I have been thinking a lot about the interview with LDS authorities Dallin H. Oaks and Lance B. Wickman on the topic of Homosexuality and the Church, which I recently posted about here. I wish that they had elaborated more about the issue of celibacy. Perhaps they would have if the interviewers had asked a question raising the issue.
In general, single members of the church are only required to refrain from specifically sexual behavior. They may appropriately express physical and emotional intimacy with members of the opposite sex through close physical proximity, dancing together, holding hands, dating, writing love letters or poetry to each other, and affectionately kissing and still be celibate and chaste.
However, members who struggle with homosexual temptation are expected to refrain from all physical and emotional intimacy with members of the same sex to whom they are attracted. This is a similar but even more restrictive degree of abstinence than is expected of full-time missionaries, who can at least write affectionate letters to their girl or boyfriend. And unlike missionaries, members with same-sex temptation are expected to maintain it for their entire life and not just the two years of missionary service.
Perhaps this degree of abstinence should be distinguished with a unique and laudatory expression such as “Superchastity” .
We might regard those members who abide by this law of superchastity because of same-sex attraction somewhat like the biblical lifelong Nazarites, who took upon themselves certain behavioral restrictions that were not required of the majority of the faithful, with the important distinction that a Nazarite life was voluntary, whereas a life of superchastity is a requirement of the unique, earthly challenge of same-sex attracted members.
I think that we ought to recognize this distinction between the chastity the Lord requires of single members in general and the superchastity He requires of members with same-sex attraction.
I have often thought that if, as the scriptures say, where much is given much is required, then the corollary is that where the Lord requires much, much will be given. I have no doubt that since the Lord requires superchastity of the same-sex attracted, he will also bless them an extra measure for their obedience, even if the full measure of that blessing is not meted until their exaltation in the next life.
Superchastity … interesting idea that this is what is requested of LDS who have same-sex attraction.
Something about this post doesn’t sit well with me. Part of it is how you have pitted the chastity required of heterosexuals against the chastity required of those who suffer same-sex attraction. It really is the same law of chastity they are required to follow, it’s not different based on who you are. Just harder for some to follow than for others (and the line between some and others isn’t strictly along the heterosexual/homosexual divide!). I think you have also missed a few of the other vital points made in the interview.
Foremost is that nobody is doomed to forever be subject to their current feelings and tendencies. Through the help of a loving Heavenly Father, all can be overcome. It would seem that people who suffer same-sex attraction can and should have every bit as much hope as those who are single. Certainly they have a harder road to travel, but nobody should feel they are condemned to never experience all the joys life has to offer.
Secondly, people who suffer SSA are not alone in being unlikely to ever marry and have a fulfilling relationship in this life. That was something I hadn’t thought much about before reading this interview, and it really struck me. I think a lot of things you hear and read out there try to convince you that people who profess to be homosexual are very unique in their suffering, and can’t we just allow them to give in to the feelings they have. Same-sex attraction really is a difficult trial to face, but it’s really not that unique in the struggle it causes nor is it altogether foremost in its difficulty among trials.
I do agree with your sentiments that we in The Church need to face the facts that people suffer this trial, and though it may seem incredibly foreign to us and difficult to understand, we need to accept and encourage those who strive against it with love and fellowship.
Thanks for your wonderful insights Bryan.
I feel bad that my post did not sit well with you. Perhaps I have overplayed the distinction, as you say. However, I think that far too often we do just the opposite. We often minimize the problem and imply that the challenge faced by members with same-sex attraction is the same as any other single member of the church trying to obey the law of chastity. While the law they are asked to obey is identical, the implications of the law upon them are significantly more stringent than they are for many single members, even if they are not wholly unique. I coined the term superchastity simply to offset that minimization.
The message of the interview really was one of hope, as you point out, and I did not mean to detract from that.
