Calling all Explorers
So this has become the only current forum for the spiritual discussion group. This makes me sad on one level, because I have been seeking a community of people I can talk about these kinds of things with, face to face. It helps me feel community and support, which are both very important - especially when journeying through explorations of new spiritual paths.
But so far, it seems what we have tried will not work. Different people want to process in different ways, and some just don't want the formal setting, in any manner. In fact, as of now, it only seems two of us do. So, until there is a time when there are people interested in getting together, or when people host special events, THIS is the group.
So, I'm sending out a plea. Please share. Please explore. Please post.
If you are not currently a contributor, but read, and have things you want to talk about, please send me your email and I will invite you as an author. I would like anyone to be welcome here, provided the following ground rules: we are not here to negate each other or others. If you want to rant about how you feel a certain belief is wrong or misguided, it needs to be strictly in a way that does not lay blame on any individuals. What I would personally prefer, though, is not explorations of what you have found that is wrong (although that is what my last lengthy post was about) but things you have explored, or want to, that you think or feel may be right.
Will you take this journey with me?
Will you join this group of explorers?
Will you share your journey?
But so far, it seems what we have tried will not work. Different people want to process in different ways, and some just don't want the formal setting, in any manner. In fact, as of now, it only seems two of us do. So, until there is a time when there are people interested in getting together, or when people host special events, THIS is the group.
So, I'm sending out a plea. Please share. Please explore. Please post.
If you are not currently a contributor, but read, and have things you want to talk about, please send me your email and I will invite you as an author. I would like anyone to be welcome here, provided the following ground rules: we are not here to negate each other or others. If you want to rant about how you feel a certain belief is wrong or misguided, it needs to be strictly in a way that does not lay blame on any individuals. What I would personally prefer, though, is not explorations of what you have found that is wrong (although that is what my last lengthy post was about) but things you have explored, or want to, that you think or feel may be right.
Will you take this journey with me?
Will you join this group of explorers?
Will you share your journey?
posted by Amberlynn at 5:30 PM
11 Comments:
Okay, so if we haven't yet reached our destination, the "top of the mountain", let's get going:
First, let me say that I have considered taking a "sabbatical" from church my self, but as yet I have't done so for one reason or another. I think it is important to ask ourselves: if I didn't believe in the church, would I still go? If the answer is yes, then attendence doesn't mean much.
Mountain metaphors: I think that we shouldn't take people too literally when they say that the church has all the truth. That statement is a logical paradox if taken literally. It is kind of like how some theologians tie themselves in knots trying to argue how God is all good, all powerful, and all knowing. I would take a God that is REAL over any of these.
However, that small requirement of mine, reality, has some pretty definite consequences. For instance, God either did, or he did not visit Joseph Smith. As far as I know, the claims of Joseph Smith are in a class by themselves. Few other would-be prophets have claims that refuse so adamantly to be taken metaphorically. It is hard to take a middle ground, for instance, when a dozen people claim to have hefted golden plates. Such a metaphysical middle ground does exist, but it is fairly small.
Of course, you realize all of this. And I, in turn, realize that despite the stubborn yes or no nature of reality, our faith depends on things that are far from black and white. I have never seen an angel or ancient plates, or even had a definite answer to the Book of Mormon challenge. My faith has no legs to stand on. It just exists, and it isn't always overwhelmingly clear where it points or even that it can be relied upon. However, even if I didn't rely upon it I know it would still be there.
Sometimes it seems as if my choices are to build a whole concrete doctrinal/religious structure on an ephemeral cloud of faith, or to try and contain that same faith and minimize the interference it has with the rest of my life. Niether seems a perfect choice. But is it reasonable to stand on the fence?
The trouble with this life is that we are required to make choices, and our choices have real consequences. Is not knowing the outcome an excues for not making a decision?
Ask that question to Pres. Bush. (Sorry for the quick shift into politics, but I think that love, faith and politics have a lot in common.) Is he responsible for bringing us to war over WMD's when it turns out they didn't really exist? I think that anyone who contends that it was clear they didn't exist before hand is fooling themselves.
