulitzer Prize for drama, posthumously.  The show went on to become one of the longest running productions on Broadway and is now enjoying a second life in local theater.

Social Impact

Rent has had and is still having a social impact.  While the play is now a little dated with the use of pay phones, answering machines and clunky old cell phones the size of a brick, it is still attracting younger crowds wherever it plays.  Of course, that was probably inevitable in our case, given that our venue was a local community college.  Wherever it opens, it is reviewed by the local theater critics.  The comments posted on those online reviews demonstrate that some of the same prejudices and bigotry are still alive and well in America today.  Rent is a wonderful example of American creativity that reaches to the very heart of our lives through love and loss.  I hope our community has changed and become more tolerant in the years since it first opened.

I haven’t included a lot of quotes from the musical, because frankly, they aren’t very deep.  For example, here’s one from the song, Light my Candle: “I didn’t recognize you without the handcuffs.”  And from Angel, the transvestite, “I’m more of a man than you’ll ever be and more of a woman than you’ll ever get.”  From the song Will I, about dying from AIDS: “Will I lose my dignity? Will someone care? Will I wake tomorrow from this nightmare?”  I suppose my favorite has to be “There will always be women in rubber flirting with me…”  That last quote is from Maureen, one of the two lesbians.  Some of the stuff is really quite funny, if you can just get past the idea that these are people looking for love in unorthodox relationships.

Unorthodox Relationships

And that is the point of the play and the impact it has had on America.  How do we view the lives of those who are not in orthodox relationships?  Do we view them as sinners, in need of repentance and salvation, who will suffer in hell because of their poor lifestyle choices?  I am confident that there are millions of people who will voice that very opinion without hesitation.  Or do we love and accept them, making an effort to help them find happiness and success in life?  That is one of the toughest choices in life, especially for those who have family members living in a lifestyle that is contrary to the moral principles that they value.  Rent helps us see past the pain and sorrow of rejection and loss of those who live with AIDS and still manage to have hope.

It’s that final scene of hope that I find most uplifting and inspiring about the play.  They found hope because they loved and supported each other through their loss and sorrow.  I think Jonathan Larson would be pleased to think that his play has helped us to become more loving and supportive of each other, especially those who deal with AIDS on a daily basis.  And in the end, the millions he earned posthumously from the play helps others pursue their writing careers.

Note: Carol saw the play with me and shared an excellent review on her blog.

Do Mormons hate gays?

Posted on by

We went walking the precincts again today in support of proposition 8. The turnout was pretty good. We probably had two or three times the number of people show up today as we did two weeks ago. As can be expected on a Saturday morning in Camarillo, nobody was home in about half the houses we visited. They were probably out at a soccer game with their family.

Of those we spoke with, about half had not heard of the proposition and did not seem to mind learning a little about it. That’s all we’re trying to do at this point – inform voters about the proposed state constitutional amendment. The other half who had heard about it were in favor and said they would probably vote yes or were “open” and had not yet decided.

I personally did not encounter anyone on the streets that I visited who was opposed to the amendment. Again, I think that’s a reflection of the demographics of this sleepy little town, a bedroom community with a lot of small high tech businesses. The mixture of registered voters was equally Republican and Democrat with a few “other” in the mix.

Poll numbers don’t seem right

I noted that the most recent poll numbers from the Public Policy Institute of California don’t reflect my experience in walking the precincts. They cite only 40% as being in favor of the amendment and 52% opposed. Although the Public Policy Institute is located in San Francisco, they claim that the survey was conducted statewide, by telephone, between August 12th and 19th.

The wording of the proposed amendment was recently changed by the State Attorney General to read that a yes vote means that you are eliminating the right of same-sex couples to marry. I don’t see it that way. When we walk the precincts we present the yes vote as being in favor of restoring the traditional definition of marriage as being only between a man and a woman.

In 2000, 61% of the people in California voted that marriage is defined as only between a man and a woman. The ruling was overturned earlier this year by four judges. To me, the right of same sex couples to marry was not granted by the people of the state, but by four judges. So if the amendment is defeated this time, we will then know the will of the majority of the people.

