FAIR - User contributions [en]

Mormonism and the nature of God/Heavenly Mother

2013-09-16T15:06:30Z

JenniferQuist: /* {{Answer label}} */

Abuse victims and lack of culpability

2013-05-09T04:45:52Z

JenniferQuist: /* Elizabeth Smart and the Stick of Chewing Gum */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
==Criticism==

Critics of the LDS Church have complained that Church leaders have commanded members – particularly women -- to “fight to the death” in order to protect ourselves from sexual assault. The claims go on to insist that LDS survivors of sexual abuse and assault must feel guilty to be alive.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

As far as we can determine, no senior Church leader has ever used the words "fight to the death" to describe how members should respond to sexual assault or abuse. The Church's position is that victims are not guilty. Past Church leaders have compared the value of "virtue" to the value of one's life. However, current Church statements are clear that victims of sexual assault and abuse are to be treated with love and compassion, not condemnation.

{{Response label}}

===Statements from Church Sources===

As far as we have been able to determine, there is no record of the phrase “fight to the death” ever being used by a senior Church leader when counseling members about how to respond to sexual assault. This exact phrase is a sensationalized exaggeration that does not reflect current church teachings on this sensitive topic.

The Church’s position on the culpability of victims of sexual assault is available on the official Church website:

:Victims of abuse should be assured that they are not to blame for the harmful behavior of others. They do not need to feel guilt. If they have been a victim of rape or other sexual abuse, whether they have been abused by an acquaintance, a stranger, or even a family member, victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sexual sin. {{ref|abuse}}

Speaking in the Church’s General Conference in 1992, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Richard G. Scott restated the Church’s position in strong and personal terms:

:''I solemnly testify that when another’s acts of violence, perversion, or incest hurt you terribly, against your will, you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty.'' {{ref|Scott1}}

In the early LDS Church, violent opponents of the Church in Missouri used rape as a weapon. Crimes like these are alluded to in the Doctrine and Covenants (See {{scripture||DC|123|1-17}}) and are utterly denounced as “dark and hellish.”

The Church’s most basic statement of beliefs, The Articles of Faith, states that people are accountable for their own sins and not for mistakes made by others. {{scripture||AoF|1|2}}

===Elizabeth Smart and the Stick of Chewing Gum===

On May 1, 2013, kidnap and rape survivor, Elizabeth Smart, gave a speech at Johns Hopkins University {{ref|Smart}}. She was invited there for a conference on sexual abuse and human trafficking. She spoke of the crimes committed against her when she was fourteen years old and living in Salt Lake City, Utah. At the time of her abduction and rape, and at the date of this writing, Smart was and is a member of the LDS Church.

In her speech, Smart recalled a lesson taught in school where a used stick of chewing gum was put forward as an analogy for a person who had chosen not to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage. The analogy is grim and loathsome. "No one should ever say that," Smart said. As Smart herself stated, the chewing gum analogy was not part of her religious education. In the LDS Church, parents are considered the chief spiritual educators and guides of their own children. Smart recalled being taught by her LDS parents that virginity was precious but, she added,

:I remember thinking of my parents and after, realizing that they would still love me; that just because I had been chained, just because I had been kidnapped, just because all these things had happened to me -- that wouldn’t change their love. And I feel so fortunate in that I was able to realize that.

Some media have characterized Smart's 2013 speech as an indictment of her religious roots. It was touted in headlines as a speech denouncing abstinence education and advancing the idea that sexual purity is dangerous and universally untenable. However, a full examination of Smart's speech reveals the details wherein lie the truth. Her speech did not address issues of consensual sexual behavior. It was about reaching out to victims of violence and abuse and affirming their worth. It was about offering hope and healing to people like herself who'd had their choices taken from them. As seen in quotations from LDS leaders noted above, Smart's comments were exactly in line with Church teachings about victims of sexual abuse being free from guilt and being precious to God, their church community, and everyone else.

===Spencer W. Kimball’s ''The Miracle of Forgiveness''===

The following statement does appear in the 1969 book ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' written by member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Spencer W. Kimball.

:Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is absolutely no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle. {{ref|Kimball}}

Kimball would later be called as President of the Church and ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' was widely read among LDS membership. It is the statement quoted above that is most often used to support the claim that the term “fight to the death” was expected in a sexual assault.

The phrase is used by critics of the Church but it also sometimes appears as a folk-saying among members. Particularly people of the Baby Boom generation who lived in the American heartland of the Church may remember hearing this phrase when they were young. Sometimes it came complete with clumsy but colorful and memorable object lessons similar to the stick-of-gum Elizabeth Smart mentioned in her 2013 speech. However, it’s important to distinguish unofficial slogans and crude demonstrations from what Church leaders in positions to pronounce an official stance on the issue actually said. Well-meaning but badly mangled interpretations passed around by provincial teachers and leaders aren’t uncommon in an organization like the Church which turns most of its administration over to non-professional volunteers. But being common doesn’t make these interpretations into official Church positions.

Feminist scholars outside the LDS Church have noted that the notion of victims of sexual assault being expected to fight to the death existed outside the Church in mainstream American social and legal culture.

:White men...had a virtual license to rape, as the law required "true" victims to be ultimately innocent ladies who would rather fight to the death than give up their virginity. {{ref|Gruber}}

Further, the argument is made that this underlying assumption about victims was powerful and prevalent enough to shape sexual assault laws up until the Women's Movement demanded something better. Though LDS leaders spoke of sexual integrity in terms of life and death they cannot be held responsible for inventing it. The idea had a cultural momentum that existed independently of the comments of LDS leaders.

By now, Kimball and the other twentieth century Church leaders he quoted in ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' have been dead for decades. They are no longer available to clarify what they meant when they spoke about chastity in general and about the innocence of victims of sexual assault in particular. This uncertainty means there can be more than one interpretation of what their comments could mean.

One interpretation does indeed seem to suggest that people who have survived sexual assault ought to have gone to extreme lengths to resist. It’s true that colorful and sometimes exaggerated rhetorical devices were used by past Church leaders to impress upon members the importance of preserving virtue and to describe the heinousness of sexual abuse and assault.

The Lord himself used rhetorical hyperbole when teaching about sexual morality. In the section of the Sermon on the Mount where he denounced adultery and lust, Jesus told his disciples “if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out.” {{scripture||Mat|5|29}} This passage is not taken literally. We understand that Jesus was using powerful figurative language to convey a message about how dangerous and damaging sexual sin is. Hyperbole like this is a common device in all kinds of rhetoric and particularly in religious rhetoric.

Other interpretations of Kimballs’ statement also exist. For instance, Kimball recommends “a struggle” against sexual assault but he does not demand that the struggle continue until the victim dies in order for her or him to escape “condemnation.” Perhaps Kimball was saying it might be easier for the victim to avoid future feelings of guilt and regret if he or she decisively resisted the attack. As a longtime ecclesiastical minister, Kimball would have been familiar with the typical feelings of guilt and shame that often afflict victims of sexual assault and abuse. In order for victims to be better able to overcome these feelings, he may have wanted victims to be able to assure themselves there was “absolutely no voluntary participation” on their part.