In any case, I think it is possible that the grand test in this life is whether or not we can make our seemingly-random leap of faith in the right direction. Good luck!
Moving on...Does the church abhor intellectuals, women, and homosexuals? I was writing a talk a few months ago for sacrament meeting and I was very cognizant of the fact that I kept changing the way I said things in order to make it "appropriate" for that venue. The talk was based on various theoretical models of obeidience, and could have easily gone in a direction where many pepole in the audience were not comfortable. I felt that I could say what I needed to in language that was acceptable to my audience, and i did. Afterwards, a few people told me it was the most enlightening thing they had heard in church for a long time. Is the church against intellectuals? I don't think so. I think most church members honestly seek to be enlightened in a variety of ways. But the church can be made to feel defensive.
Women? I am currently engaged in a discussion with my sister about this topic. I think women should work, she doesn't agree (she is a mother of two). I agree with the main thrust of the church's position on this matter, but I doubt that all members of the church have analyzed the issue sufficiently. I think there is a lot to discuss about the effect of an economy that requires its laborers to be educated, ultra-specialized, yet interchangeable parts. It makes it hard to be a person, much less a mother.
Homosexuals? I think homosexuality is a negative thing. I see no reason why a church should not call a spade a spade and say it is evil. In fact, I lose respect for religious instutions that provide no moral clarity. However, I do not think moral clarity is an excuse for a lack of analysis (otherwise, I couldn't really justify myself). I think there is a lot of room for discussion about the issue of homosexuality. It is an issue full of ethical subtleties and paradox and should not be left solely to politicians and religious zealots.
I suppose I have rambled enough, but I will say in passing that I agree that baptism (especially the kind for the dead) is a perplexing issue. I haven't come up with a reasonable explanation.
I'm here Amber, and I really believe in this forum. I appreciate your explorer spirit, and your truth seeking.
Thank you for the time and effort you make to speak your mind, you are an author you know...
one of the great minds.
And hello to you Mike. Thanks for your insightful writing too.
I think homosexuality is a positive thing.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I wanted to preface this by saying that this post is not directed at Mike. Mike, I don't know you and you sound like a pretty open-minded guy. My response to your comment is directed more at the culture in the Church than at any one person.
Calling homosexuality negative and evil is no different from calling dark skinned people negative, evil, and not worthy of full participation in the Church. Well, we eventually got that one right after changing a few scriptures and a bunch of false doctrine espoused by many G.A.’s of the early Church. Maybe after the rest of our culture begins to understand homosexuality we can start accepting and respecting gay, lesbian, and bi-sexual people for who they are. Maybe we’ll even let them be full-fledged Mormons someday.
An objective study of homosexuality will reveal a wealth of information that points to the fact that there is an incredibly wide range of human sexuality and that people are born with the seeds of their sexual preference in place. For most people feelings of attraction are not a choice we make like ordering off a menu. If you doubt the truth of this just tell yourself to be attracted to someone that you find completely unattractive because you’re “supposed to”. Feeling hot and bothered yet? Yeah, doesn’t work out so well does it?
Some people have a greater range of attraction than others. Some people will find almost everyone attractive and then you’ve got the Morrissey’s of the world on the other end that find almost no one attractive. Is it Psychological? Biological? Genetic? Environmental? No one really knows… yet. My theory is that it is similar to the huge variation in the way our brains are wired up. Each of us is so totally different and at the same time we have so much in common. Each of us perceives and reacts to the world in different ways. Much of this is shaped by our culture but it is still our distinct personalities that determine our behavior.
If we focus on the variety of physical sexual differences that exist in humanity we can see evidence of the lack of homogeneity that would be necessary for things to work out nicely under the homophobic paradigm that rules in our culture. Check out this website to see stats on how many people are born intersexed and to learn what intersexuality is: http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency . According to these numbers, 10% of the babies born bodies are different from standard male or female bodies. That's a lot of variety!
