"Gay" in the News: Gay Father Hoax

"Gay father" birthday party invitation hoax.  The radio show hosts fabricated a controversy which they later backed away from, saying they were only "attempting to spur a healthy discourse on a highly passionate topic".  Those who called the radio show to comment were deemed to be sufferers from that deplorable "homophobia" disorder.

Is this really LDS Liberty?

 

I'm engaged in a controversy with an internet group, calling themselves "LDS Liberty".  I think they are promulgating some false doctrine, and would prefer that they cease immediately.  Individual Church members are welcome to form their own opinions on any subject, whatever interests them.  But when they begin teaching their opinions as the "true" doctrine, I think it is time for some correction.

 Below is the correspondence I have thus far exchanged.  I will compile my complaints about their teaching and forward it to my bishop.

Controversy

The newspaper headline reads, "LDS leader's '07 address still causing controversy".

Do you know who the controversy is with? Still the same ones who questioned the counsel originally. Controversy existed in such minds before they even heard the talk, it just provided an opportunity for them to complain and be heard.

There will always be complainers. Some have good cause. Some do not. No reason to derail the train just for them, in any case. But thats what they seem to want.

The original Deseret News article:


LDS leader's '07 address still causing controversy
By Carrie A. Moore
Deseret News
Published: August 8, 2008
An address last fall by the general president of the LDS Relief Society on motherhood continues to raise discussion and disagreement nearly a year after it was delivered.

Panelists addressing the topic "Mormon Motherhood: Choice or Destiny?" at the annual Sunstone Symposium on Thursday discussed why a talk by Sister Julie B. Beck during the October 2007 General Conference troubled them and hundreds of others enough to support a Web site — whatwomenknow.org — to counter many of Sister Beck's characterizations.

The Web site has garnered signatures from more than 500 women and several hundred men since it was put up in the weeks following the talk.

Five presenters spoke for more than an hour about their belief that Sister Beck's talk, and other recent messages by LDS leaders, narrow the role of women in the church by minimizing the contribution of those who don't have children and stay at home to raise them, whether by choice or through circumstances they can't control.

During the question and answer session that followed, one mother of five lamented that the remarks didn't reflect her experience, or that of many other LDS women, and asked that her choice to feel validated by staying at home with her children be respected. Several audience members approached her in the hallway at the Sheraton Hotel following the session and a heated discussion ensued.

Janice Allred, president of the Mormon Women's Forum, said as she listened initially to Sister Beck's remarks, she thought "there will be trouble, but the firestorm that followed surprised even me." She said she had seen some indications in recent years that the church "has become more accepting of women's roles and parenting in the wider society. But once again, women felt they were being handed a script for their lives that they couldn't follow."

Sister Beck's talk mirrored gender roles outlined in the church's "Proclamation to the World on the Family," Allred said. The document "gives a woman only one role. The single woman exists in the proclamation only as daughter of heavenly parents waiting to fulfill her destiny ... Being a mother is a good and a necessary role, but a good mother must first be a good person, with roles and needs outside that of mother."

Lori Winder quoted one secular author regarding motherhood, saying, "We are fed up with the myth that it's the most honorable and important thing we do ... and if you don't love every second of it, there is something wrong with you." She said "motherhood is prescribed essentially as the only role for women eternally." She said Sister Beck is "in many ways the only voice within the patriarchal structure of the church. The weight falls on her to illustrate our experience." Yet there is a "gap between Beck's rhetoric and (some LDS womens') experience, particularly as women's influence expands in the secular world."

Margaret Toscano, a professor of classics at the University of Utah, said she doesn't think LDS women "reacted strongly enough" regarding "women's roles and person-hood in the church structure." She said many "patriarchal systems use women as the primary tool for keeping other women in line" and "patriarchy gives women protection for playing by its rules."

She said she believes Sister Beck's talk created a flash point that focused on her as a person, "rather than critiquing the underlying system." She said the backlash "reflects the idea that it's more acceptable to question women's authority than men's in the church."

The address also elevated LDS women as "those who know the truth about motherhood versus secular women who are ruining the family," she said, adding "most women want to be good mothers and care deeply about their families."

Emily Benton, who holds a bachelor's degree from Brigham Young University, said she became less active in the LDS Church after marrying a returned missionary and then divorcing while he was in law school. "The Mormon map for women is limited and can sometimes leave you feeling lost." For her, "a lot of it came down to feeling that I didn't belong in a singles ward or a family ward, and my mother is worried because I haven't married and procreated like my sisters. My success isn't a grandchild."

