The Art of Deception, an opinion article by Max D. Crapo

The Art of Deception

Recently David Bednar, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints engaged in a question and answer session with Spanish speaking members of the Church.

The question was “How can homosexual members of the church live and remain steadfast in the gospel?”

What followed was a classic example of political posturing, vague generalizations, an apples-to-oranges comparison, subtle shaming through trivialization and capped with an outright lie.

There is an unwritten rule in politics. If you are asked a question you do not want to answer, change the question and answer that one instead. Without missing a beat, Bednar responded,

“First I want to change the question. There are no homosexual members of the church. We are not defined by sexual attraction. We are not defined by sexual behavior. We are sons and daughters of God and all of us have different challenges in the flesh.”

Let’s break this statement down and analyze it. Taken as a whole this statement is patently false. The church does have homosexual members. They may be “in the closet” or they may be out but “not acting on their urges.” Membership in the community of “sons and daughters of God” is not mutually exclusive with being members of communities which identify on sexual orientation. Also, Church leaders clearly define the importance of our sexual orientation since the church, in its “Proclamation to the Family” boldly declares that the only Godly sanctioned relationship is that of “one man and one woman”… in other words, a heterosexual relationship. It serves to demonstrate that the church values heterosexuality.

Psychologically, this statement is an act of trivializing a core component of human identity. It is a form of shaming by minimizing. It is analogous to saying “Your sexual identity is meaningless.” Your sexual identity is a base (foundational) component in your overall identity. In trivializing gender attraction, Bednar is intimating that it is an unimportant aspect of life…suggesting to homosexuals that living a celibate life without intimacy doesn’t matter. It trivializes those who are same sex oriented and ignores their need for human intimacy.

Bednar then goes on to make an apples-to-oranges comparison.

“Would it be a challenge to be very beautiful or very handsome, and in the world in which we live, never develop deep character because we are able to open doors and have success just because of our physical appearance? And we become shallow and superficial in many aspects of our lives.”

In Mormonism, physical beauty is not considered in any way “sinful” nor is one so gifted punished for utilizing their beauty or physical attraction as an advantage. Shallow people are not “eternally condemned” for being shallow. In fact, comparing gender attraction with physical beauty is shallow, in and of itself. The major difference between “acting on beauty” and “acting on homosexual gender attraction” though, buys you a one-way ticket to a “disciplinary council” where members are punished for homosexual behavior. 

“Some people have physical limitations. They may be born with a body that is not fully functional, or we may have an inclination to be attracted to those of the same sex.”

This statement is a deliberate attempt to insinuate that people with same sex gender orientation are somehow broken, thus the comparison to people who are handicapped in some way. It is, again, shaming through the use of trivialization. It is roughly equivalent to saying “These people who are legally recognized as broken are able to cope with their disabilities, so what are you whining about? They have to live with their ‘problems’ so why can’t you shut up and just endure like they do?” It is another apples-to-oranges comparison, because again, those with disabilities aren’t going to be “eternally condemned” for “acting on their disabilities.” 

“Through the atonement of Jesus Christ we are blessed with moral agency. Agency is the capacity to act and not simply be acted upon.”  [Picks up water bottle and holds above his head] “This is a bottle of water. It’s an object. It has no capacity to act. It is an object that can only be acted upon. So this object moves if I cause it to move, or if some other force causes it to move. You and I are not objects. We are agents. Blessed with agency because of the atonement of Christ, and with that agency we are to act and not be acted upon. That agency gives us the capacity to determine how we will respond to the variety of challenges we will experience in the flesh. So, you choose, you act in accordance with the teachings of Christ.”

In this statement, Bednar is shaming homosexuals through what I would call “spiritual abuse.” He deceptively trivializes both the power of sexual urges, and the human need for companionship and intimacy. In every single human society, solitary confinement is a punishment reserved for the worst of criminals. In requiring homosexuals to act against their gender orientation, he is cruelly advocating for a life of celibacy and loneliness, a life without intimacy, tantamount to social solitary confinement. His use of “choice” is not actually “choice”, but an imposed “moral imperative” for gays and lesbians to act against their own best interests.  His presumptive use of “acting in accordance with the teachings of Christ” implies that homosexuality pits them “against Christ.”  Yet, there is no scriptural basis to conclude that Christ was opposed to homosexuality. He was surprisingly silent on the subject.