There is much, much more data out there on homosexuality and the more you search the more compelling evidence you will find that shows that there are many people that don’t fit the cultural mold for sexuality that are living happy productive lives as loving, caring individuals. Homosexuals are not promiscuous miscreants bent on molesting kids or converting “straight” people to their lifestyle. Homosexuals are children of God that have love to share and need to be loved and accepted the way God created them. They are as good and positive as a representative sample from "straight" America.
I think the “moral clarity” provided by the Church on the issue of homosexuality is seriously lacking in breadth and detail. If anything, I would say that anyone that ponders the issue at all will come up with some serious unanswered questions. Since we’re calling spades, spades...
big•ot: n.
One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.
prej•u•dice: n.
1.
a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.
2. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. See Synonyms at predilection.
3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular group, race, or religion.
4. Detriment or injury caused to a person by the preconceived, unfavorable conviction of another or others.
Paul,
Although I am not really averse to long, drawn out discussions on sensitive topics, that is not really my intention here. So I will state a few things about which we probably agree:
I agree that sexual preference is at least partially based on physical conditions beyond anyone's control.
I agree that there is a lot of "grey area" when it comes to sexuality and gender.
I agree that people of all sexual orientations can be productive, contributing members of society and that there can also be unproductive people of all types.
I think that homosexuals can be good parents.
I think it is usually counterproductive to try and pretend you are attracted to someone that you are not.
I believe that there shouldn't be any law restricting one's sexuality (between adults), and that there should be laws preventing discrimination against homosexuals in the workplace, etc.
I tend to agree that homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the military openly (I myself am in the Air Force).
I agree that not all homosexuals are promiscuous.
Perhaps I deserve the implication that I might be a bigot, or prejudiced, since I didn't fear to use the word evil, which has a pretty stongyl negative connotation. However, I would like to believe that my strong partiality toward my own opinion is not based on a lack of understading or intolerance toward others.
Mike,
I thank you for finding common ground and appreciate your openness.
There is still something that I'm not OK with in your response. We may have to agree to disagree but I'm still not sure why homosexuality has to be viewed as negative and evil. If your opinion isn't based on a lack of understanding or intolerance then what is it based on?
I go back to the example of racial equality. If sexual preference is even partially based on physical conditions beyond anyone’s control then it becomes a matter of physical circumstance rather than a matter of choice. If I’m not mistaken we don’t consider someone’s physical condition a basis for sin. This would be the same as the dark skin issue; I really don’t see the difference. If there is a choice in the matter in some cases, then who are we as fallible humans to make the judgment call? Why wouldn’t we just accept homosexuals as they are and let God decide whether they’re sinning?
I think there are two isues here that could be addressed seperately.
1. What is sin/evil?
2. Why would I say that homosexuality fits the criterion?
I think there are two varieties of evil (and perhaps more, but I will only mention two). The first is something that is undesirable. This is the evil of earthquakes and traffic jams, of disease and misfortune. I believe that the basis for this kind of evil is chaos. I do not believe that God created the universe instaneously out of nothing, but that he, and all of us, are in the process of bringing a semblence of order to a chaotic world.
The second evil originates in men. It derives from pride, jealousy, ignorance, greed.
The subtle point is that not all evil in and from men is of the second type. Men are not always so sophisticated as to be evil in that manner. Wars are sometimes based on a struggle for survival, and the struggle for survival is an evil of the first type: life is hard. Passions can can be an evil of the first type if they dominate our behavior.
A formal example of the distinction is the difference between first and second degree murder. Human beings undergo internal struggles. Only when there is no internal struggle can we be evil in the second degree.
So on to the second question. How can homosexuality be evil if it isn't a choice? Firstly, evil of the first type has nothing to do with choice. It has to do with the fact that life is messy.
Also, even if we are thrust into an undesirable, chaotic, and impossibly difficult situation we still have responsibility to do the best we can to bring order and progress. Someone who is completely unable to bring about any positive change in their own life and the world about them is unworthy in the sense of not being very valuable to anyone. I would like to make clear that it is not my place to judge whether anyone is being irresponsible in this manner. As you said, let God make that decision. This does not mean I can't tell good from evil, just that I can't always see inside a man's heart.