She said that during the time she was away from the church, "I learned integrity ... After being away for a while I realized I missed the gospel," so she returned "with a new perspective ... Ultimately I'm at church to learn how to become a disciple of Christ." She said that while at church, she "would be better served if" the messages focused on love, compassion, service and personal worth rather than, as Sister Beck said, learning how to be the best homemakers in the world."

Janet Garrard-Willis, a Ph.D candidate and blogger for Feminist Mormon Housewives, said "motherhood really is meaningless unless there is a person being the mother in the first place." Her blog saw "an immediate firestorm following Beck's talk," and it was "not my liberal friends who were most upset — they just tend to disregard her.

"It was my deeply conservative friends who believe every word out of a church's leader's mouth came from Jesus Christ. They locked themselves in the bathroom and cried about it." Because she had great difficulty getting pregnant, Garrard-Willis said she had a "free pass to pursue a tenure track job. Once people in the church found out why I didn't have kids, they were very sympathetic and I was given a real place in every ward I've ever been in.

"I felt I was being incorporated into the structure with an identity apart from other women. That was fine, but I didn't realize that identity was contingent on my remaining childless." She said she experienced the "erasure of a significant portion of my identity when I became a mother."

She said the LDS Church does provide "a skeleton architecture for building an identity for women in the church, in part through its Young Women program, which emphasizes values such as faith, knowledge, good works and integrity. She suggested "a larger discussion about fatherhood" in the church, and "how traditionally female attributes are integrated into his role."

Following the presentations, Camille Aagard was the first to address the panelists.

"I wish I were on this panel. I'm the mother of five, I'm not a Ph.D candidate, and that's not in my future." She said she has "always had a very confident sense of self and I attribute that to being raised in the church. I feel powerful. I don't need anything more than what I do, but I want that mutual respect" that panelists had discussed for those outside traditional LDS roles.

"I want to know that if I were in the Toscano family, there wouldn't be little remarks about me behind closed doors. I feel so deeply respected when I hear motherhood is near to divinity. There are 96 pictures of me on my blog with my arms covered up to my elbows in vomit and (expletive deleted). I did have a five-year career, but this is a much harder game I'm in. I don't want to be in a forum where I'm with Latter-day Saints and feel under-valued. I heard words like 'confined' and 'mindlessness."' Aagard said she is raising four daughters "to emulate me, maybe, without letters after their name. It's not something small I'm teaching. I ask you to show the same respect for me."

Aagard was approached by several audience members in the hallway after the presentation, defending her right not to be offended by what church leaders say about her role. One man told her, "You're a slave and you don't even know it."

"I'm not a slave," she shot back. "That's pathetic that you would say that to me."

E-mail: carrie@desnews.com



'

Continuing discussion about "gay"

In another blog I was pursuing comments about "gay bashing". This discussion focused specifically on the concern as it relates to Mormons. Excerpting my comments, interspersed with fragments of replies from other participants...

After decades of hearing the term “gay”, I’m still not sure what it really means. Based on the usage in this group, to me it seems like not a very meaningful label at all. So it seems even less meaningful to consider exactly what is meant by “gay bashing”.

I assume people who identify themselves as “gay” must have something in common, but I question whether this group is as monolithic, unique, and unequivocal as we might be led to believe. And I doubt even more that everyone who ever engaged in some kind of homosexual behaviour considers themself to be “gay”.

I have further doubts about how significant I should consider “gay” as a group. I’d like to know the demographics — for real. Who and what are you talking about, and how many are there? Are they like Republicans or Democrats? If I devoted any intellectual energy to such questions, I think it would take a lot more real information before I would even venture to formulate tentative answers.

Perhaps for the sake of discussion about “gay bashing” in the Church, that response should suffice. I cannot very well be “bashing” if I don’t even know who to “bash” — can I?

Apparently the perception of some is that “gay” has some kind of association with a “political agenda”.

I’m willing to use that assertion provisionally for the sake of the question about “gay bashing”.

If I am opposing political activism to promote a “gay agenda”, does that constitute “gay bashing”? Because it seems to me that the Church is currently involved in a formal campaign to oppose the legalization or normalization of same-sex “marriage”. If I support the Church in that cause, am I “gay bashing”?

What if I choose to go even further, on my own. Suppose I said I was rooting for Utah Senator Chris Buttars in his legislative efforts to oppose the “gay agenda”. Or, say I support the Eagle Forum in their political lobbying and public information campaign efforts. Is that “gay bashing”?