This interpretation springs on the fact that Kimball did not say it is better to die defending one’s virtue than it is to live. Precisely what he said was, “it is better to die defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.” Perhaps Kimball was warning that it is better to die than to not resist an assault. This is a very different thing than saying it is better to die than to survive a sexual assault.

The second interpretation may sound jarring to twenty-first century readers. However, Kimball was not writing from the best of all possible worlds but from a real-world social and legal climate that was much more steeped in sexism than the one most of us inhabit today. A look at American rape law during Kimball's time shows a disturbingly sexist system where courts would not convict men of sexual assault when the complaint was uncorroborated. {{ref|Gruber}} Complaints of sexual assault are often uncorroborated since they usually happen in private where there are no witnesses besides the attacker and the victim. This meant the courts could demand more gruesome and concrete evidence than a woman's testimony alone in order to convict.

As a non-LDS feminist scholar explains:

:Sexist gender norms were woven into the very fabric of rape law in the form of iniquitous obstacles to prosecution such as resistance and corroboration requirements...these rules tended to privilege rape defendants. {{ref|Gruber}}

It may be disgusting, but if a victim could show she was injured in the course of the attack, her attacker was less able to claim he had her consent and less likely to be acquitted. That was the reality of rape laws in America for most of the twentieth century. Kimball did not invent these laws. He did not foresee any change in them. He could only speak of the reality of world in which he lived. And the reality was that, before the law, the victim of sexual assault who had physically resisted her attacker was "in a more favorable position."

===Other Church Leaders===

Other quotations by other early and mid-twentieth century Church leaders are also referred to by critics insisting the Church wants victims of sexual assault to “fight to the death.”

In ''The Miracle of Forgiveness,'' Kimball quotes Church President David O. McKay saying:

:Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives. Do not tamper with sin . . . do not permit yourselves to be led into temptation. Conduct yourselves seemly and with due regard, particularly you young boys, to the sanctity of womanhood. Do not pollute it." {{ref|Kimball}}

President McKay does not directly address a situation of sexual assault in this passage from a section of the book called “Dangers to Youth”. In introducing the quote, Kimball addresses normal social situations like dating relationships where normal urges and temptation are the issues, not violent criminal acts.

In this context, McKay is making a point about not mistaking feelings and behaviors that may be acceptable to the rest of society as being acceptable to the Church’s moral code. He is concerned that the true gravity of sexual misconduct has been lost and he’s trying to restore it by comparing it to a life-or-death situation. In McKay’s view, sexual sin was worse than physical death since, unrepented of, it brought on a more lasting and tragic spiritual death. In that way, it was a life-or-death situation.

Apostle J. Reuben Clark also made comments comparing the value of chastity to the value of life.

:Mothers in Israel, teach your sons to honor and revere, to protect to the last, pure womanhood; teach your daughters that their most priceless jewel is a clean, undefiled body; teach both sons and daughters that chastity is worth more than life itself.” {{ref|Clark}}

Clark speaks of the value of an “undefiled body” but it’s accepted in religious parlance that people are able to defile themselves. (See {{scripture||Dan|1|8}}, {{scripture||Matt|15|11}}) It’s also possible for people to defile other people’s bodies with their full consent. Like McKay, Clark is not necessarily speaking of protecting ourselves from sexual assault. Rather, he’s warning us to choose righteously. Those who are assaulted remain chaste and “not guilty.” {{ref|abuse}}

===Virtue vs. Virginity===

Critics point to a place where the issue of sexual assault gets murky in the Book of Mormon. To fairly understand this passage (See {{scripture||Moro|9|9-10}}) we must try to see the situation as Mormon, the writer, saw it himself. We do not usually refer to the Law of Moses in the modern Church. It was discontinued over two thousand years ago and has never been used in the restored Church. However, the non-Jaredite peoples of the Book of Mormon had both cultural and religious roots in the Law of Moses and these must be accounted for when making sense of their history.

According to the Law of Moses, when a woman was sexually assaulted, she was considered innocent by God and her fellow men and women (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-26}}). The prophet Mormon lived about 400 years after the end of the Law of Moses. There doesn’t seem to be anything in the Book of Mormon to show to what extent the Law of Moses once practiced by Mormon’s people might have still been influencing the way he understood and spoke about the world. The old law might have had no influence at all or it might have retained some power to color his interpretations and his expressions. If the Law of Moses was still part of Mormon’s cultural memory, he might have had an understanding of the state of a rape victim’s virtue – her state of moral cleanliness – that’s nuanced differently than the understanding we have now. When mourning the violent sex crimes of his people at Moriantum, Mormon used the words “chastity and virtue” to describe what the daughters of the Lamanites had lost when they were assaulted instead of simply saying “virginity.”

:And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue— And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery. {{scripture||Moro|9|9-10}}

Even though the wording might be muddled by the limited vocabulary or perhaps by the sensibilities of the times in which Mormon or his translator lived in, Mormon’s sorrow for what happened to the women is unmistakable. He wrote of an atrocity. Mormon did not condemn the women for being kidnapped, raped, tortured, murdered, and cannibalized. He did condemn the “great abominations” of their attackers.

If Mormon was influenced by cultural traces of the Law of Moses, he would have believed that when a woman was forcibly deprived of her virginity, she remained innocent. Despite the wording, he would have believed they had lost their virginity, not their virtue. In the Law of Moses, penalties against attackers were put in place to serve a purpose similar to restitution. (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-29}}) Once the Law was satisfied, it was as if the victim’s former state – her “chastity and virtue” -- was restored. However, the men who victimized women at Moriantum were never lawfully penalized.

Perhaps part of what Mormon lamented was the fact that the injustices would remain unaddressed. Maybe, as he saw it, the crimes against the women were deepened because no legal version of “restitution” would ever be made. In this way, the legal construct of the women’s “chastity and virtue” was never restored even though their true spiritual virtue could remain intact. Perhaps the problem with this passage is not, as critics suggest, that Mormon equated virtue with virginity but that his cultural sense of the efficacy of legal restitution prompted him to overstate what was lost.

===Lingering Controversy===

As we have progressed through history, people in general – both inside and outside the Church -- have become more sensitized to sexual crimes. We use a more sympathetic vocabulary and much of the societal stigma that victims of sexual crimes have suffered has disappeared. What was once cloaked in flowery rhetoric can now be discussed in more precise and compassionate terms. This shift in language has been critical in assisting victims in the necessary healing after sexual assault and abuse.