Now, you may have noticed that I haven't yet given any reason why homosexuality is a negative thing. I have only stated why I think it isn't a logical contradiction. You could grant me everything up to this point and still maintain that the overall consequences of homosexual intimacy are positive. Or some might argue that the scriptures have spoken, so we do not have to come up with any further justification. However, I will not argue in that manner.
I believe that reproduction is the basis of all sexuality. That is the simple answer, but since human beings have evolved far beyond the birth-reproduction-death cycle there is more to be said. Sexaulity as we know it is obviously more than reproduction. It is an institution, a culture, a means of intimacy.
Let us focus on the last part: love. I would argue that every relationship has two aspects (do I divide everything in twos?). The first is objective and the second is personal. Every relationship has an objective: the physical motivation. For example, profit is the objective of a business partnership. Scoring touchdowns might be the objective of a quarterback and his receivers. Having children is the objective of man and wife (from a biological perspective. An individual may be more likely to care about sex than children).
The physical objective is not the only part, nor even the most important part of a relationship. The other aspect is based on the idea that the members of the relationship are conscious, intelligent beings whose connection exists on infinitely many levels. Therefore the purpose of the relationship is never encompassed by a single objective. I think an interesting example of this concept is the story of the indian that kills a deer and then prays to the spirit of the dead animal asking it to forgive him. The physical basis of that relationship was adversarial, but both parties (if I can be allowed to speak for a dead deer) respected the immortal soul of the other. A similar thing has occured in the midst of war (remember the respect shared between Gen Leee and his enemies, or between the WWI soldiers who sang together on Christmas Eve). I think this is one meaning behind the concept of loving our enemies.
In any case, the 'ulterior motive' of the physical relationship is to deepen the spiritual relationship.
I believe that you can achieve a material objective without furthering your spiritual connection with anyone, but I do not believe you can achieve true love/respect for another person through the pursuit of an improper physical objective.
I believe that much of the complexity surrounding human sexuality is a result of our attempt to maximize the spiritual intimacy that we can achieve through the process of reproduction. Thus, we don't just have sex, we make love.
However, the fact that the act of reproduction involves emotions and intimate rituals that serve to do more than just create a baby does not mean that the same spiritual growth/connection can be achieved through enacting those rituals superficially with no hope of ever reproducing.
So, that is a quick(?) look at why I believe that regardless of whether homosexuality is genetic or biological, if we accept it as a completely valid form of intimacy the result will be impeded spiritual progress. This is not meant as an exhaustive proof, so you will likely be able to find gaps in the reasoning. If so, I may or may not be able to fill them.
Mike,
Thank you for your thoughts on this topic; you have given me cause to exteriorize my beliefs by putting them into writing. I appreciate your logical approach and I think the reason that we probably won’t agree is that we’re operating in different paradigms. Your definition of evil fits the standard definition that is either something that is morally wrong or something that is harmful and ruinous. I see homosexuality as neither within my paradigm. I understand that this is in conflict with the teachings of the Church and with some culture’s morals but morals are malleable, and change when knowledge and progress require them to do so. Two fairly recent examples of moral changes in American culture would be slavery and the treatment of women.
Recent research has caused a shift in the way that the science world sees homosexuality and the cultural change has already begun. Some balanced examples of the differing views on homosexuality are found here: http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html. Both environmental and biological factors are explained along with the reasons that homosexuality is no longer considered a “disorder”.
I would assert that homosexuality is only a messy chaotic evil because that is what our culture has made of it. Many cultures have found homosexuality to be acceptable and found homosexuals to be useful members of society.
For example:
Many Native American cultures have a third gender called berdache that is composed of effeminate males. These men dressed and worked as women and were married to men. Since the berdache could mix characteristics of both genders, they were viewed as having a special status as if "blessed" by the gods. They were thought to be the "middle gender," and seen as prophets and visionaries having an almost mystic and psychic vision into the future. They were often consulted by tribal elders and chieftains because they were thought to have a kind of "universal knowledge" and special connection to the "great spirit." Who’s to say that those beliefs are any less valid than the ones that we hold in Western society today?