“Simply being attracted to someone of the same gender is not a sin.”

It wasn’t that many years ago that Same Sex Attraction (SSA) was considered to be a sin.  This statement at least shows that LDS leaders have finally recognized that homosexuality is an inborn trait rather than a choice. Too bad they are unable to accept that perhaps God has a purpose for gays. Doesn’t an inborn trait indicate that maybe God made them that way?

 There are many members of the church who may have some manifestation of that attraction. They honor their covenants, they keep the commandments, they are worthy. They can receive the blessings of the temple and they can serve in the church. It is when we act on the inclination or the attraction – that’s when it becomes a sin. So, the reason I began my answer as I did, is that in this question, the word "homosexual" was used to describe or label a member of the church. It’s an inaccurate label. We are sons and daughter of god and we determine how respond to the variety of challenges we experience in mortality through the proper exercise of our moral agency.”

This is basically a reiteration of what was stated above. Yes, there ARE homosexuals, and the label is accurate. I agree that it isn’t a complete picture of an individual. That said, sexual orientation is certainly a core part of an individual’s identity and the entire statement is again a reiteration of the imposed “moral imperative” with another dose of trivialization. “They are worthy” is a subtle reminder that these men believe firmly that they have the right to judge and condemn. Sadly, members of the church believe they have that right too.

“Moral agency” is Mormon codespeak for “sexual behavior.” Sexual shame is the lynchpin for LDS leadership to exert control in the Mormon community. This blog explains in more detail.

“Now I want to speak very directly to you. The world teaches that we must be tolerant and accepting. There are some things we do not accept or tolerate. We love all people with whatever challenge any person faces.”

This statement is the church’s “line in the sand”… the point with which they refuse to move.  The overt message is that we love everyone no matter what their problems are, but the covert message is “if you are gay and act on it, you are outta here.” Restated, it is “we accept but we don’t, we tolerate but we don’t do that either.”

“The purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and of the Savior's church, is to assist people in receiving the strength to deal with the challenge.”

 -- It is important to recognize that this statement is a blaming statement. If you do not receive such help then “somehow” the blame is on you. You weren’t righteous enough or you didn’t pray hard enough, or in some other way “YOU” are at fault. This message is the one that results in suicides. It is also the excuse used by church leaders to use shame and guilt over normal sexual behavior to take punitive actions against members. This statement is used to steal sexual empowerment from members.

Finally, the next statement is where we get to the crux of the matter.

“So we do not discriminate, and we are not bigots. We extend Christ-like love to all sons and daughters of God.”

Except…they do discriminate and they are bigots! This statement is an outright lie. They extend neither tolerance nor love to sons and daughters which act on homosexual “urges” even in legally sanctioned unions.  They promptly expunge them from the records of the church. Bigotry is defined as “treating someone with prejudice based on an inborn trait such as skin color, DNA, and other such traits” of which gender orientation is included. Facebook is exposing many instances where married gays and lesbians are being called into so-called “courts of love” and excommunicated. In many cases these couples haven’t been actively involved in the church for a long time, yet Church leaders are practically dragging them in to “disciplinary courts” to shame and excommunicate them. This is an expression of love?  I certainly don’t want to see what their “hate” looks like. It certainly demonstrates both discrimination and bigotry.

The rest of his comments refer to the “Proclamation to the Family” which form the basis of Mormonism’s institutionalized bigotry.

In the end, the church has every right to discriminate against lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and the transgendered. If they were honest, they would simply acknowledge their bigotry and their religious right to do so. To deny that it is bigotry though, is deceitful. To claim that “we do not discriminate” when clearly they do, is a lie.

According to the scriptures, “by their fruits ye shall know them” and the fruits of LDS leaders are rotten. They demonstrate love which is not love, kindness which is not kind, tolerance which is not tolerant and “truth” which is built on lies.