Just as I think it is important for the general membership to realize and acknowledge the extent and difficulty of the constraints placed upon same-sex attracted members by the law of chastity, instead of minimizing it, I agree with you that it is important that same-sex attracted members realize that other members also face great tests of faith and obedience; that while the details of their same-sex attraction story may be different, there is a shared meta-story among the faithful as we grapple with all kinds of inclinations that are contrary to the gospel, or circumstances that deprive us, for the time being, of opportunities available to others. Same-sex attracted members should see themselves as within that shared story/experience of putting off the natural man instead of outside with their own story.
My intention is not to place the challenge and faith of valiant same-sex attracted members into competition with the challenges faced by other members. I completely agree that framing the issue in an “olympics of suffering” motif would be wrong.
I hope you can read this in the spirit in which it was meant so that the post may sit better with you.
And keep commenting…it is nice to get some feedback. :)
Thanks for the kind words and for not taking my comments in a bad way. Your clarification helps and your post is sitting better with me now (as if you should care that much about how it sits with little old me).
Basically, you were writing to us members of The Church who might not grasp the difficulty of the plight of those same-sex attracted members, or who might try to ignore or trivialize it. You were not writing to the rest of the world, nor necessarily even to those who suffer same-sex attraction, as Elders Oaks and Wickman were. That really does change the way I read your article. I think your point to the members is a very good one.
I can’t remember now how I discovered your blog, it was just the other day, but I consider it a good find. I’ve enjoyed it very much, keep writing yourself.
Thanks Bryan. I appreciate that.
Your post on “Superchasity” is, I believe, extraordinary. We have posted an excerpt from your post, and a link to the full post, on our own blog, http://blog.buckandmike.com. Thanks for putting great thought into this issue.
I think this concept applies to more than just those who abstain from any homosexual conduct. I think it can apply to heterosexuals who, because of disability or other extenuating circumstances, never have the opportunity to experience any of the closeness, etc. that falls within the bounds of “appropriate” pre-marital experience. I have a good friend who falls in this category. When I was single, we had some tender heart-to-hearts about this. She explained how just because she was paralyzed in a wheelchair did not mean she did not have desires and needs like any other heterosexual woman. It broke my heart; she is over 60 and more than likely will never experience any level of heterosexual intimacy in this life. While I agree that homosexuals in the LDS faith who choose to remain completely celibate do face a challenging situation, they are not the only ones who will face life in the way you describe here. Nevertheless, I think compassion and understanding for anyone in that kind of situation is certainly warranted. I also think, however, that we should focus on closeness and friendships that can provide emotional connection, even if that physical connection does not come in this life. Too much focus on what isn’t or won’t be is never really healthy, ya know?
Mike,
Thanks for the compliment. While we disagree strongly on many issues, I hope that you can see that I have put some effort into understanding the implications of the church’s doctrine and policy on its same-sex attracted members.
Perhaps the term superchastity causes a little too much confusion in that it gives the impression that it is a different law than than the law of Chastity. Perhaps a better term would be SuperAbstinence, to clarify that the law of chastity is the same, but of same-sex attracted members it requires SuperAbstinence to adhere to the law.
Those who are attracted to their same gender do have a very difficult challenge. But God expects us all to use these challenges to become stronger and more humble. We are all expected to live the same law of chastity, regardless of our circumstances in life. And if we endure it well, we will be rewarded for doing so. I personally know many people who are experiencing this challenge in their lives and using it to their advantage to really come to understand themselves and their relationship with God. It has given them greater understanding of their feelings, needs, and wants. They are growing through the homosexuality and becoming more balanced and happier in their lives. Some find that the homosexual feelings have left completely and are living normal heterosexual lives. For them, it is not “superchastity” or “superabstinance;” they have resolved the conflicts in their lives that created the homosexual feelings. There is help through this process available from LDS Family Services (www.ldsfamilyservices.org) and Evergreen International (www.evergreeninternational.org).
Thank you brother Richman. I think we agree that it is important to help those members of the church who do struggle with this problem to approach it in a way that builds faith and their Relationship with God. My “superchastity” nomenclature was proposed in that light, with an eye toward helping members who do not suffer from these feelings understand and empathize with their challenge and support them in their chastity.