 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1991 Affirmation's National Conference -- Palm Springs By Henry Miller October 12, 1991 This article is presented not only for our benefit, but for the benefit of our church leaders. It comes not from someone outside the fold, an anti-Mormon dedicated to tearing down the church, but rather from someone who very much loves the gospel, who considers himself to be a follower of Christ, who will stand up for the church as long as the Spirit confirms the truths it speaks. As Latter-day Saints, we need to be reminded of the following important principle: Truth is truth, regardless of the source. I wonder in amazement when people ask, "Who said it?" and then judge the truthfulness of the statement on whether the source is church approved, not on the merits of the statement itself. This understanding has taken "by their fruits ye shall know them" and twisted it around the other way: "By them ye shall know their fruits." In other words, if a church leader said it, it must be true. I propose that this is a weak way to come to an understanding of truth. Many will, in fact, be led away from truth by following this method. Wouldn't it be more in line with the plan proposed in the pre-existence if we were to judge truth through confirmation by the Spirit? Blind obedience was a part of one plan proposed there, but I feel sure that none of us here endorsed it, or we wouldn't be here. Why do we have the Spirit if we are never meant to use it? Why is the sincerity or intent of an individual questioned when they use this method to judge the words of a church leader? Can anyone say a church leader's understanding of all truth is perfect, in any area? They themselves have not, and cannot say that. They, in fact, have warned against blind obedience and have frequently encouraged us to study it out for ourselves, praying about it and then gaining our own testimonies. Our understanding of truth has evolved over the centuries as new knowledge becomes available. In these last days, amazing achievements have been accomplished. Scientific, archaeological, social, political and philosophical studies are providing remarkable new insights almost daily. New and rediscovered knowledge has become impossible to keep up with. If there is one thing that all this knowledge should be teaching us, it is that we must be continuously open. Growth is not possible in a closed mind. A seed of knowledge cannot grow unless we provide for it a fertile ground. Old ideas of right and wrong, true and false, black and white, are being replaced or modified. This, in itself, is good. Change has always, and will always occur, with or without our permission or help. Faced with new information, we can cling to what we feel is right, in an attempt to maintain security. Growth, however, will be difficult if not impossible for such an individual. When the time comes for change, refusal to move ahead is not a sign of strength but of weakness. Sometimes we have to let go; in other words, open up to examining and reexamining ideas. This is scary, there's no doubt about it. Walking new ground without the benefit of an experienced guide is hard and for some, impossible. As people of faith, we must remember that there is One who knows the way. God is the author. He is our guide. The Spirit can provide us with the assurance that we are treading on firm ground. I'm sure you will agree, we wouldn't be where we are today as a church if Joseph Smith had not been open. What if he had said, "No, this knowledge does not conform to what I already know to be true. I cannot do as you ask?" We read in Scripture many times where refusal to accept new truths has taken place. The appearance of angels and the miraculous signs in the Old Testament and in the Book of Mormon and the miracles wrought by Christ in his ministry did not convince anyone who was closed. Only those who were humble enough to hear and close enough to the Spirit to feel its confirmation truly understood. We today will not be ready to receive new truths if we do not prepare ourselves to receive them. This is not to say that all that we now hold as truth will eventually fall by the wayside with new knowledge. Truth is eternal. But our understanding of it has never been perfect and will continue to evolve. Even if we had God's "Manual of All Truth," we still would not be able to comprehend it completely. That's one of the necessary consequences of being mortal. We cannot know things as God knows them in this life. Our limited language and the restraints of our culture and history color and condition what we hear from God. As Frederick Pack, LDS scientist, in his book, Science and Belief in God (Deseret News Press, 1924, pp. 206-207, 221) stated, in describing the ancient Hebrews' pre-scientific world-view, "Deity cannot make complete explanations until the human mind has developed to the stage where it is capable of grasping the full truth." In addition, our self-erected barriers around what we assume is true, also limit what we are capable of hearing. If we are ever to prepare for Christ's second coming, we must: stop defining truth for God; stop judging the truth held by others according to our understanding of truth, but rather let God be the judge; be open to the Spirit and follow wherever it may lead, even if that means going against current practices and teachings of our political, social, scientific and