Despite the current clarity of the Church’s position on sexual assault, the controversy still flares to life. Although older statements from church leaders have been interpreted in various ways and are of historical interest, it is incumbent upon those addressing this topic to keep original contexts in mind and to ultimately use current statements when describing the position of the modern church.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|abuse}} {{ldsorg|Gospel Topics, "Abuse"|http://www.lds.org/topics/abuse}}
#{{note|Scott1}} {{Ensign1|author=Richard G. Scott|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse]|date=May 1992}} {{eo}}
#{{note|Smart}} Elizabeth Smart, Speech, Johns Hopkins University, 1 May 2013. http://foxbaltimore.com/news/features/raw-news/stories/elizabeth-smart-speaks-at-johns-hopkins-human-trafficking-forum-486.shtml#.UYqpjrUslX3
#{{note|Kimball}} {{Book:Kimball:Miracle of Forgiveness}}
#{{note|Gruber}} Aya Gruber, "Rape, Feminism, and the War on Crime," ''Washington Law Review, Vol 84.'' 2009(581-658).
#{{note|Clark}} {{CR1|author=J. Reuben Clark|date=April 1940|pages=21}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Abuse victims and lack of culpability

2013-05-08T20:56:31Z

JenniferQuist: /* {{Endnotes label}} */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
==Criticism==

Critics of the LDS Church have complained that Church leaders have commanded members – particularly women -- to “fight to the death” in order to protect ourselves from sexual assault. The claims go on to insist that LDS survivors of sexual abuse and assault must feel guilty to be alive.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

As far as we can determine, no senior Church leader has ever used the words "fight to the death" to describe how members should respond to sexual assault or abuse. The Church's position is that victims are not guilty. Past Church leaders have compared the value of "virtue" to the value of one's life. However, current Church statements are clear that victims of sexual assault and abuse are to be treated with love and compassion, not condemnation.

{{Response label}}

===Statements from Church Sources===

As far as we have been able to determine, there is no record of the phrase “fight to the death” ever being used by a senior Church leader when counseling members about how to respond to sexual assault. This exact phrase is a sensationalized exaggeration that does not reflect current church teachings on this sensitive topic.

The Church’s position on the culpability of victims of sexual assault is available on the official Church website:

:Victims of abuse should be assured that they are not to blame for the harmful behavior of others. They do not need to feel guilt. If they have been a victim of rape or other sexual abuse, whether they have been abused by an acquaintance, a stranger, or even a family member, victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sexual sin. {{ref|abuse}}

Speaking in the Church’s General Conference in 1992, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Richard G. Scott restated the Church’s position in strong and personal terms:

:''I solemnly testify that when another’s acts of violence, perversion, or incest hurt you terribly, against your will, you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty.'' {{ref|Scott1}}

In the early LDS Church, violent opponents of the Church in Missouri used rape as a weapon. Crimes like these are alluded to in the Doctrine and Covenants (See {{scripture||DC|123|1-17}}) and are utterly denounced as “dark and hellish.”

The Church’s most basic statement of beliefs, The Articles of Faith, states that people are accountable for their own sins and not for mistakes made by others. {{scripture||AoF|1|2}}

===Elizabeth Smart and the Stick of Chewing Gum===

On May 1, 2013, kidnap and rape survivor, Elizabeth Smart, gave a speech at Johns Hopkins University {{ref|Smart}}. She was invited there for a conference on sexual abuse and human trafficking. She spoke of the crimes committed against her when she was fourteen years old and living in Salt Lake City, Utah. At the time of her abduction and rape, and at the date of this writing, Smart was and is a member of the LDS Church.

In her speech, Smart recalled a lesson taught in school where a used stick of chewing gum was put forward as an analogy for a person who had chosen not to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage. The analogy is grim and loathsome. "No one should ever say that," Smart said. As Smart herself stated, it was not part of her religious education. In the LDS Church, parents are considered the chief spiritual educators and guides of their own children. Smart recalled being taught by her LDS parents that virginity was precious but, she added,

:I remember thinking of my parents and after realizing that they would still love me; that just because I had been chained, just because I had been kidnapped, just because all these things had happened to me -- that wouldn’t change their love. And I feel so fortunate in that I was able to realize that.

Some media have characterized Smart's 2013 speech as an indictment of her religious roots. It was touted in headlines as a speech denouncing abstinence education and advancing the idea that sexual purity is dangerous and universally untenable. However, a full examination of Smart's speech reveals the details wherein lie the truth. Her speech was about reaching out to victims of violence and abuse. It was about offering hope and healing to people like herself who'd had their choices taken from them. As seen in quotations from LDS leaders noted above, Smart's comments were exactly in line with Church teachings about victims of sexual abuse being innocent and precious to God, their church community, and everyone else.

===Spencer W. Kimball’s ''The Miracle of Forgiveness''===

The following statement does appear in the 1969 book ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' written by member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Spencer W. Kimball.

:Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is absolutely no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle. {{ref|Kimball}}

Kimball would later be called as President of the Church and ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' was widely read among LDS membership. It is the statement quoted above that is most often used to support the claim that the term “fight to the death” was expected in a sexual assault.

The phrase is used by critics of the Church but it also sometimes appears as a folk-saying among members. Particularly people of the Baby Boom generation who lived in the American heartland of the Church may remember hearing this phrase when they were young. Sometimes it came complete with clumsy but colorful and memorable object lessons similar to the stick-of-gum Elizabeth Smart mentioned in her 2013 speech. However, it’s important to distinguish unofficial slogans and crude demonstrations from what Church leaders in positions to pronounce an official stance on the issue actually said. Well-meaning but badly mangled interpretations passed around by provincial teachers and leaders aren’t uncommon in an organization like the Church which turns most of its administration over to non-professional volunteers. But being common doesn’t make these interpretations into official Church positions.

Feminist scholars outside the LDS Church have noted that the notion of victims of sexual assault being expected to fight to the death existed outside the Church in mainstream American social and legal culture.

:White men...had a virtual license to rape, as the law required "true" victims to be ultimately innocent ladies who would rather fight to the death than give up their virginity. {{ref|Gruber}}

Further, the argument is made that this underlying assumption about victims was powerful and prevalent enough to shape sexual assault laws up until the Women's Movement demanded something better. Though LDS leaders spoke of sexual integrity in terms of life and death they cannot be held responsible for inventing it. The idea had a cultural momentum that existed independently of the comments of LDS leaders.

By now, Kimball and the other twentieth century Church leaders he quoted in ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' have been dead for decades. They are no longer available to clarify what they meant when they spoke about chastity in general and about the innocence of victims of sexual assault in particular. This uncertainty means there can be more than one interpretation of what their comments could mean.

One interpretation does indeed seem to suggest that people who have survived sexual assault ought to have gone to extreme lengths to resist. It’s true that colorful and sometimes exaggerated rhetorical devices were used by past Church leaders to impress upon members the importance of preserving virtue and to describe the heinousness of sexual abuse and assault.

The Lord himself used rhetorical hyperbole when teaching about sexual morality. In the section of the Sermon on the Mount where he denounced adultery and lust, Jesus told his disciples “if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out.” {{scripture||Mat|5|29}} This passage is not taken literally. We understand that Jesus was using powerful figurative language to convey a message about how dangerous and damaging sexual sin is. Hyperbole like this is a common device in all kinds of rhetoric and particularly in religious rhetoric.