Only Mormons walking the precincts

I keep reading that others in the coalition are supposed to be joining us as we go walking door to door but from what I have seen, it is only the Mormons who are actively participating in this part of the campaign. I guess that’s because we have a lot of experience in going door to door. But the turnout today included a lot of couples and individuals who had never been missionaries.

When I returned home from the morning’s activities my son was visiting and saw the materials I had been handing out. He said, “So you’ve been out trying to take away the rights of the gays?” Trying to set the record straight I said, “No, just trying to let the people know about the issue so they can vote on it. We want to restore the legal definition of marriage in California.”

He didn’t buy it. He said, “Why do you Mormons hate the gays?” I restrained my desire to defend what we are doing and let it slide while the conversation went to other subjects. As he was leaving I asked, “Do people think that Mormons hate gays?” He replied, “You guys have a big problem in this area and have had for a long time.” That gave me something to think about.

Perception is reality

Now our son knows that his parents don’t hate gays. Carol and I have both worked with people who identify themselves as homosexual. We don’t shun them. We don’t avoid them. And we are grateful that he is accepting of gay people as well. His point was that the LDS church in general has a problem in being perceived as less than accepting of gays and their lifestyle.

He is right. This is a problem. It is especially a problem with young people his age. From what I can tell, the majority of people in our society under thirty are not opposed to the gay lifestyle or same-sex marriage. As I thought about my experience in walking the precincts today, I realized that most everyone I spoke with was older than thirty and most were in support of proposition 8.

So the fact that it is mainly members of the LDS Church that are out knocking on doors telling our neighbors to vote yes on proposition 8 could be perceived in the way he described. It is not true, or at least I have never seen it in my own experience in the church. I have read accounts of LDS parents rejecting their children who are gay but I hope those are few and far between.

Do Mormons hate gays?

At President Hinckley’s funeral the Westboro Baptist church came and picketed with signs that read, “Mormons love gays,” and worse. If you know anything about the people of the Westboro Baptist church of Kansas you know they feel that everybody in America loves gays. They are especially active in claiming that dead American soldiers in Iraq are a result of this love.

“When asked what President Hinckley had done that enabled homosexuals, one woman said it was because the leader of the LDS Church preached that God loves all his children, including the gay ones. That’s it? God loves all his children, and that makes us a gay church? She emphatically nodded an increasingly smaller head.” That quote is from Robert Kirby, beloved LDS humorist.

Here’s what President Hinckley said: “Our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. If they do not act upon these inclinations, then they can go forward as do all other members of the Church. It is expected that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct.”

God-given rules of conduct

And there is the point of my essay today. We do not hate gays. I affirm what President Hinckley taught. We love them as sons and daughters of God. It is the part about rules of conduct that many young people seem to miss. It has been my experience that most young people don’t like rules of conduct. It just seems to go against their basic principles to have such rules.

I’m not sure why some do not believe that God has a right to set the rules for our conduct in this life. Perhaps it’s because they do not believe in God, or at least say that they don’t. Rules of conduct are important to me. I have written previously that I believe in government and that we can and should legislate morality. Of course, whose idea of morality do we legislate?

To me, that’s the real problem that we face in our society today. In our conversation today my son pointed out that there were so many other things to spend our energy on besides this gay marriage thing. I disagree. I think this is one of the most important issues facing our state, our nation and our world today. Following God-given rules of conduct will bring great blessings.

Summary and conclusion

No, Mormons do not hate gays. You may argue otherwise and many of you have as I have written about this subject in the past. I expect I will hear from you again with contrary points of view. You may be right. Some Mormons probably do hate gays. That’s unfortunate. I’m a Mormon and I don’t hate gays, or at least I don’t think I do. I try not to hate anybody.

Hate is not becoming of a Christian. Hate does not come from God. It comes from the devil. We have been accused of acting for the devil because we are involved in advocating proposition 8. I do not feel that way. I am following the counsel of a prophet to give this proposition my best effort. My time and my money are precious to me but I give them to follow a prophet.

I believe I will be blessed for following a prophet. I don’t always know how. Was it difficult for me to go walking in my neighborhood today talking to people about proposition 8? Yes, it was. Will I be blessed for my efforts? Yes, I know I will be. Please don’t accuse Mormons of hating gays. That’s not true. We focus on teaching doctrine and behavior that will bring happiness to all people.

