James says: Dear Brother Hardy, I am writing this letter not knowing if you will ever receive it. My intent is not to disparage or harm you in any way, but rather to critique your manner, your methods, and the principles by which you have drafted this letter to Elder Packer. I hope that my comments will be of help in some way to you, not so much as a direct response, but as an outsider looking in upon your dialogue with Elder Packer. I am a disciple of Jesus Christ and know that he leads this work and will seek the Spirit of God as I respond to your letter. Dear Elder Packer:
Although we have met briefly before, it is through the context of my family that you would be able to place me. I am the younger brother of Ralph W. Hardy, Jr. and Clare Hardy Johnson, and the son of Ralph W. Hardy, Sr. and Maren Eccles Hardy. I most recently served as bishop of the Salt Lake University 29th Ward, Salt Lake University 5th Stake. My wife, Carlie, is the granddaughter of the late Elder Franklin D. Richards, and the great-granddaughter of President Heber J. Grant. I provide the context of our families and heritage for no purpose other than establishing the solid upbringing in the Gospel and the Church that my wife and I have both had. If you know the devotion to the Church of my brother Ralph and my late sister Clare, you know mine.
James says: I sense what you are doing here but fear that it does more harm than good for two reasons. Typically when someone begins to drop names in a conversation it is to elevate themselves or their position to a self-proclaimed position of prominence or authority but does not make the words they speak more or less true because of who they know. It hints at pride when humility in a religious discussion is by far the more effective route to take. Bearing simple testimony of what you know to be true in a religious setting is far more powerful as it brings the Spirit into the discussion. If you don't want the Spirit in the discussion then that is a different matter altogether. The second part of this equation is that you have shown through your connections that you are tied squarely to the Church as a social organization and perhaps in a political sense whereas showing that you are a devout disciple of Jesus Christ is what you should be aiming at. Over the years there have been many saints dedicated to the Church or the prophets who have cut their strings and gone away in times of difficulty because they lifted their eyes no higher than the Church authorities and the representatives of Christ rather than to Christ himself. But in each case those who appealed to God and His Son for understanding and who received the answer through the Spirit secondarily found themselves more devoted to the Church and dedicated to following the leaders of it. Do you see this pattern? It is evident in both ancient times as well as throughout modern Church history. I bring this up because your focus on familial connections and prominence and then your stated "devotion to the Church" hints of the former group rather than the truly dedicated latter.I write this letter out of the realization that to maintain my own personal integrity, I need to inform you of the personal heartache and damage you have to some degree been responsible for visiting upon my immediate family as the author of To the One. Although originally delivered by you as an address in 1978, the pamphlet To The One remains to this day the Church's most current and definitive written statement by a General Authority on the issue of homosexuality. It is available to the general Church membership and the public, and my wife and I have been referred to it numerous times as we have come to grips with this issue over the past few years. As one who has always been mindful of my Temple covenants, an unwavering believer, and a follower of my Priesthood leaders…
James says: Here we are again...devotion to the church but nothing about the true leader of it, Jesus Christ.…this is not an easy letter to write. For me it represents an anguished "Crossing of the Rubicon." I hope you will take the time to read it, for in it I have invested my very soul.
Early on a Saturday morning six weeks ago, I watched as our car pulled away with my wife driving our eldest son to a new city, a new community, and a new school to complete his senior year of high school. Ever since that morning, I have grown progressively angrier that to protect our son's life and sense of self worth, we are compelled to send him away from our home and family. You see, this community of "Saints" we live in is so steeped in ignorance, fear, loathing, judgment and qualified "love" towards our son and those who like him face the challenge of homosexuality…
James says: Here you are making blind blanket judgments about others in the same manner you fear they are making misinformed judgments about your son. Remember to judge righteous judgment that with the judgment you judge you shall be judged again. I am sorry for the way others have seemingly mistreated and misjudged your son and for the hurt he has felt. This letter makes it apparent that you are reacting emotionally instead of by principle or reason. This doesn't make the problem any less real but it does cause the reader to give less heed to your rhetoric. Don't misjudge others in your attempt to illuminate their misjudgments. Secondly, I would hope that you don't blame Elder Packer for the way others are behaving. He has always taught tolerance and acceptance, even in "To The One".… he twice arrived at the point where he was devoid of hope and felt he had no alternative but to take his own life. Fortunately, he did not succeed. My son is not manic-depressive, nor was he ever before suicidal. He simply understands too well the Gospel and believed what his Seminary teachers and Priesthood leaders taught him about homosexuality, based upon the doctrine set forth in To The One.
