Dear Mormon church:
You need to speak to your lay leadership about something that’s been bothering me. That’s been bothering a lot of people, actually, and that is really, really embarrassing. Sorry I have to be the one to tell you.
You see, several of your “General Authorities” have been talking about sexuality and gender as if they had some kind of special knowledge or experience with it. (I’ve catalogued a few of these incidents on my blog, but I assure you: there are many others.) Most recently (as far as I know), Keith McMullin, the “second counselor” in the “Presiding Bishopric” promised an audience of unhappy homosexuals that Jesus could lift their “burdens”—i.e., presumably, that Jesus could make them straight.
Now, it is common knowledge that your leadership is all male and heterosexual. In other words: their experience with gender and sexuality is limited, if not nonexistent (when you are a straight, white male—i.e., the “default” human being in the United States—how much cause do you have to think about sexuality and gender?). Furthermore, when they open their mouths and try to discuss these subjects, it becomes immediately clear that they don’t have the first idea of what they’re talking about. Like I said: REALLY EMBARRASSING.
I’m surprised you haven’t already told them to rein it in, given what an image-conscious organization you are. But I figure maybe no one’s brought it to your attention yet! I’m sure you’ll look into this and fix it now.
Thanks for your time!
Sean, aloneandunobserved.com
(Thanks to Eliza R. Snitch for the link to the news article on McMullin’s address.)
Pingback: Choose the Right « Molly Muses . . .
I read the news article, and I think that your interpretation is stretching what was actually said. Bishop McMullin never said that any of the attendees could be “made straight.” “Lifting” a burden isn’t the same as removing the burden. Also, are you sure there aren’t some General Authorities who have experienced same gender attraction?
First: You are playing games with words here. There is no difference to a normal person between “lifting” someone’s burden and “removing” it. Either way: it’s no longer on your back.
Second: What was his audience? A room full of people whose most fervent wish is to be made straight. What event was he speaking at? Evergreen International, whose stated aim is to help people “diminish their same-gender attractions.”
How do you think they took his words? I admit: I haven’t read the full text of his address. Did he follow this statement up immediately by saying, “Now, this doesn’t mean you’ll be made straight, no matter how faithful you are, and if you keep experiencing attraction to the same sex after praying and fasting REALLY REALLY HARD it’s not your fault and you’re still a good person, so don’t beat yourself up”?
Because that would have made this marginally better.
Here’s the thing. He was speaking to people who are suffering. Many of them hate themselves because of what people like him have told them their entire lives. What he is doing—holding out false, damaging hope—is psychological abuse. Plain and simple.
Yes, I am sure. I’m so sure that I will now issue the following public challenge:
Mormon “General Authorities,” I defy one of you, any of you, to come out of the closet about your “same-gender attraction.” If none of you do, I will continue to assume that none of you have ever dealt with the issue and that you have no special knowledge or experience with the subject.
On the other hand, if one of you does come out, that’ll be a fantastic step in the right direction, and I’ll still be happier with you than I am now.
Any takers?
I won’t be holding my breath.
“How do you think they took his words?”
I think the more relevant question is: how were those words intended to be taken? A burden can be lifted, as in lightened, without being removed. The Book of Mormon and Church history are full of examples in which individuals still had to continue to bear a certain burden, but it was made lighter by the Lord. Take for example a pioneer (or modern) family who lost a child. That would be a tremendous burden and while the Lord didn’t raise all those children from the dead, He can help those who have to bear that burden by lightening their load and helping them carry that burden. The pain is still there, but it is easier than it otherwise would be.
And what I’m saying is: it matters not at all how Mullen “intended” his speech to be taken. If he doesn’t have the minimal understanding of his audience to know how far too many of them will take what he said—i.e., as yet another false promise that they would be made straight—then he has no business speaking on the subject at all, let alone to such a vulnerable, suffering group.
Also: you are conflating “lifting” a burden and “lightening” a burden in a way that is convenient for your argument but which I suspect is not borne out in the way the average person would understand the phrases.
Thanks for your posts. I started really looking at the religion after I found your blog. Ironically, I found your blog through an active LDS member. I no longer think the same. I can look objectively at religion. It is disgraceful how they treat homosexuals and used to treat blacks.
Funny how people with the least experience try to tell others how to function in the world. Next we’ll have celibate old men telling us how to manage our marriages and raise our children – OH WAIT! That one’s like a thousand years old. lolz!
Nice post!
Pingback: Main Street Plaza » Sunday in Outer Blogness: in or out edition!