Tolerance does not mean condone

Posted on by

Last week The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints posted a position paper in the online Newsroom entitled, “The Divine Institution of Marriage.” In the section on Tolerance an attempt is made to define the word and contrast it with the way the world uses it today – to condone – acceptance of wrongful behavior as the price of friendship.

Tolerance does not mean condone. As a gospel principle, tolerance means love and forgiveness of one another, not tolerating transgression. Just because someone practices tolerance does not imply that they accept sinful behavior. Acceptance of an individual does not necessarily mean that we approve of their behavior. We do not accept sin.

The definition of tolerance has changed over the years by those who use it in their efforts to change attitudes and prohibit practices that they define as discrimination. It has come to mean acceptance of sexual practices and orientations that are contrary to fundamental beliefs of society. We can be a tolerant people and yet not accept certain behavior.

Prophets have helped define tolerance

Elder Dallin H. Oaks explained, “Tolerance obviously requires a non-contentious manner of relating toward one another’s differences. But tolerance does not require abandoning one’s standards or one’s opinions on political or public policy choices. Tolerance is a way of reacting to diversity, not a command to insulate it from examination.”

Elder Russell M. Nelson taught, “…there is a difference between tolerance and tolerate. Your gracious tolerance for an individual does not grant him or her license to do wrong, nor does your tolerance obligate you to tolerate his or her misdeed. That distinction is fundamental to an understanding of this vital virtue.” We do not tolerate wrongdoing.

“An erroneous assumption could be made that if a little of something is good, a lot must be better. Not so! Overdoses of needed medication can be toxic. Boundless mercy could oppose justice. So tolerance, without limit, could lead to spineless permissiveness. The Lord drew boundary lines to define acceptable limits of tolerance.” He made the rules.

Certain behavior is prohibited as sin

Many who advocate tolerance also declare that there is no sin. We as a church believe and teach otherwise. We disagree and speak out against both homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage on moral grounds. We also do not believe that it can be considered “hate speech” to make our position known. We are simply teaching God’s laws.

We have a right to identify and clearly teach what God has defined as sin. God has made it clear that marriage is to be between a man and a woman. We teach that marriage is ordained of God, that it is sacred, with the purpose being to bring children into the world. What God has ordained in marriage, man does not have the right to redefine or change.

We do not condemn those who feel the pull of same-sex attraction. We do not know why some struggle with this temptation. But we do teach that it is just that – a temptation. The Lord clearly identifies adultery and fornication as sin, so too is homosexual behavior. The inclination or temptation itself it not sin. It is only the behavior that becomes sin.

God judges behavior and so do we

In addition to being accused of intolerance and discrimination, we are often accused of judging, as if it is something wrong. God is the judge of all human behavior and has made it clear that he will not accept certain kinds of behavior in his kingdom. We follow his example and make judgments on behavior. There is nothing wrong with doing this.

We all must judge for ourselves what is good and what is evil. In fact, God commanded it. In John 7:24 he told us to judge righteous judgment. Nowhere in scripture does it say, “Thou shalt not judge.” The Joseph Smith translation of Matthew 7:1 reads, “Judge not unrighteously, that ye be not judged: but judge righteous judgment.” What a difference.

“I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ…But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil…” (Moroni 7:16-17)

Opposition to same-sex marriage

The opposition of our church to same-sex marriage is not hostility toward homosexual men and women. Our objective is to protect the definition of marriage as only being between a man and a woman. We do not condone any kind of hostility towards those who identify themselves as homosexual. We love them as sons and daughters of God.

We feel that the recent court decisions in Massachusetts and California to allow same-sex marriage constitutes a serious threat to marriage and the family. Such a trend weakens the institution of marriage and will result in negative consequences for both adults and children. Traditional marriage is essential to society and especially to our children.

It is within the family that traditional moral values are propagated and protected. There is very strong agreement across America on what marriage is. The people in California voted on this issue just eight years ago. Over 61% of the voters decided that marriage should be defined as only between a man and a woman. This is a great moral issue.

Summary and conclusion

The statements in this essay were either taken from the position paper of the church or are derived from teachings of modern day apostles and prophets. We contend that this is a moral issue, which is why the church has taken a position and had asked the membership to become involved in advocating that position. I agree with the position of the church.