My wife and I are the parents of six children - two daughters and four sons - ranging in age from twenty-three to eight. Our oldest son at age thirteen had the courage to come to us with his growing fear that he had no attraction whatsoever to girls…
James says: Notice the age at which your son approached you about this growing fear. I am not yet convinced that homosexuality is anything more or less than what Elder Packer taught it was in "To the One". This is the same age at which Satan begins to work on boys for other deviate behavior and urges including masturbation and indulgence in pornography. We could cry that they are “natural inclinations” and that “we never had before shown any desire toward such inclinations” but to what end? The natural self in our theology is to be "put off" not embraced. … - the thought in fact disgusted him - but that he was very attracted to those of his same sex. That he would come to us without fear or shame, confide in us, and seek our counsel attests to the strong relationship my wife and I have both always had with our son. (This is ironic in light of the "parental causation" theories routinely hauled-out by the Church's LDS Social Services counselors and Evergreen as the primary cause of homosexuality.)
James says: This tangent is completely unrelated to your argument and misleading in that an uninformed reader at attribute “parental causation” theories to Boyd K. Packer or other Church leadership when you know clearly that the studies being used by LDS Social Services to support these theories are derived from neither source. Also, remember that just because LDS Social Services is a faith-based organization managed by members and supported by the Church, it is not an arm of the priesthood, nor is it staffed with individuals set apart by God to run it by his authority. Rather it is staffed with qualified professionals who draw upon their faith, experience, education, and the latest studies in human behavior to help them in the services they provide to the less fortunate.
This brings me to my next point. You have just used anecdotal evidence of a single case (your own life experiences) against a tested (and most likely) statistically significant qualified sample used in a study that has been peer reviewed and held to a high standard of academic evaluation. I am not saying that the study is right, since I also disagree with parental causation theories if applied generally. But just because my life experience doesn’t fit the mold created by the study doesn’t make the study less valid. It just shows that I am an exception, of which there always exists a certain percentage in every study. In my experience, studies of this nature show trends in human behavior and seek to establish causation for these trends (or at the minimum correlation) through statistical means. If you want to undo the study then conduct a counter study of your own using the same standard of rigor, validity, and reliability used to create the studies being referenced by LDS Social ServicesThis son was always spiritually mature for his age. He is the finest young man I have ever known - giving, loving, supportive, honest, reliable. Most definitely unselfish…
James says: Just because someone has a weakness does not require that they are ONLY weak. All people have both strengths and weaknesses to wrestle with and try to balance. All have inherited a natural self that in some way needs to be put off if we are to inherit the glory of the Father. Celebrate his strengths as you do here, but be careful not to let strengths blind you to existing weaknesses.… A leader among his peers in his school and primary classes and in his Priesthood quorums. Since he was old enough to talk and walk, we were very much aware of certain differences that concerned us. He carried himself differently, walking and running. When we could get him to pick up a ball, he threw it differently. He spoke differently. He was not in the least interested in sports (in spite of countless practices and Saturdays we spent supporting him in sporting events that utterly disinterested him). He loved dolls and playing house. He loved music, literature, drama and poetry. He made friends easily with girls, but very rarely with boys…
James says: You are leaning way too heavily on stereotypes assuming that only girls exhibit these traits while experience shows that many boys exhibit such traits unless taught to think otherwise. None of these traits mean anything explicitly homosexual. From my youth I have loved music, literature, drama, art and poetry, have always made friends easily with girls and yet I have never had the slightest inkling of a homosexual tendency. That is not my cross to bear. Please be careful with your use of stereotypes.…Carlie and I listened with hope to LDS counselors and leaders who dismissed or downplayed all of this as merely a "phase." We believed in and relied on them.
James says: Again be careful not to blame Elder Packer for your experiences with LDS Social Services. It would be like your congregation for whom you had been given stewardship as bishop blaming the General Leadership or the Church in general every time you made a judgment as a judge in Israel that they felt was incompatible with their lives. Take care to direct responsibility to the right decision makers.The years passed, but the "phase" didn't - this in spite of our doing everything recommended to us by LDS counselors, Priesthood leaders and, of course, the teachings of the General Authorities such as you (scarce as they are is on this subject). While we were assured by LDS counselors that this was little more than a correctable Pavlovian response and that "nothing could be easier to cure," and took hope in your confident statement in To The One: "When we understand fundamental moral law better than we do, we will be able to correct this condition routinely. . . ," matters went from bad to worse. One evening in 1997, while I was out of town and my wife was being assured by our well-meaning Stake President at his office that "if we just keep it quiet - the same as if someone in your family had committed adultery [our son had done nothing]- it will all be just fine, trust me . . . ," our son slit his wrists in his room at home. Earlier in the day, it had been the " Sodom and Gomorrah" lesson in Seminary.