Other interpretations of Kimballs’ statement also exist. For instance, Kimball recommends “a struggle” against sexual assault but he does not demand that the struggle continue until the victim dies in order for her or him to escape “condemnation.” Perhaps Kimball was saying it might be easier for the victim to avoid future feelings of guilt and regret if he or she decisively resisted the attack. As a longtime ecclesiastical minister, Kimball would have been familiar with the typical feelings of guilt and shame that often afflict victims of sexual assault and abuse. In order for victims to be better able to overcome these feelings, he may have wanted victims to be able to assure themselves there was “absolutely no voluntary participation” on their part.

This interpretation springs on the fact that Kimball did not say it is better to die defending one’s virtue than it is to live. Precisely what he said was, “it is better to die defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.” Perhaps Kimball was warning that it is better to die than to not resist an assault. This is a very different thing than saying it is better to die than to survive a sexual assault.

The second interpretation may sound jarring to twenty-first century readers. However, Kimball was not writing from the best of all possible worlds but from a real-world social and legal climate that was much more steeped in sexism than the one most of us inhabit today. A look at American rape law during Kimball's time shows a disturbingly sexist system where courts would not convict men of sexual assault when the complaint was uncorroborated. {{ref|Gruber}} Complaints of sexual assault are often uncorroborated since they usually happen in private where there are no witnesses besides the attacker and the victim. This meant the courts could demand more gruesome and concrete evidence than a woman's testimony alone in order to convict.

As a non-LDS feminist scholar explains:

:Sexist gender norms were woven into the very fabric of rape law in the form of iniquitous obstacles to prosecution such as resistance and corroboration requirements...these rules tended to privilege rape defendants. {{ref|Gruber}}

It may be disgusting, but if a victim could show she was injured in the course of the attack, her attacker was less able to claim he had her consent and less likely to be acquitted. That was the reality of rape laws in America for most of the twentieth century. Kimball did not invent these laws. He did not foresee any change in them. He could only speak of the reality of world in which he lived. And the reality was that, before the law, the victim of sexual assault who had physically resisted her attacker was "in a more favorable position."

===Other Church Leaders===

Other quotations by other early and mid-twentieth century Church leaders are also referred to by critics insisting the Church wants victims of sexual assault to “fight to the death.”

In ''The Miracle of Forgiveness,'' Kimball quotes Church President David O. McKay saying:

:Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives. Do not tamper with sin . . . do not permit yourselves to be led into temptation. Conduct yourselves seemly and with due regard, particularly you young boys, to the sanctity of womanhood. Do not pollute it." {{ref|Kimball}}

President McKay does not directly address a situation of sexual assault in this passage from a section of the book called “Dangers to Youth”. In introducing the quote, Kimball addresses normal social situations like dating relationships where normal urges and temptation are the issues, not violent criminal acts.

In this context, McKay is making a point about not mistaking feelings and behaviors that may be acceptable to the rest of society as being acceptable to the Church’s moral code. He is concerned that the true gravity of sexual misconduct has been lost and he’s trying to restore it by comparing it to a life-or-death situation. In McKay’s view, sexual sin was worse than physical death since, unrepented of, it brought on a more lasting and tragic spiritual death. In that way, it was a life-or-death situation.

Apostle J. Reuben Clark also made comments comparing the value of chastity to the value of life.

:Mothers in Israel, teach your sons to honor and revere, to protect to the last, pure womanhood; teach your daughters that their most priceless jewel is a clean, undefiled body; teach both sons and daughters that chastity is worth more than life itself.” {{ref|Clark}}

Clark speaks of the value of an “undefiled body” but it’s accepted in religious parlance that people are able to defile themselves. (See {{scripture||Dan|1|8}}, {{scripture||Matt|15|11}}) It’s also possible for people to defile other people’s bodies with their full consent. Like McKay, Clark is not necessarily speaking of protecting ourselves from sexual assault. Rather, he’s warning us to choose righteously. Those who are assaulted remain chaste and “not guilty.” {{ref|abuse}}

===Virtue vs. Virginity===

Critics point to a place where the issue of sexual assault gets murky in the Book of Mormon. To fairly understand this passage (See {{scripture||Moro|9|9-10}}) we must try to see the situation as Mormon, the writer, saw it himself. We do not usually refer to the Law of Moses in the modern Church. It was discontinued over two thousand years ago and has never been used in the restored Church. However, the non-Jaredite peoples of the Book of Mormon had both cultural and religious roots in the Law of Moses and these must be accounted for when making sense of their history.

According to the Law of Moses, when a woman was sexually assaulted, she was considered innocent by God and her fellow men and women (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-26}}). The prophet Mormon lived about 400 years after the end of the Law of Moses. There doesn’t seem to be anything in the Book of Mormon to show to what extent the Law of Moses once practiced by Mormon’s people might have still been influencing the way he understood and spoke about the world. The old law might have had no influence at all or it might have retained some power to color his interpretations and his expressions. If the Law of Moses was still part of Mormon’s cultural memory, he might have had an understanding of the state of a rape victim’s virtue – her state of moral cleanliness – that’s nuanced differently than the understanding we have now. When mourning the violent sex crimes of his people at Moriantum, Mormon used the words “chastity and virtue” to describe what the daughters of the Lamanites had lost when they were assaulted instead of simply saying “virginity.”

:And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue— And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery. {{scripture||Moro|9|9-10}}

Even though the wording might be muddled by the limited vocabulary or perhaps by the sensibilities of the times in which Mormon or his translator lived in, Mormon’s sorrow for what happened to the women is unmistakable. He wrote of an atrocity. Mormon did not condemn the women for being kidnapped, raped, tortured, murdered, and cannibalized. He did condemn the “great abominations” of their attackers.

If Mormon was influenced by cultural traces of the Law of Moses, he would have believed that when a woman was forcibly deprived of her virginity, she remained innocent. Despite the wording, he would have believed they had lost their virginity, not their virtue. In the Law of Moses, penalties against attackers were put in place to serve a purpose similar to restitution. (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-29}}) Once the Law was satisfied, it was as if the victim’s former state – her “chastity and virtue” -- was restored. However, the men who victimized women at Moriantum were never lawfully penalized.

Perhaps part of what Mormon lamented was the fact that the injustices would remain unaddressed. Maybe, as he saw it, the crimes against the women were deepened because no legal version of “restitution” would ever be made. In this way, the legal construct of the women’s “chastity and virtue” was never restored even though their true spiritual virtue could remain intact. Perhaps the problem with this passage is not, as critics suggest, that Mormon equated virtue with virginity but that his cultural sense of the efficacy of legal restitution prompted him to overstate what was lost.

===Lingering Controversy===

As we have progressed through history, people in general – both inside and outside the Church -- have become more sensitized to sexual crimes. We use a more sympathetic vocabulary and much of the societal stigma that victims of sexual crimes have suffered has disappeared. What was once cloaked in flowery rhetoric can now be discussed in more precise and compassionate terms. This shift in language has been critical in assisting victims in the necessary healing after sexual assault and abuse.