…it’s easy to assume that “in the good ol’ days,” society monolithically embraced the ideas taught by current conservative religious groups.

Ah, but how much easier for those who favor popular trends to filter thier own views of social norms.

The difference is that values and views which are manifestly so plastic and variable are simply reflections of social and cultural invention and evolution, while absolute values are derivative from the commands of God. The former are mutable and ephemeral; the latter are absolute and eternal.

We’d better be able to tell the difference.

We seem perfectly willing to excuse Moses for a misogynist attitude when delivering the Ten Commandments, but cannot consider that latter-day prophets might be similarly biased.

You confuse the message with the messenger — a common mistake.

Moses did not invent the foundational rules upon which the Ten Commandments are based. Even stipulating your politically-correct assumptions does not change that fact.

In the case of the Decalogue, I thought the LDS church had moved beyond treating women as property.

I am not quite sure how you could think that the Church “moved” beyond something that never seemed to be an issue. Did the Church merge with NOW while I wasn’t looking?

As far as Moses and his culture, I’ll let him speak to that question. I personally believe my own views on such historic matters represent the agnostic position. But next time I get to speak with Moses and Aaron, I’ll be sure to get the word on their treatment of women.

Can the Church likewise transcend the anti-gay message foundational to the Restoration? I don’t know, it may be that animosity toward homosexuality is too deeply rooted.

I am not sure the Church has any interest in “transcending” fundamental values that are based on the commandments of God. When God speaks further on the matter, through his servants, the prophets, I for one will be listening. I suppose whether or not discussions on this blog or other media make any difference in the meantime is an open question.

I am still considering the original post, and asking myself what the question is really supposed to address.

I have never asked anyone at Church if they consider themselves “gay”. Not as if anyone wears a badge or a tattoo on their forehead. We don’t share a ward list with each other that elaborates each of our sexual behaviors.

Why should I know or care?

Apparently it was a big enough issue for the church to make related changes to the temple endowment ritual.

An interesting spin, but I am not aware of any Church-published rationale for temple changes, nor do I see a basis for inventing one.

The idea should be easy enough to substantiate. A relevant quote from one of the General Authorities would suffice.

Apparently, gay-bashing we deplore, but open season on Moses and his benighted culture.

What is an appropriate moral paradigm for the homosexual?

Chastity.

Perhaps the reason God doesn’t stop making gay people is to give us all an opportunity to learn to love those who are different, who live on the margins of society.

Perhaps. But I see no compelling reason to attribute to God such motivation, particularly not with a specific attitude toward the the existence of “gay people”. Every person faces the challenge of “love thy neighbor”.

…must seek to see the good in the lesbian couple down the street with the two kids. We must care about the inactive LDS man who “flaunts” his sexuality by being “openly gay.”

You identify an issue that sits somewhere on my list of things to work on. I confess my priorities are generally assigned to other concerns. And, as I indicated, I have never gone out of my way to determine if anyone in my acquaintance feels “gay”, so the point is generally moot.

With regard to prescription for Church members, I trust and support the counsel of leaders who are authorized to represent the Church. Elder Oaks has addressed these questions with an authoritative voice — Dallin H. Oaks, “Same-Gender Attraction,” Ensign, Oct 1995, 7.

I note in particular from Oaks:

The gospel applies on the same basis to everyone. Its central truth is our Savior’s atonement and resurrection, that we might have immortality and eternal life. To achieve that destiny, an eternal marriage is the divine and prescribed goal for every child of God, in this life or in the life to come. Nevertheless, this sacred goal must come about in the Lord’s way.

Each member of Christ’s church has a clear-cut doctrinal responsibility to show forth love and to extend help and understanding. Sinners, as well as those who are struggling to resist inappropriate feelings, are not people to be cast out but people to be loved and helped (see 3 Ne. 18:22–23, 30, 32). At the same time, Church leaders and members cannot avoid their responsibility to teach correct principles and righteous behavior (on all subjects), even if this causes discomfort to some.

I have no doubt that Mormons do not like or want gays in their congregations.

Indeed. I seldom see specific welcome signs seeking out or recruiting “gay” members, if that is your meaning. And there is an understandable degree of antipathy against those who campaign for the Church to compromise doctrines or policies specifically in order to cater to dissident voices — though this tendency has never been exclusively directed at “gays”.

…explain to me how a ward can make a gay man or woman feel welcome.

By offering the principles and ordinances of the Gospel, without equivocation, partiality, or respect for persons.