James says: It is a human tendency to place blame on others for happenings of such gravity as we all want to look to external sources for our frustrations when typically our frustrations derive from a complex mixture of both internal and external forces. There are many forces that work in our lives to influence our attitudes, perceptions, feelings, actions, and ongoing behavior and to simplify it to "the lesson," or "the kids at school," or "statements made by the brethren" may be comforting but such oversimplification is inaccurate. It would be similarly inaccurate to simplify the situation to isolated internal forces though they are also at play. We might as easily say that "he is just prone to depression," or "he is just selfish" (since suicide, at its root often is), but this would be equally simplistic and misleading. The forces that influence us are both external and internal and weave together into a highly complex force. There is nothing wrong with identifying some of these forces as contributing influences but be careful not to over-simplify.As bishop of a student Ward at the University of Utah working with homosexual returned missionaries, I came to the painful realization that the "reparative therapy" practiced by LDS Social Services and organizations such as Evergreen (whose board of directors I then served on) was not merely ineffective, it was terribly damaging. In every instance I found that this "therapy" accomplished little more than driving these earnest brothers and sisters, desperate to believe that they would "change," deeper into self-loathing and despondency.
James says: Shouldn’t this letter be rather directed toward LDS Social Services and not Elder Packer? It all seems misdirected. I think that you may be right that the manner in which we deal with these issues as a culture need be updated, but why are you telling this the Elder Packer?Their failure to "change" as promised them by you and other Priesthood leaders - a failure ultimately arrived at by each and every one of these young men and women who were honest with his or her situation - left only three realistic alternatives: (1) practice deceit as long as possible to remain in good standing with Church and family,
James says: Nothing deceitful need be done to remain in good standing, (otherwise it is quite the paradox). There are no consequences for feelings or temptations—only behavior. Your son need only live honorably despite his inclinations and he will remain in good standing. None of us need be loyal or true to our fallen, natural feelings. If he need practice deceit, then let him deceive the devil and thereby reap a great reward. (2) give up completely, abandon Church and family, and turn to the only community that will accept you - the gay community,
James says: These options are so extreme and black and white allowing for no middle ground. Who is to say that no other community would accept him or that the gay community would accept him? You forgo many realistic options.or (3) commit suicide.
James says: Or take the fourth option of seeking to change a weakness into strength by giving one's life over to God and submitting to him as a child doth submit to his father. As a bishop why would you omit this option? And why is suicide one of the "realistic" options? There is nothing realistic about that option.By your own admission, it is obvious that neither you nor the Church as a whole has yet arrived at "a better understanding of the fundamental moral law," because your understanding of it is leading and guiding the Church in this matter, and this "condition" is anything but "routinely corrected." In To The One you make the summary statement that "some forms of these treatments [reparative therapy] are of substantial help in about 25 percent of the cases"…
James says: Elder Packer’s talk does not mention or specify “reparative therapy.” You would be better not to mislead your readers into thinking that is what Elder Packer was referring to.…without offering any authority for this statistic. Where did this amazing (though still disheartening) statistic come from? Undoubtedly it came from the experts at LDS Social Services…
James says: Why do you speak so coarsely of the individuals who try their best at LDS Social Services? Can you produce any counter studies? Are you more qualified than they? In every instance the primary responsibility for the teaching and nurturing of children is in the parents. Only secondarily can we then point to outside institutions whether school, church, or LDS Social Services. We cannot safely blame any of these institutions for failing unless we first point the finger through the parents. I am not saying that you are bad parents (because I don't know), but I see no justification for your bitter treatment of LDS Social Services since such institutions are there to pick up the pieces of broken lives.… Unfortunately, however, LDS Social Services must not follow-up on their patients over any extended period of time. My experience as bishop of a student Ward, the father of a homosexual son, and a friend and confidant to the many LDS homosexuals I have since become acquainted with, would indicate to me that in some few cases, the terrible guilt associated with reparative therapy and the strong desire to remain in good standing with the Church and one's family has brought about an ability to repress one's homosexual desires - for a season. Usually just long enough to get married and ruin a family. Perhaps this is the 25% you spoke of. The current publication for ecclesiastical leaders Understanding and Helping Those Who Have Homosexual Problems seems to recognize the realistic lack of curability in its statement:
"Marriage should not viewed as a way to resolve homosexual problems. The lives of others should not be damaged by entering a marriage where such concerns exist. Encouraging members to cultivate heterosexual feelings as a way to resolve homosexual problems generally leads them to frustration and discouragement."
