A Letter to Brother Crook
For those of you who have been following my serialized conversion story, I apologize for the interjection. However, there is an issue floating around the internet that I felt I must weigh in on, while the opportunity still presents itself. The issue is that of two Latter-day Saints, Brother Mitch Mayne and Brother Michael Crook.
Brother Mayne, for those who haven’t heard, is an openly gay man who has supposedly been sustained as the executive secretary (his web site erroneously states “a member of the Bishopric”) in his San-Francisco-Bay-Area ward. This is, of course, not a problem, if Brother Mayne be committed to living the gospel (a willingness which I do not feel at liberty to judge). What is a problem, however, is that according to Brother Mayne’s web site, he is “open to a relationship if fate brings that my way,” and “not committing to a lifetime of celibacy.” If this “relationship” he speaks of be an indication of continued homosexuality, it certainly sounds like he hasn’t repented. (Again, that’s not for me to judge, but goodness knows a lot of people—both in the Church and out—are doing a heck of a lot of judging.)
On the other side of this coin is Brother Michael Crook, a man who is very active on Twitter and whom I respect as a fellow defender of the faith. Brother Crook has been extremely outspoken in his condemnation of Brother Mayne, even questioning if his calling be “a black eye on the… Church’s face.” As much as I really do respect Brother Crook, he has begun to use a phrase that I think really misses the mark and, quite frankly, might cast doubt on his trustworthiness, particularly in some circles. As such, I’d like to take the opportunity (while it exists) to respond with an open letter of response.
Thanks for your indulgence. :-)
Michael,
Before I get into the meat of this letter, I’d like to point out that, as I’ve implied in our Twitter conversations, I really do appreciate what you’re doing. If Mitch Mayne is truly unrepentant (which I feel unworthy to judge), then something needs to be done about his calling, perhaps even his membership in the Church. Forgiveness is, of course, available, but I find it hard to believe that one who not only refuses to repent but actually flaunts his sins before the world would be found worthy to serve in such a capacity. Hopefully, however this situation be resolved, it will be resolved quickly.
That having been said, I do want to take issue with a phrase you’ve used in both this post and others. Several times now, you’ve referenced “members of the Church who have made the choice to be attracted to members of the same gender.” While I don’t deny that there may be some who have done this, I suspect that the reality isn’t nearly as cut and dry as you make it sound.
The official Church web site includes an interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and Elder Lance B. Wickman of the Seventy. In this interview, Elder Oaks makes the following statement:
The point is that despite some people’s interpretation of President Boyd K. Packer’s October 2010 General Conference address, Cleansing the Inner Vessel (which, by the way, never mentioned homosexuality at all), each of us really does have “inborn temptations.” Even the Apostle Paul spoke of this in 2 Corinthians 12. The problem is not the belief that these weaknesses be innate, but rather—as President Packer explicitly pointed out—the belief that we cannot overcome them. (For more on this, please see my own, five-part discussion of his talk.)
On a personal note, I have inborn, innate temptations that vex me, every day. I have one in particular that I succumbed to regularly, before my baptism, which took me almost a decade thereafter to overcome. While it has now been over a decade since I last gave in to that temptation, it still haunts me to this day, forcing me to continually and consciously decide to keep it in my past. Like Paul, I “besought the Lord that it might depart from me,” but He never saw fit to bless me in that way. As such, I continue to fight, day after day, year after year, that weak thing ever becoming stronger unto me (see Ether 12:27), yet never fully disappearing from my view.
I suspect that most people that suffer from same-sex attraction are in a similar situation to I. They didn’t make a conscious choice to be attracted to their own sex; that’s just part of who they are. The choice they have to make is not whether to suffer temptation, but whether to give into temptation. And that, my dear brother, is a choice we all can make.