Here is a quote from a website about the berdache that sums up how I feel about out society’s way of approaching gender:
"It is extremely interesting to note that the concept of a "transsexual" is a Western one based on the notion that there are two "opposite" sexes with distinct, culturally "Approved" gender characteristics. Western philosophy seems much narrower in this respect than Eastern philosophies as it allows only for strict stereotypes. Setting up a rigid dichotomy of paired opposites allows little tolerance for cultural and social variances of what is perceived to be masculine or feminine. With these narrow constrictions on all behavior, it is little wonder that we live in such a neurotic and violent society. With little room to express the total spectrum of human emotion from nurturing to assertive behavior, people have to hide or ignore some of the basic emotional outlets ascribed to one gender or the other. Only recently do we see a social acceptance of men "in touch" with their feminine side, or assertive women who, as the book says, "...run with the wolves.""
I work in a rehab clinic for adolescents and one of my co-workers is a homosexual guy that exemplifies this concept. He is an extremely effective counselor and is loved by the boys and girls that we work with. This is unusual since the male staff typically aren’t very effective with the female clients and the females are less effective with the males. My co-worker loves to talk video games with the boys and he can talk about hair and make-up with the girls. He is very skilled at connecting with all of the clients and his value is greater than most of the rest of us as a result. This is just one small example of the value of homosexuals in society. Corporations realized this years ago and have tapped in to the talents of homosexuals by mandating diversity in their hiring practices.
My point with all of this is that although life is messy, in the case of homosexuality I believe our society is making it messier by not accepting people for who they are and allowing them to use their differences for the greater good. Homosexuality doesn’t make a mess when people’s identities are honored. I believe that if homosexuals were integrated into our society, without discrimination and prejudice most of the messy aspects of their lifestyle would be greatly lessened.
As you have noted there are other reasons for sexuality other than reproduction; spiritual growth through intimacy and connectedness being the one I would like to focus on. You have stated that these can’t be achieved in the same way if there is no hope of reproduction. Why not? Older people that can no longer reproduce still make love with a focus on the spiritual connection that is likely greater than most young, virile lovers. Many people are incapable of reproducing for a variety of reasons, are they evil for having sexual relationships? Are they simply unable to achieve the same level of intimate connection as someone that can reproduce? I don’t believe that the physical act of love has nearly as much to do with the spiritual connection between two people as fidelity, sacrifice, commitment, kindness, and acceptance do. Reproduction is a simple thing compared to spiritual intimacy with another human being and I would bet that most of the heterosexual reproduction going on in the world has very little to do with a high level of spirituality. I know that there is a great amount of spiritual growth that comes from parenting but I don’t believe that it matters whether the parents are biological to attain that same degree of growth.
I realize that if everyone was homosexual our species would end, but not everyone is and our species isn’t exactly having a reproductive deficit. I don’t see how treating homosexuals with equality can do anything to hurt our chances of avoiding extinction or to damage the family or any of the other reasons I’ve heard to justify the prejudice against them.
I believe that our culture should encourage loving, nurturing families no matter the arrangement. I believe that a focus on love, commitment, and responsibility will be the ingredients of a healthy society composed of strong families from all varieties of backgrounds and orientations. Celebration and utilization of the diversity of humanity will further the causes of peace, love, and equality and create a society where the efficacy of every individual has the potential of realization.
I believe that homosexuals may choose to be committed to a loving relationship with another human and that their commitment is just as valid as a heterosexual couple’s is.
In such a case as ours, there a variety of approaches we can take. We can either focus on the things about which we agree and sweep the differences under the rug, or we can act as if the issue were black and white and stand on either side of an impassible culture gap.
I have problems with both apporaches. I listen to NPR on the way to work and whenever there is a discussion between, say, NARAL and the religious right the discussion quickly devolves into the two talking past each other.