However, the Church's confusion and struggle to make sense of this issue,…
James says: The Church is not confused about this issue as you suggest here. There simply exists an infinite number of ways we can transgress the way of truth and light. The Church plays a different role than you seem to be suggesting her. They are and have been very clear on espousing homosexuality as an inclination and practice that brings much sorrow and frustrates our personal progress (something you have just poignantly illustrated with your manifold examples). The Church gives a clear voice of warning and points the direction we should go. It is then our responsibility to seek, through the Spirit, means by which we can accomplish the will of God in our lives as dictated by the Leaders of the Church. This is so, for every type of possible transgression. In some cases the Church joins with, or sponsors outside organizations to help with certain issues. This is the case with LDS Social Services. LDSSS is not the Church and the Church is not LDSSS. The Church's (and thereby the Lord's) greatest tool is THE FAMILY where righteous parents rely upon the Spirit to guide their children aright in the specifics. Where they are unsuccessful, Bishops occupy a position of assistance and stewardship where they, by relying on the Spirit, might pick up the pieces dropped in the family and help in the specifics. Both parents and Bishops must rely on the Spirit to help in any and all situations. Surely you have learned the importance of relying on the Spirit as both a parent and a Bishop... yet there is no mention. Start there before you blame the Church for failure to fulfill a responsibility that is only secondarily or thirdly the Church's stewardship. They are a voice of warning to the world, NOT the parents of your children. …and its tendency to downplay the lack of any real answers with a summary "and they all lived happily ever after" is apparent in the publication's utterly conflicting closing sentence:
"In some cases, heterosexual feelings emerge leading to happy, eternal marriage relationships."
Which is a Bishop or Stake President to do?
James says: This is precisely why the Spirit is vital in this equation. Every case is unique and needs unique care and attention and guidance. In my opinion they should not marry unless such inclinations have been overcome. They will know when that is.Discourage cultivation of heterosexual feelings and marriage, or lend encouragement to and sign the Temple marriage recommend for the "cured" homosexual that is entering a happy, eternal marriage relationship? While I know from experience that much is left to the discretion and inspiration of the ecclesiastical leader, I also know that they are to look to an official publication specifically directed to them such as this for direction and guidance and give it much weight. But what is the counsel being given in this publication? Isn't it a bit confusing?
At the crux of the issue of homosexuality and the Church are the three great interrelated beliefs: (1) there is an element of choice involved in becoming and remaining homosexual, (2) it can be cured, and (3) our children and youth can be recruited or enticed into homosexuality. Every time we have sought out help for our son and family on this issue from Priesthood leaders or General Authorities we have been summarily referred to the experts at LDS Social Services. Because the lives and well-being of so many trusting individuals and family members are at stake here, it would seem that much stock is put in the expertise of LDS Social Services in this matter. Isn't it fairly obvious, though, that the "experts" you rely on at LDS Social Services to professionally corroborate and support the doctrine and policy of the Church would support whatever position you have mandated to be the only correct one? Such is the level of respect for and faith in the office you hold. In all honesty, to disagree with a member of the Twelve on a matter of doctrine is tantamount to heresy…
James says: There are no heretical beliefs in this Church, only heretical teachings. In other words, you can believe what you want, just don't teach all that you believe especially if it is unsupported or contradictory to established and plain doctrines available for anyone to read in the standard works. Let's also remember that not every word out of the mouth of a prophet is doctrine. They are as entitled to opinions as we are.… I'm sure you are aware that the American Psychiatric Association has denounced "reparative therapy" for treating homosexuals as both ineffective and damaging.
James says: Elder Packer has never even mentioned Reparative therapy in "To The One". He only states that one can recover. I have personally heard testimony from some who have recovered. Am I therefore to deny the possibility of recovery because the ASA says recovery is impossible? What are you trying to say here? I find it ironic that when a fundamentalist religious group shuns sound medical intervention as a doctrine we find it appalling and backwards - yet when that same sound medical advice denounces the practice of "reparative therapy" we call it "worldly" false doctrine. I guess it all depends on just whose ox is being gored.
James says: Welcome to the world of many voices... all seeking attention. At some point we all must choose which voices we will give heed to.In To The One you preach that homosexuality is not innate, but is a curable condition. Your fundamental proof: God wouldn't make a mistake like this.