It doesn’t much seem to match Jesus’ command to “love one another,” does it?

(Here is the transcribed text of Bednar’s comments. I am including them here so that those who are interested have full context.)

Question:

How can homosexual members of the church live and remain steadfast in the gospel?

Bednar’s response:

First I want to change the question. There are no homosexual members of the church. We are not defined by sexual attraction. We are not defined by sexual behavior. We are sons and daughters of God and all of us have different challenges in the flesh. There are many different types of challenges. Would it be a challenge to be very beautiful or very handsome, and in the world in which we live, never develop deep character because we are able to open doors and have success just because of our physical appearance? And we become shallow and superficial in many aspects of our lives.

That can be a challenge in the flesh.

Some people have physical limitations. They may be born with a body that is not fully functional, or we may have an inclination to be attracted to those of the same sex. Through the atonement of Jesus Christ we are blessed with moral agency. Agency is the capacity to act and not simply be acted upon.

[Picks up water bottle and holds above his head]

This is a bottle of water. It’s an object. It has no capacity to act. It is an object that can only be acted upon. So this object moves if I cause it to move, or if some other force causes it to move. My wife is afraid I'm going to hit her with the bottle of water.

You and I are not objects. We are agents. Blessed with agency because of the atonement of Christ, and with that agency we are to act and not be acted upon. That agency gives us the capacity to determine how we will respond to the variety of challenges we will experience in the flesh. So, you choose, you act in accordance with the teachings of Christ.

Simply being attracted to someone of the same gender is not a sin. There are many members of the church who may have some manifestation of that attraction. They honor their covenants, they keep the commandments, they are worthy. They can receive the blessings of the temple and they can serve in the church. It is when we act on the inclination or the attraction – that’s when it becomes a sin. So, the reason I began my answer as I did, is that in this question, the word "homosexual" was used to describe or label a member of the church. It’s an inaccurate label. We are sons and daughter of god and we determine how respond to the variety of challenges we experience in mortality through the proper exercise of our moral agency.

Now I want to speak very directly to you. The world teaches that we must be tolerant and accepting. There are some things we do not accept or tolerate. We love all people with whatever challenge any person faces. The purpose of the gospel of Jesus Christ, and of the Savior's church, is to assist people in receiving the strength to deal with the challenge. So we do not discriminate, and we are not bigots. We extend Christ-like love to all sons and daughters of God.

But what is the purpose of the father's plan? We come to the earth, we are blessed to receive a physical body. Marriage between a man and woman is ordained of God, and the family is central to the Father's plan for the eternal destiny and happiness of his children. That plan is halted in anything but a marriage between a man and a woman. Now, Joseph Smith didn’t create the plan. Thomas Monson didn’t create the plan. God the eternal father created the plan. The savior through his atonement makes the plan operational, effective in our lives, and the father has not changed his mind about how the plan should operate. So please do not let the voices of the world confuse you or lead you in a different direction, as you come to better understand the fathers plan, then you will understand the purpose for marriage between a man and a woman. I hope that’s responsive to the question.

Anything that anyone would like to add?

A related point is that there is a divinely designed difference between a female spirit and a male spirit. You need to read and study over and over again the family proclamation. It teaches that gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose. So, whenever you take those divinely designed differences - the capacities and talents of the female spirit and a male spirit, and they are sealed together by the power of the priesthood, it creates a unity and a oneness, a whole, that cannot be achieved any other way. Sister Bednar and I have been married for 41 years. She is, other than the Holy Ghost, she is the greatest teacher I have ever had. She does not think like I think. She does not see what I see, and I learn a lot from the things that she thinks and sees that are different from me. Sometimes men and women get frustrated with each other because they don’t see things the same way. They're not supposed to see things the same way. And the education that comes from a man and a woman in a marriage ordained of God is one of the richest blessings in this life.

Now we've taken a long time in responding to this question, but hopefully you can sense that the length of this answer emphasizes the importance of this topic in the world in which we live. That's why we've taken quite so long.