I suppose those demanding that God accept them still encumbered with their sins will never feel welcome — though this has nothing in particular to do with “gays”.

What “help” can you give them that still allows them to be fully human?

We will continue striving to teach them the Gospel, along with the rest of Adam’s posterity.

Reiterating from Elder Oaks:

The gospel applies on the same basis to everyone. Its central truth is our Savior’s atonement and resurrection, that we might have immortality and eternal life.

Jim (64) assumes that gays want to “campaign for the Church to compromise doctrines or policies”, which is not what I am doing.

To the contrary, no special assumption was necessary on my part. I am simply sending back what I have heard, consistently, from many of those who claim to be advocates for “gay rights”. These do campaign in behalf of everyone associated with homosexuality. I would have to have been blind and deaf to not have noticed.

In my first comment on this thread, I remarked that the very semantic we associate with “gay” is quite ambiguous. For reasons of their own, a particular collective has co-opted this term to a specific meaning of their own.

When I was in grade school, “gay” had a specific meaning that had nothing whatever to do with sexuality. Today the term has a new meaning associated with it, a meaning assigned by those who presume to represent “gay” — this is what I presume to understand. If my understanding is wrong, if the true meaning of “gay” is misrepresented, it is certainly not through any fault of mine.

I note further the specific comments here that outline the kinds of challenges certain Church members face, in particular because of the supposedly poor attitude of other Church members. While I fully sympathize with those who experience these problems, I again assert that this is not unique to anyone identifying as “gay”. As far as I can tell, I do not feel “gay”, yet I face the same issues with regard to being a single male, voluntarily restricting my own sexual expression, living in chastity, feeling accepted in the general community and among Church members, etc ad infinitum.

In short, very little of what comprises so-called “gay bashing” seems to have anything specific to do with “gay”. Rather, it is a general manifestation that we have a difficult time living up to all the high ideals we preach and aspire to.

No great surprise, that.

As far as acceptance goes, how would you feel if the members of your priesthood quorum had a discussion about people like you and felt that the best way to deal with “your kind” was to stuff them into a barn, lock all the doors, and burn them alive? Ever felt that kind of love and acceptance from the Ward?

In fact, I have.

QED.

My challenge for Jim (and anyone else who cares) is to read the new pamphlet “God Loveth His Children”

Yes, thanks, I have read it, and I do care.

…and then try to understand how it is possible to love and accept a gay person who is not sinning

My understanding is that as a disciple of Christ, I simply strive to treat everyone the same, without respect to whether they are subject to any particular set of special feelings or circumstances. This is convenient counsel, because it does not require me to determine apriori whether someone feels “gay”, has committed any particular sin, or has some other unique circumstances that require special treatment or handling. Fortunate for me — I don’t feel qualified to make such judgements. This attitude basically frees me to consider that all are unique and special before God, and as far as I am concerned, none are more or less deserving of God’s love.

Thus I do strive.

Creationism and Evolution

In my experience, the vast wastelands of the Internet are not a very helpful source of information on the Church, creation, and evolution.

Those of us just wanting to know what the issues are and what to think, tend to end up shell shocked by the intensity of participants in most of the discussion of relevant issues. While this is hardly an unusual environment for such a topic of controversy and debate, it does present a challenge for someone who prefers to be reasonably informed, reserve judgment, but just wants a bit more information.

Among of the best references I have found to actual Church doctrine and policy on this matter is at the biology department of BYU. Undergrad students at BYU use this information packet for reference. It contains a copy of several authoritative statements on the evolution and origins of man. You can read it without getting battered by proponents from any of the various warlike camps staked out all around this controversy.

One assertion I love to read very succinctly spells out what I want to know -- the real meaning of "evolution"...

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.

From the information packet at BYU.


Highly recommended.

Going nuclear

The systems running on my desk, a shortwave radio and a laptop computer, are powered by backup batteries.

Power service in this locale is subject to frequent long interruptions. We never know when the lights will blink off. So I always have a flashlight handy.

Most of us have become so accustomed to routine use of those little sockets on the walls that we hardly think about it. But according to energy use projections, our demand for electrical power generation will double in the next ten years or so. It seems that very few places have realistic plans to build twice the infrastructure to stir up all those electrons. But we might all grown more accustomed to interruptions in service, if demand continues to grow and no new generating facilities are built.

As far as I can determine, much of the Hollywood hype about the dangers of nuclear power generation is unfounded. Over the past thirty years Europe and Japan have forged ahead in nuclear technology while our power plants get shut down because nobody wants it in "in my backyard".