James says: This statement does not occur in “To The One,” so what exactly are you referencing? Are you suggesting that he is implying this? Your letter has been updated to coincide with Elder Packer's October 2010 conference address whether by you or someone else remains to be seen. This brings up another interesting point. The fact that this letter is posted online for the world to read gives light to our motivations. If you truly wanted Elder Packer to take it seriously then why did you post it so publicly? Posting it publicly makes your efforts here seem as though you are simply being influenced by the homosexual movement... making it no longer a personal issue. By preaching this, you set the impossible goal of "cure"
James says: With God nothing is impossible, but we now know where you stand. We can choose now to give heed to your voice (with its faith-destroying seeds of doubt and disbelief) or a voice that speaks words of life. I choose faith and life. According to your words here you explicitly indicate that you don't believe that Jesus Christ can heal your son, that he can "cure" him, that he has no power to save. Your words bury any belief you may have in the atonement. The very faith you desire as a cure for your son is trampled by your words here.as the standard to which my son must hold himself responsible, as must his family and all other Church members. Until he chooses to do what he must to be "cured," he hasn't done enough…
James says: We are saved by grace after all we can do…He will never have done enough. He will always come up failing in the most fundamental aspect of his entire existence as a child of his Heavenly Father. He is a pervert, an aberration, and an abomination ...
James says: You are the one projecting this, not Boyd K. Packer. There is nothing of this sort in the teachings or attitude of the Brethren.… There is nothing left in this life or the next...
James says: Despair cometh of iniquity. These are dark words that the adversary would have you cling to so that you may never know the light and peace and life that comes from the Gospel of Jesus Christ. His disciples speak words like "our very natures can change," and "if you can see with your eyes, hear with your ears, feel with your heart, and be converted then he can heal you." Remember that man is only an enemy to God if he holds to his nature. If he will let that die through genuine submission to the will of the Father then he can be counted a friend unto God. These are words of LIFE and this is what the Church offers you and your son.…How would you deal with this if you were him? Homosexuality is not a "condition" that can be "cured." My proof: I have yet to meet even one venerable grandfather with a fine posterity (or anyone else for that matter) who says he was once homosexual but was long ago cured - and my experience as a father observing my son from birth.
James says: Again anecdotal and despairingPerhaps the most hurtful aspect of To The One is your revelation that the fundamental reason why my son has not been "cured" is because of his selfishness. When I inform other people that this is actually what you preach in To The One, they are incredulous (members included)...
James says: Your heart has not been prepared to receive this word. You are taking the truth to be hard because it hits home. President Packer was VERY careful and sensitive in the manner in which he explained his use of the word "selfishness" and you misrepresent his teachings when you fling it around casually without seeking to illuminate the context in which he chose that word. Selfishness, whether conscious or subconscious, is at the root of every natural tendency. Why do you sense anything different?…They respond "Obviously you have misread or misconstrued what Elder Packer said." You are well aware that this is precisely what is said. As one who knows my son and his heart better than you, your doctrine that my son's selfishness is at the core of his ability or inability to be cured of his homosexuality is offensive in the extreme,…
James says: 1 Nephi 16:1-3 …and evidences the lack of any meaningful inquiry into this issue…
James says: First, It is easy to tell someone their idea is a bad idea but unless you can offer a counter argument that actually shows the errors of their argument you have no case. If you disagree with his use of the word selfishness, then carefully construct an argument that proves otherwise.
You will recall how Elder Packer began his talk by rejecting the word homosexual as a noun. He was very clear that he was speaking of it purely as an adjective and any attempt to construe his words to reflect homosexual as a noun is futile. Having said this, he speaks of a behavior, tendency and temptations. All of our behaviors fall into one of two broad categories: selfish or selfless. We behave either to satisfy our own needs, lusts, desires, wants, and passions in such a way as to bring us advantage OR we behave to satisfy the same for others to their advantage. Some behavior is selfish but harmless while other behavior is selfish and profoundly harmful. Please explain for me how in all eternity homosexual behaviors and tendencies can be called selfless. Everything about the behavior screams “Self gratification” and “self satisfaction.” It carries with it the pleasure of intimate relations without producing anything other than pleasure for the parties involved. (of course we could add that it produces guilt, shame, and self-loathing which is always the result of selfish behavior. But it often seems more natural to blame such feelings solely on external forces and never internal ones.) So I ask again, "How might homosexual behavior be construed as selfless behaviors? …beyond the application of pure dogma…
James says: Why is it that you keep employing words like dogma and heresy. These words are not even part of the Latter-day Saint experience. We accept truth from whatever source it springs and reject error from whatever source. Truth is truth because it is true not because someone said it and argues that it is true. Truth is not dogma and we seek truth, not dogma. The utility behind God's calling prophets in our day is the more current the revelation the more useful and pertinent the information and thereby less dogmatic because we need not rely on the wisdom of men only. There is nothing inherently wrong with dogma unless it binds freedom of conscience which does not happen in the kingdom of God. God will force no one to heaven. Please therefore refrain from using vocabulary you know misconstrues the truth.… In saying this it is not my intent to offend you. It is, simply, incredible that you could hit upon anything quite so insensitive and ignorant of the facts. Indeed, my son is the most unselfish and Christ-like person I know. This holds true for most of the LDS homosexuals I know well. They have to be to keep trying.