religious leaders. Some may wonder if I am suggesting that we can never come to a sure, unchanging knowledge of truth. The answer may depend on what one considers a sure knowledge to be. I am suggesting that to equate our limited expressions of what truth is with the Truth itself has always been and always will be a shaky venture. I am also saying that the foundational truths of the gospel provide us with a light for further knowledge and growth; today's expressions of truth are not an end in themselves. As Lester Bush has stated, in his insightful essay on the evolution of church policy toward reproductive ethics, (Dialogue, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 42-65) " . . . core beliefs themselves can be modified in accommodating new knowledge which is simply irreconcilable with the previous view. This development does not pose as much a challenge to Church authority as might be supposed. It is in fact a tenet of the Mormon faith that this sort of refinement periodically will take place." If there is such a thing as sure knowledge, it most likely comes only to those who are humble enough to acknowledge that only God knows the complete picture. Those who are unafraid to say, "I don't know," are the only ones who can ever find out more. Those of us who served missions became quite familiar with the passage in Acts 2:17: My conviction is that this scripture is meant for us, here, today. Do we believe that the Spirit can even now use us to help guide the Church to greater truth and knowledge? I will now turn to one particular area where I believe we as a church have yet more truth to discover: homosexuality. One thing that should be stated right up front is that in all the statements made by church leaders on homosexuality, not once has the claim been made that the current position of the church is based on revelation. It seems clear that we are dealing with a policy, and not a doctrine of the church. As Lester Bush said in the same article already cited, "What most often passes for 'doctrine' within Mormon society is, in reality, a widely held consensus, perhaps espoused in sermon or print by Mormon General Authorities, but ultimately without formal sanction by the First Presidency. In theory, such a consensus is not binding on church members. In practice, it is not unlikely to change." We should all recognize that even official statements of church policy from Salt Lake City are not necessarily eternal truths. Ongoing changes and reversals demonstrate this. Three cases in point:
The policy which most concerns many of us is the one dealing with homosexuality. The church historically has dealt with this issue by encouraging people to repent, i.e., to change their sexual orientation. These efforts have ranged from electro-shock therapy to aversion therapy combining drugs and pornography to thought-control to baseball. Suffice it to state that all of these efforts have been complete failures. Even among those in the church who once believed that they had actually succeeded in changing people's orientations, there are now many who admit that reorientation is a dead-end street. If the church has the solution to this issue, it is keeping the secret well-guarded. What it has offered is simply the repetition of a long-since dismissed panacea which ignores new truths being discovered in the human sciences as well as in the experiences of countless gays and lesbians. If "by their fruits ye shall know them" has any meaning here, it is clear that the fruit the church has offered its gay and lesbian members is spoiled. Many among the straight members of the church remain unconvinced that there is any need to make the effort to acquire greater light and knowledge in the area of homosexuality. Similarly, many among the gay and lesbian community have come to dismiss the church and see no need to maintain any connections. I believe that both of these groups of people are missing something. The church loses when its gay and lesbian members leave. We lose when we cut the church out of our lives. Why is this so? Because whether it be out of anger or hurt or ignorance or fear, we run away rather than work to help the family of God grow. The church has the potential to be a powerful source for saving lives and for providing inner strength and self-esteem to its homosexual members. It has the potential to help overcome the walls of human ignorance that create barriers between those who are different. This is not the first time in church history that saints have been called upon to abandon ancient, but misguided prejudices, and embrace those who were different. Just look at the New Testament church and the early members' refusal to accept Gentiles. What would have happened if the Gentiles had simply said, "Fine, we'll just leave?" Both Jewish and Gentile members would have lost. The teachings of Christ on love require a universal acceptance of all, not just those who fit in. The past treatment of gays and lesbians by the church, both in what it has said and what it has left unsaid (which implies approval), falls well short of these teachings of Christ. Further reasons prompting us to make the effort to open dialogue are AIDS, the nation-wide increase of hate crimes, and the lives and families which are destroyed as the result of misguided teachings and practices. The church, although on the forefront of certain social change issues in the early part of its