Despite the current clarity of the Church’s position on sexual assault, the controversy still flares to life. Although older statements from church leaders have been interpreted in various ways and are of historical interest, it is incumbent upon those addressing this topic to keep original contexts in mind and to ultimately use current statements when describing the position of the modern church.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|abuse}} {{ldsorg|Gospel Topics, "Abuse"|http://www.lds.org/topics/abuse}}
#{{note|Scott1}} {{Ensign1|author=Richard G. Scott|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse]|date=May 1992}} {{eo}}
#{{note|Smart}} Elizabeth Smart, Speech, Johns Hopkins University, 1 May 2013. http://foxbaltimore.com/news/features/raw-news/stories/elizabeth-smart-speaks-at-johns-hopkins-human-trafficking-forum-486.shtml#.UYqpjrUslX3
#{{note|Kimball}} {{Book:Kimball:Miracle of Forgiveness}}
#{{note|Gruber}} Aya Gruber, "Rape, Feminism, and the War on Crime," ''Washington Law Review, Vol 84.'' 2009(581-658).
#{{note|Clark}} {{CR1|author=J. Reuben Clark|date=April 1940|pages=21}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Abuse victims and lack of culpability

2013-05-08T20:54:48Z

JenniferQuist: /* Spencer W. Kimball’s The Miracle of Forgiveness */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
==Criticism==

Critics of the LDS Church have complained that Church leaders have commanded members – particularly women -- to “fight to the death” in order to protect ourselves from sexual assault. The claims go on to insist that LDS survivors of sexual abuse and assault must feel guilty to be alive.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

As far as we can determine, no senior Church leader has ever used the words "fight to the death" to describe how members should respond to sexual assault or abuse. The Church's position is that victims are not guilty. Past Church leaders have compared the value of "virtue" to the value of one's life. However, current Church statements are clear that victims of sexual assault and abuse are to be treated with love and compassion, not condemnation.

{{Response label}}

===Statements from Church Sources===

As far as we have been able to determine, there is no record of the phrase “fight to the death” ever being used by a senior Church leader when counseling members about how to respond to sexual assault. This exact phrase is a sensationalized exaggeration that does not reflect current church teachings on this sensitive topic.

The Church’s position on the culpability of victims of sexual assault is available on the official Church website:

:Victims of abuse should be assured that they are not to blame for the harmful behavior of others. They do not need to feel guilt. If they have been a victim of rape or other sexual abuse, whether they have been abused by an acquaintance, a stranger, or even a family member, victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sexual sin. {{ref|abuse}}

Speaking in the Church’s General Conference in 1992, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Richard G. Scott restated the Church’s position in strong and personal terms:

:''I solemnly testify that when another’s acts of violence, perversion, or incest hurt you terribly, against your will, you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty.'' {{ref|Scott1}}

In the early LDS Church, violent opponents of the Church in Missouri used rape as a weapon. Crimes like these are alluded to in the Doctrine and Covenants (See {{scripture||DC|123|1-17}}) and are utterly denounced as “dark and hellish.”

The Church’s most basic statement of beliefs, The Articles of Faith, states that people are accountable for their own sins and not for mistakes made by others. {{scripture||AoF|1|2}}

===Elizabeth Smart and the Stick of Chewing Gum===

On May 1, 2013, kidnap and rape survivor, Elizabeth Smart, gave a speech at Johns Hopkins University {{ref|Smart}}. She was invited there for a conference on sexual abuse and human trafficking. She spoke of the crimes committed against her when she was fourteen years old and living in Salt Lake City, Utah. At the time of her abduction and rape, and at the date of this writing, Smart was and is a member of the LDS Church.

In her speech, Smart recalled a lesson taught in school where a used stick of chewing gum was put forward as an analogy for a person who had chosen not to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage. The analogy is grim and loathsome. "No one should ever say that," Smart said. As Smart herself stated, it was not part of her religious education. In the LDS Church, parents are considered the chief spiritual educators and guides of their own children. Smart recalled being taught by her LDS parents that virginity was precious but, she added,

:I remember thinking of my parents and after realizing that they would still love me; that just because I had been chained, just because I had been kidnapped, just because all these things had happened to me -- that wouldn’t change their love. And I feel so fortunate in that I was able to realize that.

Some media have characterized Smart's 2013 speech as an indictment of her religious roots. It was touted in headlines as a speech denouncing abstinence education and advancing the idea that sexual purity is dangerous and universally untenable. However, a full examination of Smart's speech reveals the details wherein lie the truth. Her speech was about reaching out to victims of violence and abuse. It was about offering hope and healing to people like herself who'd had their choices taken from them. As seen in quotations from LDS leaders noted above, Smart's comments were exactly in line with Church teachings about victims of sexual abuse being innocent and precious to God, their church community, and everyone else.

===Spencer W. Kimball’s ''The Miracle of Forgiveness''===

The following statement does appear in the 1969 book ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' written by member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Spencer W. Kimball.

:Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is absolutely no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle. {{ref|Kimball}}

Kimball would later be called as President of the Church and ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' was widely read among LDS membership. It is the statement quoted above that is most often used to support the claim that the term “fight to the death” was expected in a sexual assault.

The phrase is used by critics of the Church but it also sometimes appears as a folk-saying among members. Particularly people of the Baby Boom generation who lived in the American heartland of the Church may remember hearing this phrase when they were young. Sometimes it came complete with clumsy but colorful and memorable object lessons similar to the stick-of-gum Elizabeth Smart mentioned in her 2013 speech. However, it’s important to distinguish unofficial slogans and crude demonstrations from what Church leaders in positions to pronounce an official stance on the issue actually said. Well-meaning but badly mangled interpretations passed around by provincial teachers and leaders aren’t uncommon in an organization like the Church which turns most of its administration over to non-professional volunteers. But being common doesn’t make these interpretations into official Church positions.

Feminist scholars outside the LDS Church have noted that the notion of victims of sexual assault being expected to fight to the death existed outside the Church in mainstream American social and legal culture.

:White men...had a virtual license to rape, as the law required "true" victims to be ultimately innocent ladies who would rather fight to the death than give up their virginity. {{ref|Gruber}}

Further, the argument is made that this underlying assumption about victims was powerful and prevalent enough to shape sexual assault laws up until the Women's Movement demanded something better. Though LDS leaders spoke of sexual integrity in terms of life and death they cannot be held responsible for inventing it. The idea had a cultural momentum that existed independently of the comments of LDS leaders.

By now, Kimball and the other twentieth century Church leaders he quoted in ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' have been dead for decades. They are no longer available to clarify what they meant when they spoke about chastity in general and about the innocence of victims of sexual assault in particular. This uncertainty means there can be more than one interpretation of what their comments could mean.

One interpretation does indeed seem to suggest that people who have survived sexual assault ought to have gone to extreme lengths to resist. It’s true that colorful and sometimes exaggerated rhetorical devices were used by past Church leaders to impress upon members the importance of preserving virtue and to describe the heinousness of sexual abuse and assault.