I feel it was a serious mistake for the US to retreat from the development of nuclear power. The technology has great potential for providing low-cost non-polluting energy from sustainable renewable
resources. Perhaps the time has come to rethink.

Reflecting on Chernobyl.

I've never been to Russia, but have visited several similar areas in the US.

Rocky Flats is adjacent to the Denver suburban sprawl. The empty desolation sets the area apart, in sharp contrast to local shopping malls and housing. People who visit inside the restricted area wear protection suits and carry Geiger counters.

The area of the Hanford nuclear reservation in Washington state used to be the property of a local indian tribe. Now it is off-limits for anyone sans appropriate isolation suit with breathing apparatus. The Hanford reservation contributed part of the enriched uranium for WW2 atomic bombs. Much of the chemical by-product was stored in above-ground tanks, which are now leaking. Groundwater runoff contaminates the Columbia River.

The Oak Ridge facility in Tennessee was the counterpart for Hanford during WW2. When I visited there in 2000, there were many areas along the roadways that were bordered with bright yellow-painted chains, indicating that this area is off-limits due to contamination. Local folklore tells of one visitor who ran over a radioactive raccoon that was crossing the road. Their car was impounded and stashed away in some nuclear waste repository, contaminated for 5000 years.

I have never visited Three-Mile Island, but understand that there isn't much that is remarkable there beyond the sealed concrete containment building.

A couple of additional observations regarding nuclear technology.

If things were at a standstill in the world since Chernobyl, I might have agreed that this was as good a place as any to put a stop to it. We can see the pros and cons of such technology, and in that light,might be inclined to reject further development in that area, via consensus and through well informed decisions.

Unfortunately, others have already seen things differently, and since the late 70s, many other countries have pressed on in their pursuit of nuclear advancement. There is no way short of stone-age regression for us to put the nuclear genie back in the bottle. The various motives we ascribe to these development programs are irrelevant. The fact remains, nuclear technology will continue to develop.

Given that premise, our continuing recalcitrance in nuclear development makes less and less sense.

We could take the lead in researching beneficial applications for nuclear technology. We have discovered this potentially great power. Now we know something about the potential costs as well. What better perspective from which to continue to work the problems.

Or we can do as we are, refuse to acknowledge the pressing need for advancement and development, sit back and wait for the lights to dim and go out.

(Or, we might face even less pleasant alternatives if enemies could threaten us with a thermonuclear attack from which we have no effective defense.)

More about the Chernobyl disaster from a WHO report --


WHO Chernobyl report

5 SEPTEMBER 2005 | GENEVA -- A total of up to 4000 people could
eventually die of radiation exposure from the Chernobyl nuclear power
plant (NPP) accident nearly 20 years ago, an international team of more
than 100 scientists has concluded.

As of mid-2005, however, fewer than 50 deaths had been directly
attributed to radiation from the disaster, almost all being highly
exposed rescue workers, many who died within months of the accident but
others who died as late as 2004.

On the other hand, many European countries have successfully -- and apparently safely -- operated nuclear facilities since the late 60s. As have the Japanese and Canadians. Interesting that we can't use the technology developed here, but others can exploit it for their gain.

Most of the rest of the world seeks some kind of nuclear power generation resources. The US is the only place where such unreasoning opposition to this particular technology prevails.

Interesting discussion of this issue at PBS. Somewhat dated, but lots of information.

PBS Frontline on nuclear power

Information from Canadian nuclear power consortium. They market nuclear technology to many other countries.

CANDU nuclear statistics

Motorcycle tour of the Chernobyl locale

Chernobyl 20 Years After

What we do with by-products from nuclear operations now is stack them up some place for 500 years. This level of approach to such a technical problem is something akin to accumulating human waste products into a big stinking pile. It concentrates the problem into a smaller space, but does little to address the real issues.

The US stopped trying to deal with nuclear waste in any other way more than 30 years ago. Since then, nuclear technology has not halted. Wastes are still being generated, by the ton, every day. It gets stacked away somewhere, which is simply deferring the problem, not dealing with it.

We need intensive research programs to develop the technology to deal with nuclear waste. This should be an issue of technology, not politics. When we have human waste byproducts to deal with, we build treatment plants and recycling facilities along with our waste disposal sites. This is the area of focus needed for nuclear development. Not abandoning the problem because it smells bad or because it has an unsavory reputation.

The biggest problem with NIMBY attitudes is that they are too localized and naive to see that all the world is "my back yard", and pushing problems further away from where we live only defers and complicates a better solution.