The Gospel According to Jeffrey

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 th...

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 has...