Skip to main content

A Search for LGBTQ+ in Scripture: In the End (part 9)



“In the beginning” was the assertion.

The exclusionary stance of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints against members of the LGBTQ+ community stands on the precedent of the law of chastity as established by God as claimed by both Dallin H Oaks and Russell M Nelson.

A stance that I have been unable to substantiate nor reconcile through the very scriptures which begins with that exact phrase — In the beginning.

In the beginning of what? I cannot say. What matters though, is the end.

In the end, there are far too many lives and families that are harmed by this stance.

In the end, living a lifetime of stigmatized solitude is a burden that no person should be expected to bear.

In the end, there are far too many lives on the line for the church to be wrong about this.

In the end, ultimately, it comes to Christ.

During Christ's ministry, He never spoke about homosexuality or anything relevant to LGBTQ+.

He did not call it out, He did not label it as a sin, He did not condemn it.

Christ simply did not speak about it.

Even though Christ did not address that topic, there is much that Christ did do and did say that should guide anyone to claims to follow Christ on how they should treat and regard members of the LGBTQ+ community.

First, Christ teaches us to treat everyone with love.

If any one thing could serve as a single guiding principle from the gospel of Jesus Christ, it would be love. He summed it up simply with the two great commandments:

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all they heart, and with all they soul, and with all they mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love they neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. (Mark 12:30-31)

This is more than just treating others the way that you want to be treated. Christ told everyone to love others as they would want to be loved.

Faithful church members who are LGBTQ+ are marginalized into a life of stigmatized solitude. They are not allowed to marry someone of the same gender, even if it is legal to do so. Trans members are not allowed to express themselves in their natural expression and must always conform to the gender box not of their choosing. LGBTQ+ members will never be allowed to fully participate (let alone progress) within the church. They are expected to live their lives devoid of companionship and intimacy. Even if an LGBTQ+ member has never committed any sin, this is the best that they can hope for.

Where is the love in this? Loving your neighbor as thyself, this is not!

Second, Christ teaches us to treat everyone with compassion.

Throughout His ministry, Christ would demonstrate compassion to those around him and encouraged those who follow Him to do the same. "Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me."

For most of its history, the church's leaders have marginalized and burdened those who are LGBTQ+. They have historically also claimed that homosexuality and LGBTQ+ was not only a sin, also a choice. A claim made not only frequently, but also speaking in the name of God.

It wasn’t until 2012 that the church revised its official stance to:

The experience of same-sex attraction is a complex reality for many people. The attraction itself is not a sin, but acting on it is. Even though individuals do not choose to have such attractions, they do choose how to respond to them. With love and understanding, the Church reaches out to all God's children, including our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. (emphasis added)

The church admits that being LBGTQ+ is not a choice, yet to continue to condemn the action, to treat it as some condition or flaw, is a form of spiritual pathologization. If it is something that is not their choice, then would that not also mean that God made them that way? The church also claims that these 'flaws' will all be sorted out in the next life through the atonement of Jesus Christ. Claiming that it will all be sorted out in the next life is myopic, and willfully ignores the pain and suffering caused by these unfounded policies.

Where is the compassion in this? Preemptively deciding who anyone is allowed to love or not love was not part of Christ's message. Let alone the lack of scriptural foundation to do so.

Third, Christ teaches us to treat everyone with dignity and respect.

One of the greatest examples of Christ demonstrating treating someone with dignity and respect is found in John 8:3-11. The scribes and Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, an offense that according to the law was punishable by death, and which is also a sin next to murder according to the Book of Mormon. Yet, how did Christ treat this woman?

Did He publicly shame her?
Did He force her to submit to a church membership council or a disciplinary council?
Did He interrogate her with inappropriate or invasive questions?
Did He burden her are restrict her from participating in the gospel?

No. He did not.

Christ simply said, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more." (John 8:11)

All too frequently, LGBTQ+ members are called in for disciplinary councils for something that the church admits is not their choice. Disciplinary councils used to have the nickname "court of love" but those that are subjected to them would attest to the lack thereof.

Today’s disciplinary councils are a spiritually barbaric practice akin to a social stoning that is completely devoid of Christ’s example of love, compassion, and empathy.

There is a stark contrast between Christ's example and that of how the church handles 'serious sin.’ There is no dignity in a church membership council, let alone respect.

Again, it all comes to Christ. Even though He did not say anything about LGBTQ+, what he did say with regards to how people should be treated speaks volumes.

With no scriptural foundation for the exclusion of LGBTQ+, one question remains. On what foundation does The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, or any other Christian church, stand against the LGBTQ+ community?

To continue to do so is very much like the priest and the Levite in the parable of the Good Samaritan. We don't know the motivations behind their avoidance of the dying man; it could have been purely selfish reasons, it could have been the religious policies dictated that they remain 'clean' as part of their duties, thereby placing the religion above a man's life. In either case, both choose to pass on the other side and leave the man to die.

Lives are on the line.

There is a word that the Old Testament prophets used for this kind of social and spiritual injustice.

Abomination.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dropping General Conference

The last remarks of the final talk hung thick in the air, and all I could muster was, “I can’t do this anymore.” I was exhausted.  After sitting through yet another 10 hours of the church’s semi-annual General Conference I sat and reflected on what I had just experienced and what I had gained. All I felt was a weariness that had saturated me; it was more than just the mental effort of focusing on so many hours of one somber talk after another.  I was spiritually exhausted.  I had not been spiritually fed… I was not inspired, uplifted, or edified. There were a couple of talks that offered brief glimmers of hope but were quickly extinguished under the weight of the rest. I was left spiritually drained.  A few years ago, I would have blamed myself for not being dedicated enough. I would have placed myself at fault and held myself responsible for somehow failing to be righteous enough to end the conference feeling this way. Everyone around me always talked about how grea...
Post a Comment
Read more

A Search for LGBTQ+ in Scripture: The Sin of Sodom (part 5)

The “sin of Sodom” has become synonymous with homoerotic sexual behavior in modern usage and was derived from an interpretation of the events described in Genesis 18. Even so, does the dominant modern-day usage of the terminology derived from Sodom (e.g. sodomy, sodomite, etc) align with how it was used in the Bible? What was the actual “sin of Sodom” as defined by the authors of the Old Testament and how was it used during that time? Taking a look a the story of Lot and his family, prior to the arrival of the angelic visitors, Sodom was already condemned for destruction. There are not many details in Genesis as to what the sin of Sodom was specifically, just that it was “because their sin is very grievous” (Genesis 18:20). Upon the arrival of the angelic visitors to Sodom, Lot invites them to his home. Later, the men of the city of Sodom surrounded Lot’s home and demanded that the visitors be turned over to the mob so that they may “know them” (Genesis 19:5) which was a euphemism that...
Post a Comment
Read more

In Debt to Faith

  I was in debt the moment I was born into this church. For more than four decades since I took that first breath, I continued to fall further and further into debt. In debt to my parents. In debt to God. In debt to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Expected to give everything that I have and am, even laying down my life if necessary, for the church. At least, that is what I was taught. “…knoweth that ye are eternally indebted to your heavenly Father, to render to him all that you have and are…” Mosiah 2:34 An eternal debt that could never be repaid. No matter how much you do, you are never out of debt. There are many types of debt. By far, the most commonly understood debt is of the financial kind, but there are others. In systems where there is an exchange of value in one form or another there is the potential of creating a debt; for example, technical debt in software development or emotional debt in relationships. With regards to the church, it has not been in fi...
1 comment
Read more