I don’t claim to know whether or not Mitch Mayne chose his same-sex attraction, but I find it highly unlikely. (At the very least, I find it extremely unlikely that it be completely by choice.) Did he choose to have a homosexual relationship? Indubitably; to claim any less would be nonsensical. But did he choose to feel that way, in the first place? I doubt it, and I doubt that our Savior would think much of your assertion to that effect. I suspect you don’t know what goes on in another man’s brain any more than I do, and I know that I, at least, am most prideful when I’m assigning motive to one who sins differently than I. If we can just try keep this civil, I think it will go a long way towards showing people what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is truly about. :-)
Thanks for reading, Michael, and thanks again for all you do.
Sincerely,
Jeff
Brother Mayne, for those who haven’t heard, is an openly gay man who has supposedly been sustained as the executive secretary (his web site erroneously states “a member of the Bishopric”) in his San-Francisco-Bay-Area ward. This is, of course, not a problem, if Brother Mayne be committed to living the gospel (a willingness which I do not feel at liberty to judge). What is a problem, however, is that according to Brother Mayne’s web site, he is “open to a relationship if fate brings that my way,” and “not committing to a lifetime of celibacy.” If this “relationship” he speaks of be an indication of continued homosexuality, it certainly sounds like he hasn’t repented. (Again, that’s not for me to judge, but goodness knows a lot of people—both in the Church and out—are doing a heck of a lot of judging.)
On the other side of this coin is Brother Michael Crook, a man who is very active on Twitter and whom I respect as a fellow defender of the faith. Brother Crook has been extremely outspoken in his condemnation of Brother Mayne, even questioning if his calling be “a black eye on the… Church’s face.” As much as I really do respect Brother Crook, he has begun to use a phrase that I think really misses the mark and, quite frankly, might cast doubt on his trustworthiness, particularly in some circles. As such, I’d like to take the opportunity (while it exists) to respond with an open letter of response.
Thanks for your indulgence. :-)
Michael,
Before I get into the meat of this letter, I’d like to point out that, as I’ve implied in our Twitter conversations, I really do appreciate what you’re doing. If Mitch Mayne is truly unrepentant (which I feel unworthy to judge), then something needs to be done about his calling, perhaps even his membership in the Church. Forgiveness is, of course, available, but I find it hard to believe that one who not only refuses to repent but actually flaunts his sins before the world would be found worthy to serve in such a capacity. Hopefully, however this situation be resolved, it will be resolved quickly.
That having been said, I do want to take issue with a phrase you’ve used in both this post and others. Several times now, you’ve referenced “members of the Church who have made the choice to be attracted to members of the same gender.” While I don’t deny that there may be some who have done this, I suspect that the reality isn’t nearly as cut and dry as you make it sound.
The official Church web site includes an interview with Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles and Elder Lance B. Wickman of the Seventy. In this interview, Elder Oaks makes the following statement:
“[H]omosexual feelings are controllable. Perhaps there is an inclination or susceptibility to such feelings that is a reality for some and not a reality for others. But out of such susceptibilities come feelings, and feelings are controllable. If we cater to the feelings, they increase the power of the temptation. If we yield to the temptation, we have committed sinful behavior. That pattern is the same for a person that covets someone else’s property and has a strong temptation to steal. It’s the same for a person that develops a taste for alcohol. It’s the same for a person that is born with a ‘short fuse,’ as we would say of a susceptibility to anger. If they let that susceptibility remain uncontrolled, it becomes a feeling of anger, and a feeling of anger can yield to behavior that is sinful and illegal.”
The point is that despite some people’s interpretation of President Boyd K. Packer’s October 2010 General Conference address, Cleansing the Inner Vessel (which, by the way, never mentioned homosexuality at all), each of us really does have “inborn temptations.” Even the Apostle Paul spoke of this in 2 Corinthians 12. The problem is not the belief that these weaknesses be innate, but rather—as President Packer explicitly pointed out—the belief that we cannot overcome them. (For more on this, please see my own, five-part discussion of his talk.)