James says: He is saying nothing about your son being selfish. He is pointing out that homosexual BEHAVIOR is a selfish behavior. As long as your son abstains from the behavior he proves himself to be unselfish.Your doctrine of "choice" and "curability" is also at the core of why the Church and its members in reality view my son and those like him as latter-day lepers. If homosexuality (1) is not inborn, (2) has an element of choice, and (3) can be cured - then it must be able to be taught or suggested. Others must also be susceptible to being enticed or recruited…
James says: Are you suggesting that it can't be taught? This would be a highly speculative assertion without heavy data to back you up. Any behavior can be taught. But it need not be. There is an adversary who can teach us things even without man's assistance. You may recall the secret combinations of 3 Nephi and Ether.…Our children are capable of being infected by these people and not becoming mothers and fathers. It is, therefore, a frontal assault on the family.
James says: The sin itself is not an attack on the family so much as it is on the individual. So is it with any sin. It is the movement and campaigning for the free license of it that is an attack on the family.The "hate the sin but love the sinner" platitude cannot disguise the fact that in reality the members of the Church are taught to loathe and fear our son and those like him...
James says: By whom do you suppose they are being taught this? If saints are explicitly taught to "hate the sin but love the sinner" then who, besides themselves, is to be blamed for them acting contrary to that counsel?…This qualified and synthetic "love" is nothing more than the few alms hurriedly and begrudgingly parted with to salve the Christian conscience, while never once entertaining the idea of actually descending into the leper pit…
James says: Why are these comments directed at Elder Packer? You are fully aware of that we as a people are taught directly from the scriptures. All the saints are taught correct principles according to the standard works and priesthood revelation and then are left to govern themselves. The prophets and apostles have often lamented the difficulty of getting the saints to adhere to the words of scripture. Indeed your rejection of their words on this matter is undoubtedly cause for lamentations, since you know the scriptures as well as anyone.…We would never expose our children to this for it might infect them. If sexual orientation is a matter of choice, when exactly did you choose to be heterosexual? When and how often did you reaffirm your choice to stay that way? Why aren't my other children, who idolize their brother, even the slightest bit interested in adopting a homosexual "lifestyle" or in homosexual experimentation?
James says: Because they have different lusts and challenges to confront. Why am I not obsessed with ice cream and chocolate but know plenty of people who are? Are they doomed to obesity because of their lusts or is this something they can learn to control and live with?Why would anyone choose to be an abomination and an outcast? It defies reason.
James says: Why would anyone choose drugs? to be a pedophile? to obsess with the fantasies of pornography addiction? to lose everything to a gambling habit? to abuse the very ones they love through uncontrollable fits of anger? To choose misery over peace? Every day millions of our brothers and sisters defy reason and choose such misery over peace and bondage over freedom. We choose misery because we are weak and sinful and require the atonement in our lives... your son is not alone. He only chooses to be an outcast if he decides to practice homosexuality. He will suffer none of these consequences because of feelings, inclinations or temptations. We have little control over our feelings but we CAN have complete mastery over what we emote or how we behave? (for example if someone swears at us we may not be able to control if our heart is hurt, but we can control whether or not we lash back at them or forgive them.) This is not easy, but very doable.Last week a dear friend (formerly a bishop) reassured us that he still loved our son "even if he has made a choice to be this way." My son did not choose to be this way. This type of "love" born of duty and pity for his abominable choice acts like a slow but virulent cancer on our son's self-esteem. It is for this reason we have found it necessary to send our son away from the community of the "Saints."
As the Church "progresses" on this issue, what we are hearing more and more from Priesthood leaders today is the idea that our son is acceptable so long as he practices life-long chastity. That is, of course, actually called celibacy, and while it's a convenient idea to advance, in practice it is virtually impossible to live.