We do not accept the definition that some use for the word tolerance to mean approval or acceptance of behavior. We love and accept all individuals as children of God, regardless of their actions, but we do not condone certain kinds of behavior that God has defined as sin. Our opposition to same-sex marriage should not be construed as discrimination.

Despite my authoritative tone in this essay, please remember that I do not speak for the church, but have attempted here to restate the position of the church on this issue as I understand it. This is simply an attempt to use my best efforts to support the coalition of churches and other organizations to preserve and protect traditional marriage – Yes on 8.

Is homosexuality a sin or a biological fact?

Posted on by

Although not a General Authority, Daniel K. Judd currently serves as the First Counselor in the General Sunday School Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. He was the chair of the Department of Ancient Scripture at Brigham Young University. Brother Judd has a Master’s degree in family science and a Ph.D. in counseling psychology from BYU.

He is a consultant with LDS Family Services and a member of the Know Your Religion Faculty. He has published much material and is the author of “Hard Questions, Prophetic Answers,” and the editor of “Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Religion,” as well as “Religion, Mental Health, and the Latter-day Saints (video here).”

The list could go on and on, but the point I wish to make is that I believe him to be most eminently qualified for his material that I am about to present on the very difficult subject of homosexuality. He has been a bishop and a Stake President, and has been intimately involved in providing family counseling for many, many years on this very topic.

Why I write about homosexuality

I raise this difficult subject only after much thought and prayer. It comes up as a natural progression of my blogging activities lately which have touched upon same sex attraction and defining marriage here in the State of California. I have had much dialog with those who feel the pull of same sex attraction but do not participate in homosexual activities. I also have had some conversation with those who are openly involved in the gay lifestyle.

To state my position up front: I am not gay. I have never experienced same sex attraction to any degree. I am passionate about marriage and family and believe it to be a source of some of my greatest happiness. I have never suffered abuse as a child or an adult and have always felt loved and cherished as an individual of worth by my family and by my Heavenly Father. My desire in writing this is simply to understand another point of view.

The source of the essay from which I take my quotes today can be found in this article on the Deseret Book site. It was published in 2004 but is just as pertinent today as it was back then. It is prominently referenced on the Evergreen International site under articles. I was profoundly impressed with the depth of compassion and understanding exhibited in the essay, apparently a chapter from his book on Hard Questions, Prophetic Answers.

God did not intend us to be homosexual

He recites a letter from a young man announcing to his family that he is gay. Says Brother Judd, “He believes he is homosexual and has found some seasonal peace in being ‘honest’ about who he believes himself to be. The real tragedy of this story, as well as the doctrinal reality in it, is that this young man has been deceived into being honest about a lie.” If you have never heard or read this before, please continue on before jumping to conclusions. This is important.

“He has come to believe and act upon the false notion that being homosexual is the way God intended him to be and that change is not necessary or even possible. Although this young man may have a biological predisposition for some of the physical and emotional characteristics that sometimes accompany the homosexual lifestyle, it is both a doctrinal truth and a scientific fact that his biology does not force him to engage in homosexual relationships.

“This young man may indeed be more susceptible to homosexual temptation than many other young men his age, and he may not have capriciously chosen to think and to feel the way he does, but the doctrinal fact is that he is “free to act for [himself] —to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life” (2 Nephi 10:23). The focus of Brother Judd’s writings, and indeed the position of the Church is that we are free to choose our behavior.

Born that way – how is that possible?

In a previous post I had a fascinating dialog with someone who pointed me to several resources that helped me tremendously in understanding more about this subject. I confess that I at one time thought it was very simple. I wrote that it could be dealt with just as with any other temptation such as pornography, through self-control and through redirection of passion into a more positive channel. I still feel this is a valid approach.

The point that was new to me is that some are suggesting that Elder Wickman’s choice of words in this interview means that the Church has changed its position. In the detailed interview, Elder Wickman used the words, “…one’s gender orientation is certainly a core characteristic of any person…” Unless I misread it, this apparently meant to some that being gay is simply the way they are and that there is nothing they can do about it.

I note that Elder Oaks did not use the phrase “core characteristic.” I have thought long and hard about this. I do not believe that Elder Wickman meant to imply that we were born to be homosexuals. I hope nobody uses this as a justification to engage in any kind of homosexual behavior by concluding, “Well, if a General Authority says I was born this way and there’s nothing I can do about it, then why not just give in to these feelings?”