On a personal note, I have inborn, innate temptations that vex me, every day. I have one in particular that I succumbed to regularly, before my baptism, which took me almost a decade thereafter to overcome. While it has now been over a decade since I last gave in to that temptation, it still haunts me to this day, forcing me to continually and consciously decide to keep it in my past. Like Paul, I “besought the Lord that it might depart from me,” but He never saw fit to bless me in that way. As such, I continue to fight, day after day, year after year, that weak thing ever becoming stronger unto me (see Ether 12:27), yet never fully disappearing from my view.
I suspect that most people that suffer from same-sex attraction are in a similar situation to I. They didn’t make a conscious choice to be attracted to their own sex; that’s just part of who they are. The choice they have to make is not whether to suffer temptation, but whether to give into temptation. And that, my dear brother, is a choice we all can make.
I don’t claim to know whether or not Mitch Mayne chose his same-sex attraction, but I find it highly unlikely. (At the very least, I find it extremely unlikely that it be completely by choice.) Did he choose to have a homosexual relationship? Indubitably; to claim any less would be nonsensical. But did he choose to feel that way, in the first place? I doubt it, and I doubt that our Savior would think much of your assertion to that effect. I suspect you don’t know what goes on in another man’s brain any more than I do, and I know that I, at least, am most prideful when I’m assigning motive to one who sins differently than I. If we can just try keep this civil, I think it will go a long way towards showing people what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is truly about. :-)
Thanks for reading, Michael, and thanks again for all you do.
Sincerely,
Jeff
Thank you for writing this. Here is my response to your response:
ReplyDeletehttp://theblog.michaelcrook.org/2011/08/response-according-to-michael.html
I dunno about Dallin Oaks but my feelings don't have a sexual preference. Maybe Brother Oaks just means that *he* can control his own same sex attraction feelings so he thinks it's possible for others to do the same?
ReplyDeleteWould enjoy hearing your thoughts on this.
I suspect that what Elder Oaks means is that we all live with inclination to sin on a daily basis, but no matter what our personal inclination may be, it can be overcome.
ReplyDeleteSome people are inclined to have sex with every person on the street. Some people are inclined to skip morning scripture study. Some people are inclined to steal that Twix bar by the cash register. Some people are inclined to barbecue the neighbors and mail them to Lady Gaga. Heck, some people are inclined to join the Church of Jesus Christ and remain active members for the rest of their lives.
The point is that doesn’t matter what one’s personal inclination may be, nor even whether it be good, bad, or indifferent. I find women (particularly my wife) attractive, but if, Heaven forbid, my wife were to pass away tomorrow, I wouldn’t have to start another relationship or risk implosion. We are agents unto ourselves, and every one of us has urges to which we never give in.
That, I would say, is what Elder Oaks was talking about: in a word, self-control.
Jeff, I appreciate that you've thought about the situation critically. That's awesome. That got me on a deep-think track about a few subtle differences between sexual orientation and the inclinations to which you've referred (e.g., to steal a Twix bar). You've basically asserted that all inclinations are basically on the same playing field. What happens, though, when God says to one person "You can act on this inclination" then turns to another person and says "I'm sorry, you can't act on this inclination"?
ReplyDeleteThat's how I view sexual orientation in the LDS Church: God has told straight Mormons, Date! Hold hands! Kiss! Develop these powerful urges within you in a relationship (i.e., marriage) with someone you feel the urges for; God has told gay Mormons, Stay away from people you are attracted to! Don't think idle thoughts! Don't, under any circumstance, let these feelings grow and blossom!
I recognize that within that framework both gay Mormons and straight Mormons are asked to keep impure thoughts and desires at bay. But I can't help but also see the differences. It then makes sense to me that gay Mormons are at such a high risk for suicide: they have no outlet for the inclination they feel when their peers do have an outlet; Moreover, their straight peers are encouraged to develop those feelings and attractions.
I would love to know your thoughts and reactions.
Ryan, check out my latest post for my thoughts. thanks for the question! :-)
ReplyDelete