James says: You betray yourself to your opinion leaders. I hope for your sake that this statement was made in a moment of high emotion and not an idea that you actually embrace. While tremendously pleasurable, intimacy is far from vital to our meaningful existence. Let me be clear that it is chief among the sacraments by which we may participate with God in the act of creation. But we can (and millions have done and do now) live peaceably and happily without it. It is a trademarked arch-argument of the homosexual movement to place sexuality as the most defining characteristic of our existence and therefore impossible to live without. This is a lie. Please see it for what it is. The distinction between chastity and celibacy seems always to be overlooked by Church leaders. You may recall that in his somewhat recent newspaper interview in California, President Hinkley compared the plight of homosexuals to that of the single sisters in the Church. To paraphrase, he said that the Church doesn't ask homosexuals to do anything it doesn't also ask of its other single adult members - to live chaste lives. But this simply isn't true. As a former bishop I have firsthand experience. We openly love and support our single brothers and sisters. We give them important callings - especially with out youth and children. We urge them to date, to flirt, to get crushes, to fall in love, to marry. We sponsor Ward and Stake activities and dances to get them together to accomplish this. We ask them to be chaste - until they find someone to share their life and intimacy with…
James says: You seem to be confusing feelings and inclinations with behavior. All of these services are offered to your son as he fits the description of "single adult member." If we sub-categorized all of the single adult members by their feelings or temptations then we would be able to do nothing for them. Try to refrain from defining your son by his feelings. He is a man, a son, a friend, he has talents and abilities, and he makes meaningful contributions. Define your son by these not by his feelings and inclinations. I find your constant focus on his feelings and inclinations more disabling and offensive to your son's sense of worth than anything said in Elder Packer's talk. Imagine if you were chiefly defined by your feelings and inclinations instead of your contributions. Pay your son the same respect and help him define himself by contributions and not feelings or inclinations.…We go out of our way to give them something of immeasurable value in the struggle to keep the law of chastity - hope - hope that no matter how difficult this emotional and physical loneliness is, it is temporary. For those with the least control over their situation, our single sisters, we give special encouragement and hope that they will find love, emotional intimacy and fulfillment in this life - and if not, certainly in the next.
We do not knowingly give homosexuals important callings…
James says: You are here describing culture, not doctrine or even policy. Callings are given to anyone who shows virtue in their lifestyle and behavior. The leaders of each ward do not make judgments about the feelings, inclinations or temptations the members experience... only their faith, virtue and behavior. Furthermore, if done appropriately, callings are extended after careful prayer and pondering so that such callings are confirmed by the Lord before they are ever extended. Surely you experienced this during your stewardship as bishop. - especially not with our youth or children who would be at risk of being infected and recruited. We forbid them ever to flirt, to date, to get crushes, to fall in love, to have a legally-recognized monogamous relationship. The image of a Tri-Stake Gay and Lesbian Gold-and-Green Ball is amusing.
James says: You imply that we should accept and support practices that go contrary to the will of God as substantiated in the Bible, one of our standard works. God has been very clear in the old and New Testaments on this subject. And even more clear in the inspired and highly relevant proclamation to the world on the family. You are seeking to counsel God when you ask his servants to support such behaviors. Would you ask God to make the sky green and the grass blue? The Church is never going to encourage dating, flirting, and monogamous relationships between two people of the same gender... all the while supporting such activities in heterosexual relationships. You know very well the doctrinally foundational reasons why. Start with Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 or perhaps Romans 1:27 or 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.We ask them to be chaste – forever...
James says: This is asked of everyone... forever, married or not.… No hope at all. The question of sexual intimacy aside - can you imagine having being denied the ability to become attracted to, flirt with, get a crush on, hold hands with, steal a kiss from, or fall in love with you wife? With all trace of romantic love and emotional intimacy denied you, with what would you fill the void to hold at bay a life of loneliness, emptiness, and despair?
James says: How about selfless devotion to God and his children? You have gone to no small trouble to illustrate your son's selfless nature. Let his selflessness bear fruit. Consider in this example Matthew 19:8-12 and 1 Corinthian 7.We do have at least one historic example to look to. The Catholic Church has attempted to enforce celibacy on its clergy throughout the ages with success at some level (although we will never know what level). With what did they replace the emotional void? They had the love and adulation of the church membership, and authority and power. They were, in fact, the Bishops, Stake Presidents, and General Authorities. They were held next to deity - and their record is less than stellar. Imagine the celibacy success rate of a group defined by a loathsome and abominable "condition."
James says: Your words seem to be soliciting pity to accept a behavior directly contrary to foundational LDS doctrines based on our views of eternal truths. Doing so would require neither you nor your son have to take up your crosses and deny the lusts of the flesh. While that would be tremendously convenient for you, what good could come from embracing a natural tendency that shows no signs of constructive contribution to any size of community.