On the other hand, I am annoyed by a politically correct culture that says "Feel free to have your own opinion as long as you don't go so far as to say anyone else is wrong".
So anyway, what do we do with an effeminate male? I will again begin by stating the points you made that I agree with:
An effeminate male might have certain strengths that allow him to be more functional than normal in certain circumstances, and these strengths should be recognized and utilized.
Not everyone neeeds to biologicaly reproduce in order for society to thrive. We live in a soceity of divided labor, and biological father/mother can be viewed as a certain specialty.
People who can't reproduce can still achieve intimacy.
People who can reproduce aren't guarunteed intimacy.
However, there is one key point I would like to make: people who can't reproduce can't achieve intimacy through reproduction. More importantly, people who know for an absolute that they can't reproduce can't achieve intimacy through the attempt to do so.
I have a brother who has been unable to have children with his wife. They are still intimate, but the infertility has been a barrier. Perhaps it is true that their relationship has become stronger because of it, but that does not change the fact that the infertility is an evil. If my house burns down it might give me a chance to build it back bigger, but it is still reasonable to say that the burning in itself was a bad thing. Voltaire had quite a bit to say on this matter.
You made several points about how morality can change with the needs of society, and that different cultural backgrounds will lead to different moral values. I agree with this in general, but this has nothing to do with my stated reasons for my moral stance. I didn't say that homosexuality is wrong because that is our cultural tradition and we must stand by the principle of moral stare decisis.
If a moral principle needs changing because the underlying arguments are bad or obsolete, by all means, change it. But this only requires us to look more deeply at the underlying principles, not to ignore the fact that they exist.
I would just like to restate the main point of my last post: physical objectives (like reproduction) are the means to achieving spiritual intimacy.
This does not mean that there is only one possible kind of physical relationship and that people who don't have it are completely losing out on the whole game of love. There are an uncountable number of different kinds. Reproduction just happens to be one of the most important to us. If someone is unable, or does not desire to participate in this kind of relationship (for whatever reason, be it genetic, choice, or environmental) they have lost one of the greatest opporunities available to man. This does not mean that we should shun them. But it also does not mean we should pretend nothing was lost. If other things have been gained in place of this loss, we should recognize that.
Interesting point: my argument thus far does not actually answer the question of whether homosexuals should have sex. It only says that to be (strictly) homosexual is a lost opportunity, which counts as an evil.
The question of whether homosexuals should have sex is in many ways similar to the question of whether infertile people should have sex, or whether bachelors should masturbate, or whether people should use birth control. This is all a marvelous grey area that arises due to the wonderful complexity of the world we live in. The answer to most "grey area" questions is: sometimes. Do I think that is the case here?
My answer is that this should be a personal decision (but I emphatically deny that whatever decision a person makes will be the right one, personal decision can still be bad decisions).
However, there is one final point that I will make that sheds a little light on the issue: people have contradictory desires. Human beings are capable of analyzing their desires, looking for the objectives behind our instincts, and trying to form a rational and cohesive set of beliefs and behaviors. This is always an incomplete process. I simply think it is impossible to gain complete harmony between mind and body. A non-sensitive example is food. Regardless of how well I know the health consequences of what I eat, my tastes will be affected by years of habit and millenia of evoltuion. How do we deal with this disconnect? Do we deny ourselves any pleasure and seek only rational objectives? Do we allow our objectives to be dominated by the search for pleasure? Again, grey area.
I have smart friends.
Mike,
Thanks for your open mindedness and your respectful manner of debating such a sensitive issue. I realize that we won't come to a total agreement on this although as you have gracefully pointed out, we do have many shared beliefs, but I think we have both given the other cause to delve deeper into the subject.
My hope in discussing this publicly is that people will truly think about homosexuality and make their own decision based on the evidence that exists, rather than just repeating the old LDS cultural standby of "hate the sin, love the sinner", and leaving it there. In my mind, homosexuality is definitely one of those grey areas and it is complex and confusing. Thanks for all of your thoughts on the subject.
Post a Comment
<< Home