The Lord himself used rhetorical hyperbole when teaching about sexual morality. In the section of the Sermon on the Mount where he denounced adultery and lust, Jesus told his disciples “if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out.” {{scripture||Mat|5|29}} This passage is not taken literally. We understand that Jesus was using powerful figurative language to convey a message about how dangerous and damaging sexual sin is. Hyperbole like this is a common device in all kinds of rhetoric and particularly in religious rhetoric.

Other interpretations of Kimballs’ statement also exist. For instance, Kimball recommends “a struggle” against sexual assault but he does not demand that the struggle continue until the victim dies in order for her or him to escape “condemnation.” Perhaps Kimball was saying it might be easier for the victim to avoid future feelings of guilt and regret if he or she decisively resisted the attack. As a longtime ecclesiastical minister, Kimball would have been familiar with the typical feelings of guilt and shame that often afflict victims of sexual assault and abuse. In order for victims to be better able to overcome these feelings, he may have wanted victims to be able to assure themselves there was “absolutely no voluntary participation” on their part.

This interpretation springs on the fact that Kimball did not say it is better to die defending one’s virtue than it is to live. Precisely what he said was, “it is better to die defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.” Perhaps Kimball was warning that it is better to die than to not resist an assault. This is a very different thing than saying it is better to die than to survive a sexual assault.

The second interpretation may sound jarring to twenty-first century readers. However, Kimball was not writing from the best of all possible worlds but from a real-world social and legal climate that was much more steeped in sexism than the one most of us inhabit today. A look at American rape law during Kimball's time shows a disturbingly sexist system where courts would not convict men of sexual assault when the complaint was uncorroborated. {{ref|Gruber}} Complaints of sexual assault are often uncorroborated since they usually happen in private where there are no witnesses besides the attacker and the victim. This meant the courts could demand more gruesome and concrete evidence than a woman's testimony alone in order to convict.

As a non-LDS feminist scholar explains:

:Sexist gender norms were woven into the very fabric of rape law in the form of iniquitous obstacles to prosecution such as resistance and corroboration requirements...these rules tended to privilege rape defendants. {{ref|Gruber}}

It may be disgusting, but if a victim could show she was injured in the course of the attack, her attacker was less able to claim he had her consent and less likely to be acquitted. That was the reality of rape laws in America for most of the twentieth century. Kimball did not invent these laws. He did not foresee any change in them. He could only speak of the reality of world in which he lived. And the reality was that, before the law, the victim of sexual assault who had physically resisted her attacker was "in a more favorable position."

===Other Church Leaders===

Other quotations by other early and mid-twentieth century Church leaders are also referred to by critics insisting the Church wants victims of sexual assault to “fight to the death.”

In ''The Miracle of Forgiveness,'' Kimball quotes Church President David O. McKay saying:

:Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives. Do not tamper with sin . . . do not permit yourselves to be led into temptation. Conduct yourselves seemly and with due regard, particularly you young boys, to the sanctity of womanhood. Do not pollute it." {{ref|Kimball}}

President McKay does not directly address a situation of sexual assault in this passage from a section of the book called “Dangers to Youth”. In introducing the quote, Kimball addresses normal social situations like dating relationships where normal urges and temptation are the issues, not violent criminal acts.

In this context, McKay is making a point about not mistaking feelings and behaviors that may be acceptable to the rest of society as being acceptable to the Church’s moral code. He is concerned that the true gravity of sexual misconduct has been lost and he’s trying to restore it by comparing it to a life-or-death situation. In McKay’s view, sexual sin was worse than physical death since, unrepented of, it brought on a more lasting and tragic spiritual death. In that way, it was a life-or-death situation.

Apostle J. Reuben Clark also made comments comparing the value of chastity to the value of life.

:Mothers in Israel, teach your sons to honor and revere, to protect to the last, pure womanhood; teach your daughters that their most priceless jewel is a clean, undefiled body; teach both sons and daughters that chastity is worth more than life itself.” {{ref|Clark}}

Clark speaks of the value of an “undefiled body” but it’s accepted in religious parlance that people are able to defile themselves. (See {{scripture||Dan|1|8}}, {{scripture||Matt|15|11}}) It’s also possible for people to defile other people’s bodies with their full consent. Like McKay, Clark is not necessarily speaking of protecting ourselves from sexual assault. Rather, he’s warning us to choose righteously. Those who are assaulted remain chaste and “not guilty.” {{ref|abuse}}

===Virtue vs. Virginity===

Critics point to a place where the issue of sexual assault gets murky in the Book of Mormon. To fairly understand this passage (See {{scripture||Moro|9|9-10}}) we must try to see the situation as Mormon, the writer, saw it himself. We do not usually refer to the Law of Moses in the modern Church. It was discontinued over two thousand years ago and has never been used in the restored Church. However, the non-Jaredite peoples of the Book of Mormon had both cultural and religious roots in the Law of Moses and these must be accounted for when making sense of their history.

According to the Law of Moses, when a woman was sexually assaulted, she was considered innocent by God and her fellow men and women (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-26}}). The prophet Mormon lived about 400 years after the end of the Law of Moses. There doesn’t seem to be anything in the Book of Mormon to show to what extent the Law of Moses once practiced by Mormon’s people might have still been influencing the way he understood and spoke about the world. The old law might have had no influence at all or it might have retained some power to color his interpretations and his expressions. If the Law of Moses was still part of Mormon’s cultural memory, he might have had an understanding of the state of a rape victim’s virtue – her state of moral cleanliness – that’s nuanced differently than the understanding we have now. When mourning the violent sex crimes of his people at Moriantum, Mormon used the words “chastity and virtue” to describe what the daughters of the Lamanites had lost when they were assaulted instead of simply saying “virginity.”

:And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue— And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery. {{scripture||Moro|9|9-10}}

Even though the wording might be muddled by the limited vocabulary or perhaps by the sensibilities of the times in which Mormon or his translator lived in, Mormon’s sorrow for what happened to the women is unmistakable. He wrote of an atrocity. Mormon did not condemn the women for being kidnapped, raped, tortured, murdered, and cannibalized. He did condemn the “great abominations” of their attackers.

If Mormon was influenced by cultural traces of the Law of Moses, he would have believed that when a woman was forcibly deprived of her virginity, she remained innocent. Despite the wording, he would have believed they had lost their virginity, not their virtue. In the Law of Moses, penalties against attackers were put in place to serve a purpose similar to restitution. (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-29}}) Once the Law was satisfied, it was as if the victim’s former state – her “chastity and virtue” -- was restored. However, the men who victimized women at Moriantum were never lawfully penalized.

Perhaps part of what Mormon lamented was the fact that the injustices would remain unaddressed. Maybe, as he saw it, the crimes against the women were deepened because no legal version of “restitution” would ever be made. In this way, the legal construct of the women’s “chastity and virtue” was never restored even though their true spiritual virtue could remain intact. Perhaps the problem with this passage is not, as critics suggest, that Mormon equated virtue with virginity but that his cultural sense of the efficacy of legal restitution prompted him to overstate what was lost.