Elder Oaks teaches correct doctrine

Elder Oaks wrote, “Different persons have different physical characteristics and different susceptibilities to the various physical and emotional pressures we may encounter in our childhood and adult environments. We did not choose these personal susceptibilities either, but we do choose and will be accountable for the attitudes, priorities, behavior, and ‘lifestyle’ we engraft upon them.” Choice is an essential part of our existence.

Brother Judd wrote, “The Lord and His prophets have taught that God did not create His children to be gay or lesbian and that for those who suffer with this affliction, change is possible. Also, contrary to what the young man in the story found in his own research, reliable scientific research supports the doctrinal truth that change is possible—someone who experiences same-sex attraction can work towards, and in time experience, a change in sexual orientation.”

Elder Oaks explained, “We should note that the words homosexual, lesbian, and gay are adjectives to describe particular thoughts, feelings, or behaviors. We should refrain from using these words as nouns to identify particular conditions or specific persons. Our religious doctrine dictates this usage. It is wrong to use these words to denote a condition, because this implies that a person is consigned by birth to a circumstance in which he or she has no choice in respect to the critically important matter of sexual behavior.”

Homosexuality is a temptation

I maintain that homosexual behavior is a temptation. Putting it in the same category as pornography may have been a bit simplistic but not far off. There are many men in the church who have been devastated by their addiction to pornography and masturbation. It is my observation that those who struggle with same-gender attraction suffer the same if not even more powerful pull of the temptation to engage in homosexual behavior.

I appreciate the education I have received that same-sex attraction may indeed be a part of our biological makeup. But I can’t believe that we were sent here to be anything other than the gender that we possessed in our pre-mortal life. The prophets teach that “gender is an essential characteristic of individual pre-mortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose.” I don’t believe that a woman is born into a man’s body or vice-versa.

We teach as a Church that the source of temptation is the adversary. I think that we are sometimes hesitant to clearly identify that the adversary works through the spirits that followed him from the pre-earth life to here. He also works through those who have died addicted to the flesh and remain here with the intent to use the mortal tabernacle of those who will give in to their suggestions and temptations to engage in homosexual behavior.

Summary and conclusion

Let’s focus on the hope that is in Jesus Christ. He is the source of all hope and all power. However, that hope and power is dependent upon our exercise of faith in Him. He has the power to heal us. He has the power to bless us and help us as we struggle through the temptations of this life. He is the only one who understands perfectly the whisperings of the adversary that tempt us and try us. He was also tempted but gave them no heed.

As Brother Judd concluded in his article, we may not know all the reasons or explanations for same-sex attraction. Although I do not feel this pull, I know there are those who do, and perhaps are more susceptible to it because of their biological makeup. Some things we may not know until we pass through this life and are educated when we get to the other side. We may also never be fully healed until we are no longer subject to mortal bodies.

There are members of the church who have unwanted feelings of same-sex attraction and have to deal with them everyday. For others, it is something that they have overcome but must be constantly vigilant. Some have not accepted the doctrines as taught by Apostles and Prophets and have given in to the temptations. So is homosexual behavior a sin? Yes, it is. Is same-sex attraction a biological fact? Yes, I now believe that this may also be true.

Additional information

1. LDS Family Services
2. Evergreen International
3. LDS Resources
4. God Loveth His Children
5. LDS Newsroom Interview
6. NorthStar
7. Northern Lights
8. Elder Oaks on SGA
9. Elder Holland on SGA
10. Daniel Judd’s article

Advice for a new Bishop

Posted on by

What advice would you give to a new bishop? I suppose it would depend on the makeup of the ward, wouldn’t it? A singles ward is vastly different from a family ward. I serve as the ward clerk of our local stake young adult ward. We do not have concerns about staffing the Primary or the Young Men or Young Women‘s organizations. Our biggest budget expense is for activities.

I don’t think I am revealing any church secrets when I share that one of the primary concerns of the bishop of a young singles ward is helping the ward members understand and accept the direction of the Lord in regards to keeping oneself morally pure. The youth of today’s world are subject to temptations that just did not exist when I was dating and preparing for marriage.

