Bridle All Your Passions

It’s time again for everyone’s favorite game show, Respond to Michael!

Seriously, though, I want to begin this entry by explaining that I really do respect Michael Crook. We’ve disagreed before, and I’m sure we will again. However, the guy’s got a good head on his shoulders and makes a lot of good points. My issue is generally not with his positions so much as the abrasion with which they tend to be presented.

That being said, Michael’s latest post, entitled No Victims They, has made a rather interesting claim: that homosexuality cannot be innate because “our Heavenly Father would force such a sick, foul, and obscene desire on any of his children.” While I recognize that Brother Crook is mostly paraphrasing and expanding upon President Boyd K. Packer’s instructions regarding pornography in the Church’s 180th Semiannual General Conference (which I commented on, at the time), I think he’s taking things a little farther than even President Packer intended. So for those who feel so inclined to read (which hopefully includes Michael himself), here’s my response:

 

---

 

Michael, I really appreciate what you’re say, but I think you’ve missed the point just a bit. I’m not sure anyone—self-described “gays” included—believe that “Heavenly Father would force such a… desire on any of his children.” (As an aside, I omit your adjectives not because they’re incorrect, but because they’re irrelevant and somewhat detrimental to my point.)

Heavenly Father doesn’t “force” desires on anyone, whether good, bad, or indifferent. That’s the whole concept of agency: we are free to choose, without fear of undue influence from outside sources. While Father will never give us commandments which we are unable to follow (see 1 Nephi 3:7; cf. Philippians 4:13), neither will He remove our ability to reject said instructions. The use of force is fundamentally incompatible with the doctrines of the Gospel of Christ (see Doctrine & Covenants 121, especially vv.37-41).

That being said, we must return to what I have often pointed out, in the past: we all have desires and tendencies that fall short of our Father’s perfect will. For some, that desire might be same-sex attraction. For others, it might be overeating. For yet others, it might be skipping Sunday meetings. For still others, it might be—to use my common example—barbecuing the neighbors and mailing them to Lady Gaga. It ultimately doesn’t matter what our desires and tendencies might be; they do exist, and they are innate to our imperfect, mortal bodies. I’m sorry, Michael, but you can’t get around that. Even President Packer never claimed otherwise.

The purpose of this life, Michael, is not to pretend that our frailties don’t exist. To do so would frustrate our Eternal progression and prohibit us from achieving perfection. Note what Paul told the Corinthians:

“[T]here was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure. For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. And [H]e said unto me, ‘My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness.’
“Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Therefore I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in necessities, in persecutions, in distresses for Christ’s sake: for when I am weak, then am I strong… [and] in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles, though I be nothing.” (2 Corinthians 12:7-11)

Even the Apostle Paul, one of the greatest Christians in history, had at least one aberrant desire that, no matter how hard he tried, he couldn’t get Father to take away. Father’s response was simple: “Deal with it. I’ll help you all I can, but you’ve got to deal with it.” This echoes the Prophet Alma’s counsel to his son Shiblon: “bridle all your passions” (Alma 38:12; cf. James 3:2). Note that Alma does not say to suppress all [our] passions, just to bridle them. Control them. Use them in an appropriate and beneficial manner. Our passions really are a part of us, Michael, and to say otherwise is to oversimplify reality in a way that is detrimental to us all—both those who struggle with a particular desire and those who must love and empathize with them.

Now, all this having been said, does this make the homosexual a victim? Of course not. He has chosen to act on his aberrant tendencies and is as accountable as anyone else for his actions. Does it make the homosexuous a victim? Likewise no, except inasmuch as we are all victims of our inappropriate desires. Does it mean that we should legalize homorrhage? Heck no, for the same reason that we shouldn’t legalize murder. “I was born that way” does not constitute a valid defense for decriminalizing harmful behavior. (As an aside, homosexuals can get married and have that marriage recognized by the Church; they just can’t homorry and have it recognized. But I digress.)

In short, I’d like to invite you to be a bit more open and loving towards those who sin differently than we. We neither have to nor should condone their behavior (especially standing in open rebellion to the Lord and His Church, as a very vocal minority do), but we do need to love them and welcome them with open arms. As a friend with a Word of Wisdom problem once said, “Please don’t look down on me, just because your sins don’t make your clothes stink.” Same-sex attraction is no less real than whatever you’re struggling with, and by randomly assigning “shun-worthiness” to a particular sin, we not only ignore the example of the Savior, but make it that much more difficult for our brothers and sisters to repent.