===Lingering Controversy===

As we have progressed through history, people in general – both inside and outside the Church -- have become more sensitized to sexual crimes. We use a more sympathetic vocabulary and much of the societal stigma that victims of sexual crimes have suffered has disappeared. What was once cloaked in flowery rhetoric can now be discussed in more precise and compassionate terms. This shift in language has been critical in assisting victims in the necessary healing after sexual assault and abuse.

Despite the current clarity of the Church’s position on sexual assault, the controversy still flares to life. Although older statements from church leaders have been interpreted in various ways and are of historical interest, it is incumbent upon those addressing this topic to keep original contexts in mind and to ultimately use current statements when describing the position of the modern church.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|abuse}} {{ldsorg|Gospel Topics, "Abuse"|http://www.lds.org/topics/abuse}}
#{{note|Scott1}} {{Ensign1|author=Richard G. Scott|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse]|date=May 1992}} {{eo}}
#{{note|Kimball}} {{Book:Kimball:Miracle of Forgiveness}}
#{{note|Gruber}} Aya Gruber, "Rape, Feminism, and the War on Crime," ''Washington Law Review, Vol 84.'' 2009(581-658).
#{{note|Clark}} {{CR1|author=J. Reuben Clark|date=April 1940|pages=21}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Abuse victims and lack of culpability

2013-05-08T20:52:19Z

JenniferQuist: /* Statements from Church Sources */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
==Criticism==

Critics of the LDS Church have complained that Church leaders have commanded members – particularly women -- to “fight to the death” in order to protect ourselves from sexual assault. The claims go on to insist that LDS survivors of sexual abuse and assault must feel guilty to be alive.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

As far as we can determine, no senior Church leader has ever used the words "fight to the death" to describe how members should respond to sexual assault or abuse. The Church's position is that victims are not guilty. Past Church leaders have compared the value of "virtue" to the value of one's life. However, current Church statements are clear that victims of sexual assault and abuse are to be treated with love and compassion, not condemnation.

{{Response label}}

===Statements from Church Sources===

As far as we have been able to determine, there is no record of the phrase “fight to the death” ever being used by a senior Church leader when counseling members about how to respond to sexual assault. This exact phrase is a sensationalized exaggeration that does not reflect current church teachings on this sensitive topic.

The Church’s position on the culpability of victims of sexual assault is available on the official Church website:

:Victims of abuse should be assured that they are not to blame for the harmful behavior of others. They do not need to feel guilt. If they have been a victim of rape or other sexual abuse, whether they have been abused by an acquaintance, a stranger, or even a family member, victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sexual sin. {{ref|abuse}}

Speaking in the Church’s General Conference in 1992, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Richard G. Scott restated the Church’s position in strong and personal terms:

:''I solemnly testify that when another’s acts of violence, perversion, or incest hurt you terribly, against your will, you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty.'' {{ref|Scott1}}

In the early LDS Church, violent opponents of the Church in Missouri used rape as a weapon. Crimes like these are alluded to in the Doctrine and Covenants (See {{scripture||DC|123|1-17}}) and are utterly denounced as “dark and hellish.”

The Church’s most basic statement of beliefs, The Articles of Faith, states that people are accountable for their own sins and not for mistakes made by others. {{scripture||AoF|1|2}}

===Elizabeth Smart and the Stick of Chewing Gum===

On May 1, 2013, kidnap and rape survivor, Elizabeth Smart, gave a speech at Johns Hopkins University {{ref|Smart}}. She was invited there for a conference on sexual abuse and human trafficking. She spoke of the crimes committed against her when she was fourteen years old and living in Salt Lake City, Utah. At the time of her abduction and rape, and at the date of this writing, Smart was and is a member of the LDS Church.

In her speech, Smart recalled a lesson taught in school where a used stick of chewing gum was put forward as an analogy for a person who had chosen not to abstain from sexual activity outside of marriage. The analogy is grim and loathsome. "No one should ever say that," Smart said. As Smart herself stated, it was not part of her religious education. In the LDS Church, parents are considered the chief spiritual educators and guides of their own children. Smart recalled being taught by her LDS parents that virginity was precious but, she added,

:I remember thinking of my parents and after realizing that they would still love me; that just because I had been chained, just because I had been kidnapped, just because all these things had happened to me -- that wouldn’t change their love. And I feel so fortunate in that I was able to realize that.

Some media have characterized Smart's 2013 speech as an indictment of her religious roots. It was touted in headlines as a speech denouncing abstinence education and advancing the idea that sexual purity is dangerous and universally untenable. However, a full examination of Smart's speech reveals the details wherein lie the truth. Her speech was about reaching out to victims of violence and abuse. It was about offering hope and healing to people like herself who'd had their choices taken from them. As seen in quotations from LDS leaders noted above, Smart's comments were exactly in line with Church teachings about victims of sexual abuse being innocent and precious to God, their church community, and everyone else.

===Spencer W. Kimball’s ''The Miracle of Forgiveness''===

The following statement does appear in the 1969 book ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' written by member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Spencer W. Kimball.

:Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is absolutely no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle. {{ref|Kimball}}

Kimball would later be called as President of the Church and ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' was widely read among LDS membership. It is the statement quoted above that is most often used to support the claim that the term “fight to the death” was expected in a sexual assault.

The phrase is used by critics of the Church but it also sometimes appears as a folk-saying among members. Particularly people of the Baby Boom generation who lived in the American heartland of the Church may remember hearing this phrase when they were young. Sometimes it came complete with clumsy but colorful and memorable object lessons. However, it’s important to distinguish unofficial slogans and crude demonstrations from what Church leaders in positions to pronounce an official stance on the issue actually said. Well-meaning but misguided interpretations passed around by provincial teachers and leaders aren’t uncommon in an organization like the Church which turns most of its administration over to non-professional volunteers. But being common doesn’t make these interpretations into official Church positions.

Feminist scholars outside the LDS Church have noted that the notion of victims of sexual assault being expected to fight to the death existed outside the Church in mainstream American social and legal culture.

:White men...had a virtual license to rape, as the law required "true" victims to be ultimately innocent ladies who would rather fight to the death than give up their virginity. {{ref|Gruber}}

Further, the argument is made that this underlying assumption about victims was powerful and prevalent enough to shape sexual assault laws up until the Women's Movement demanded something better. Though LDS leaders spoke of sexual integrity in terms of life and death they cannot be held responsible for inventing it. The idea had a cultural momentum that existed independently of the comments of LDS leaders.

By now, Kimball and the other twentieth century Church leaders he quoted in ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' have been dead for decades. They are no longer available to clarify what they meant when they spoke about chastity in general and about the innocence of victims of sexual assault in particular. This uncertainty means there can be more than one interpretation of what their comments could mean.