Dealing with moral issues

Perhaps you would suggest to the bishop that he become very familiar with Elder Holland‘s wonderful address to BYU students over twenty years ago that is still just as applicable today, “Of Souls, Symbols and Sacraments.” I imagine if you were his Stake President you would want to bless the Bishop with an extra dose of patience in dealing with moral issues in his ward.

Dealing with pornography is not limited to bishops of Young Single adult wards. I am grateful to see more and more church resources dedicated to helping leaders and individuals deal with this issue. The General Conference address on pornography by Elder Oaks a few years ago is just one example of the counsel that the prophets and apostles have delivered over the years.

Same gender attraction

While not as common an issue, I believe that counseling youth who have concerns with same-sex attraction is becoming a larger part of the bishop’s workload than it was when I was growing up. I am of the opinion that the way the church has advised leaders in this area has also changed over the years. I was pleased to read the recent discussions by Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman.

When I was a youth, our bishops relied on a couple of booklets that could be considered a little harsh by today’s standards. One was “A Letter to a Friend,” by President Kimball. The other was “To the One,” by President Boyd K. Packer. Today, I am impressed with the tone of articles from the Ensign like this one from Elder Holland, and this one, God loveth His Children.

Update: A very important resource I missed is this Oct 95 Ensign article from Elder Oaks. It is an excellent resource for reviewing the doctrinal statements of the church about the issue.

Feelings and behavior

In my opinion, counseling an individual struggling with unwanted feelings of same-sex attraction is similar to helping someone who is dealing with an addiction to pornography. The doctrine is clear and will not change. It is our behavior that the Master requires us to discipline. The church does not take a stand on whether one is born with same-sex inclinations or develops them.

Elder Oaks has helped clarify the issue for me when he stated that homosexuality “is not a noun that describes a condition. It’s an adjective that describes feelings or behavior.” This makes so much sense to me. Just as the desire to view pornography is a temptation, the feelings of same-gender attraction and the desire to engage in homosexual behavior are temptations.

Sources for help

I know I have probably simplified the matter and look forward to hearing from some of you who care to educate me further. I welcome your comments. Are you aware of the organization Evergreen International? Besides LDS Family Services, I think it is one of the best kept secrets among LDS people for family help. It is not a part of the church but provides a valuable service.

For any priesthood leader who is looking for help in counseling those who are struggling with same gender attraction, homosexual behavior, pornography, depression and suicide, I have not found a better list of articles so thoughtfully organized than the Evergreen resource page. The material is helpful to anyone who is concerned for a family member or other loved one.

Becoming more like Christ

A new Bishop has the opportunity to change some of our responses as a church to those who are attracted to the gay lifestyle. I have served with some bishops who were hard-liners from the old days. Their counseling style left something to be desired when dealing with those who came to them for help in understanding the sometimes confusing feelings of same-gender attraction.

I would hope that a priesthood leader who is called to be the shepherd to the flock would do everything in their power to understand how the Savior would help those who struggle with SSA. Just as some of the hard-line attitudes of the past in counseling young boys who struggle with masturbation has caused some to commit suicide, those with SSA face the same dilemma.

The gospel in the home

As a church, we do NOT teach that parents have to turn their children out into the street if they come to them declaring that they want to be identified as gay. It is our doctrine that parents are to follow the example of the Savior. We love our children who have decided to believe as the world believes and participate in behaviors of which we know the Lord does not approve.

We love our children who struggle with pornography, with alcoholism, with drugs, with thoughts of suicide or any of the other temptations that can keep us from the Lord, including homosexual behavior. God loves all of his children. Because he loves us, he has offered to share with us all that He has. God is pure and invites us to be pure so that we may enjoy his gifts for eternity.

Summary and conclusion

The doctrine has not changed and it never will. The Lord’s standards on moral purity are clear. However, I think we as a church are coming to realize that some have feelings that are much more tender than those of previous generations. They do not need to be beat over the head to convince them of the doctrine. They just need our help building desire to control the behavior.

As Elder Packer has clearly stated, “We may one day stand alone, but we will not change or lower our standards or change our course.” We cannot. This is the Lord’s church and kingdom. It was not established by man. We do not have the right to change what the Lord has put into place. The standards of moral purity were given by the Lord. Our behavior is our gift to Him.