history, has sadly become more and more conservative in recent years. Progressive social issues of today are routinely ignored and efforts to change for the better are sometimes even suppressed by the church. This need not be the goal of a Christ-led people. We could and should be leading the way toward a more universal application of Christ-like love and acceptance. The family of God is as diverse as there are members in it. We need to love and support everyone, with the richness that they bring with their differences, not in spite of them. Unfortunately, with regard to gays and lesbians, the church does not meet or even recognize our needs as valid. Until the church begins providing for our spiritual, social and emotional needs as much as it does for anyone else, we must, as adults, learn to meet those needs ourselves. We cannot and should not expect the church to do everything for us. L. Tom Perry, spoke about self-reliance in the October 1991 World General Conference. His words have special application to us in this context: "[God] expects us to be self-reliant . . . The Lord seldom does for us what we can do for ourselves . . . Do not rely on anyone other than the Lord." But while we shouldn't expect the church to meet our needs for us, we should expect the church not to block us as we try to meet our needs for ourselves. It is past time that the church ceased encouraging or allowing negative, hateful stereotypes of homosexuals or homosexuality to be propagated among its members. It is past time for the church to hold celibacy as the price its homosexual members must pay to be accepted, while not requiring celibacy of any other members. The fact that heterosexual members do not understand the reality of our situation does not give them licence to treat us as second-class members of God's family. Let us not be too impatient with our church leaders or fellow saints. They have not been blessed with the knowledge with which we have been. A friend of mine wrote an eloquent description on the situation in which many of them find themselves. "Certainly most members of the Church have no hesitancy to judge the desires of their homosexual brothers' and sisters' hearts as abominable. Can saints be so smug? Can we be so sure that such desires are not, as Joseph [Smith] indicated, 'In reality, right, because God gave and sanctioned by special revelation?' Lest any heterosexual in the church object that he or she has not received such a special revelation, remember that 'revelation [is] adapted to the circumstances in which the children of the kingdom are placed.' Whatever its roots, and they are probably many intertwining ones, sexual orientation is a permanent and enduring feature of an individual's personality. It can certainly be considered one of the 'circumstances' of one's life. Why, then, would God reveal the proper and righteous use of homosexual expression to those who are heterosexually inclined? They haven't been placed in a homosexual circumstance; They have neither the desire nor the need to know." Our church leaders and fellow saints, by and large, fit just this description. Unless and until they gain a desire or need to know, is it reasonable to expect that they will reach out and embrace us? It is incumbent upon us to help them gain the desire for greater knowledge. Like so many other truths, this one may need to be made manifest to the leaders of the church by those living it on a daily basis. Then, maybe they will start asking the right questions leading to a workable relationship between the church and all of its members. Until that time, let us not sacrifice all that is good in our effort to forget painful past experiences. Our model in this effort can be the Saviour himself. As Episcopalian bishop John Spong has written in his book, Living in Sin?, "Jesus endured the jeers of his tormentors without any trace of bitterness, defiance, or recrimination. His being was not changed by hostility and rejection any more than it was changed by praise. That is a portrait of freedom, the freedom of one who knows who he or she is and has the courage to be just that." Likewise, we too must be who we are, affirming the goodness of our sexual identity, despite the ignorance and hostility we may encounter. With the foundational knowledge that God created us and loves us the way we are, let us be unafraid to share our experience with others. Spong also reminds us that "one cannot give oneself away unless there is a self to give, a self that has been claimed, accepted, and courageously lived out." Take control of your destiny and work through issues of self-acceptance and self-worth. Come out to your Bishop. Involve your gay and lesbian companions and friends in family and social events. Claim the same rights that our heterosexual counterparts enjoy. Be unafraid to show appropriate public signs of affection. Become a role model for the youths in the church who will someday discover their own homosexual identity. Be an example of Christ-like love in all situations. It is my prayer that we will feel the spirit speaking the truth about homosexuality in our lives, and then have the courage to always live that truth. — Adapted from a talk delivered at Affirmation's Conference, October 12, 1991. At that time Henry was an active member of the Vista California Stake, and served as editor for the San Diego Chapter of Affirmation's newsletter.
|
www.affirmation.org