Imagine also, for a moment, if you were to stand up in front of the freshman class at BYU and announce that everyone present was being given a special calling to live a celibate life from then on. How many do you think would really be able to do it?
James says: This is a needless and vain example based on no principle beyond speculation. Please keep your examples relevant and plausible.How many empty and guilty lives and suicides would result? The Church has never taught the principle of celibacy. As a parent, I don't have the slightest idea how to begin teaching it. There are no manuals, no courses, no "For the Strength of Celibate Youth" cards to carry. There are no Priesthood, Relief Society, Sunday School, or Primary lessons on celibacy.
James says: You have still looked no higher than the Church and its manuals. What about the Lord? You make no mention of an appeal to Him. Perhaps it is because we all know His answer already as recorded in both modern and ancient scripture. On the other hand, following the teachings of the Church, we have raised our children in a home filled with open love, intimacy, loyalty and commitment between a couple. Our children know Carlie and I adore each other, and they want and need the same thing in their lives.
I never thought I would say this, but as a father given the choice between (a) my son's suicide, (b) his complete abandonment of the Church and embracing of the extreme gay culture with its emotionally debilitating and physically dangerous practice of anonymous casual sex, or (c) living in a committed, monogamous relationship for the rest of his life practicing the Gospel virtues of love, commitment, and fidelity we have taught in our home, I would have to pick the latter. The Church, however, is now doing all in its power to prevent that. Presumably, it has a better alternative - one that works on something other than a dogmatic and theoretical level.
Then again, perhaps my son is simply a casualty of war - acceptable "collateral damage" in an eternal plan and struggle in which by the luck of the draw he has no relevance or place. The Gospel has always been easy to have faith in and follow because it made real sense and worked in our lives. This would make no sense. And the current doctrine, as set forth in To The One is not working for our family.
James says: Are there not exceptions to every general principle given? I can't tell you how strange and difficult this is. It's like we woke up one morning on a different planet. In our greatest time of need as a family, the Church has failed us and abandoned us –
James says: Where is your bill of divorcement? The Lord has not turned from you. Isaiah 50:1…and through the convenient but hurtful doctrine of parental causation,
James says: NOT A DOCTRINE. Be careful not to cast a false light. Doing so will only undo your argument in the end.…complicity and guilt it directly promotes (evidence the article in September's Ensign), it kicks us while we are down! I know this is only one of many issues that the Brethren deal with, and certainly not at the top of their list, but for us it has become our universe. We live in this issue twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, and must raise our children through it by our best lights. And there are many more like us in the Church. Parents like us are ultimately forced to make a hopeless decision: abandon our homosexual children, or turn from the Church. "Not so," you say. You would never know unless you walked in our shoes.
James says: True. and I am so sorry for your struggle.My brother, Ralph, asked me at one point "What would you have the General Authorities do about this issue?"
I wish that someone in authority would have the compassion and the courage simply to own up publicly to the fact that this is a difficult issue about which we just don't have many answers.
I wish someone in authority would publicly urge the members to withhold their judgment and condemnation, accept those like my son into their midst, and have true compassion and love for those who through no choice of their own will deal with the issue of homosexuality all of their lives.
James says: I think these are very reasonable requests...up to this point.I wish someone in authority would publicly assure the members that by withholding their judgment and condemnation and showing acceptance and real love, they won't get leprosy, nor will their children be at risk - that the divine concept of Family will not be compromised or weakened, but that real families with real issues will in fact be strengthened.
James says: This one is a little trickier as it is asking the Church to walk a tightrope. Like in the word of wisdom many of the teachings of this Church are required by everyone but given for the weakest of the weak. We cannot predict how the weakest of Saints, or those who could be called saints might behave with this assurance you request. I therefore find it unreasonable.I wish that someone in authority would recognize that To The One was an effort twenty years ago by a very good man to address a difficult issue in the context of the time in which it was written, and pull it from circulation.
James says: After another careful review, I don't believe this talk has lost any of its relevance. Your issues seem to be more with the foundational studies used by LDSSS. Perhaps that is where you should be directing your requests.Elder Packer, I have never been one to question, demand, or "kick against the pricks." I am a follower, a believer, an obeyer. But I can no longer wait patiently while the Brethren try to figure this issue out at the cost of my son's life, and the lives of others like him.
James says: I note that you have since left the Church and do currently kick against the pricks. I am sorry for your many losses. May God bless you. Respectfully, James Arrington.Respectfully,
David Eccles Hardy