One interpretation does indeed seem to suggest that people who have survived sexual assault ought to have gone to extreme lengths to resist. It’s true that colorful and sometimes exaggerated rhetorical devices were used by past Church leaders to impress upon members the importance of preserving virtue and to describe the heinousness of sexual abuse and assault.

The Lord himself used rhetorical hyperbole when teaching about sexual morality. In the section of the Sermon on the Mount where he denounced adultery and lust, Jesus told his disciples “if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out.” {{scripture||Mat|5|29}} This passage is not taken literally. We understand that Jesus was using powerful figurative language to convey a message about how dangerous and damaging sexual sin is. Hyperbole like this is a common device in all kinds of rhetoric and particularly in religious rhetoric.

Other interpretations of Kimballs’ statement also exist. For instance, Kimball recommends “a struggle” against sexual assault but he does not demand that the struggle continue until the victim dies in order for her or him to escape “condemnation.” Perhaps Kimball was saying it might be easier for the victim to avoid future feelings of guilt and regret if he or she decisively resisted the attack. As a longtime ecclesiastical minister, Kimball would have been familiar with the typical feelings of guilt and shame that often afflict victims of sexual assault and abuse. In order for victims to be better able to overcome these feelings, he may have wanted victims to be able to assure themselves there was “absolutely no voluntary participation” on their part.

This interpretation springs on the fact that Kimball did not say it is better to die defending one’s virtue than it is to live. Precisely what he said was, “it is better to die defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.” Perhaps Kimball was warning that it is better to die than to not resist an assault. This is a very different thing than saying it is better to die than to survive a sexual assault.

The second interpretation may sound jarring to twenty-first century readers. However, Kimball was not writing from the best of all possible worlds but from a real-world social and legal climate that was much more steeped in sexism than the one most of us inhabit today. A look at American rape law during Kimball's time shows a disturbingly sexist system where courts would not convict men of sexual assault when the complaint was uncorroborated. {{ref|Gruber}} Complaints of sexual assault are often uncorroborated since they usually happen in private where there are no witnesses besides the attacker and the victim. This meant the courts could demand more gruesome and concrete evidence than a woman's testimony alone in order to convict.

As a non-LDS feminist scholar explains:

:Sexist gender norms were woven into the very fabric of rape law in the form of iniquitous obstacles to prosecution such as resistance and corroboration requirements...these rules tended to privilege rape defendants. {{ref|Gruber}}

It may be disgusting, but if a victim could show she was injured in the course of the attack, her attacker was less able to claim he had her consent and less likely to be acquitted. That was the reality of rape laws in America for most of the twentieth century. Kimball did not invent these laws. He did not foresee any change in them. He could only speak of the reality of world in which he lived. And the reality was that, before the law, the victim of sexual assault who had physically resisted her attacker was "in a more favorable position."

===Other Church Leaders===

Other quotations by other early and mid-twentieth century Church leaders are also referred to by critics insisting the Church wants victims of sexual assault to “fight to the death.”

In ''The Miracle of Forgiveness,'' Kimball quotes Church President David O. McKay saying:

:Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives. Do not tamper with sin . . . do not permit yourselves to be led into temptation. Conduct yourselves seemly and with due regard, particularly you young boys, to the sanctity of womanhood. Do not pollute it." {{ref|Kimball}}

President McKay does not directly address a situation of sexual assault in this passage from a section of the book called “Dangers to Youth”. In introducing the quote, Kimball addresses normal social situations like dating relationships where normal urges and temptation are the issues, not violent criminal acts.

In this context, McKay is making a point about not mistaking feelings and behaviors that may be acceptable to the rest of society as being acceptable to the Church’s moral code. He is concerned that the true gravity of sexual misconduct has been lost and he’s trying to restore it by comparing it to a life-or-death situation. In McKay’s view, sexual sin was worse than physical death since, unrepented of, it brought on a more lasting and tragic spiritual death. In that way, it was a life-or-death situation.

Apostle J. Reuben Clark also made comments comparing the value of chastity to the value of life.

:Mothers in Israel, teach your sons to honor and revere, to protect to the last, pure womanhood; teach your daughters that their most priceless jewel is a clean, undefiled body; teach both sons and daughters that chastity is worth more than life itself.” {{ref|Clark}}

Clark speaks of the value of an “undefiled body” but it’s accepted in religious parlance that people are able to defile themselves. (See {{scripture||Dan|1|8}}, {{scripture||Matt|15|11}}) It’s also possible for people to defile other people’s bodies with their full consent. Like McKay, Clark is not necessarily speaking of protecting ourselves from sexual assault. Rather, he’s warning us to choose righteously. Those who are assaulted remain chaste and “not guilty.” {{ref|abuse}}

===Virtue vs. Virginity===

Critics point to a place where the issue of sexual assault gets murky in the Book of Mormon. To fairly understand this passage (See {{scripture||Moro|9|9-10}}) we must try to see the situation as Mormon, the writer, saw it himself. We do not usually refer to the Law of Moses in the modern Church. It was discontinued over two thousand years ago and has never been used in the restored Church. However, the non-Jaredite peoples of the Book of Mormon had both cultural and religious roots in the Law of Moses and these must be accounted for when making sense of their history.

According to the Law of Moses, when a woman was sexually assaulted, she was considered innocent by God and her fellow men and women (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-26}}). The prophet Mormon lived about 400 years after the end of the Law of Moses. There doesn’t seem to be anything in the Book of Mormon to show to what extent the Law of Moses once practiced by Mormon’s people might have still been influencing the way he understood and spoke about the world. The old law might have had no influence at all or it might have retained some power to color his interpretations and his expressions. If the Law of Moses was still part of Mormon’s cultural memory, he might have had an understanding of the state of a rape victim’s virtue – her state of moral cleanliness – that’s nuanced differently than the understanding we have now. When mourning the violent sex crimes of his people at Moriantum, Mormon used the words “chastity and virtue” to describe what the daughters of the Lamanites had lost when they were assaulted instead of simply saying “virginity.”

:And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue— And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery. {{scripture||Moro|9|9-10}}

Even though the wording might be muddled by the limited vocabulary or perhaps by the sensibilities of the times in which Mormon or his translator lived in, Mormon’s sorrow for what happened to the women is unmistakable. He wrote of an atrocity. Mormon did not condemn the women for being kidnapped, raped, tortured, murdered, and cannibalized. He did condemn the “great abominations” of their attackers.

If Mormon was influenced by cultural traces of the Law of Moses, he would have believed that when a woman was forcibly deprived of her virginity, she remained innocent. Despite the wording, he would have believed they had lost their virginity, not their virtue. In the Law of Moses, penalties against attackers were put in place to serve a purpose similar to restitution. (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-29}}) Once the Law was satisfied, it was as if the victim’s former state – her “chastity and virtue” -- was restored. However, the men who victimized women at Moriantum were never lawfully penalized.

Perhaps part of what Mormon lamented was the fact that the injustices would remain unaddressed. Maybe, as he saw it, the crimes against the women were deepened because no legal version of “restitution” would ever be made. In this way, the legal construct of the women’s “chastity and virtue” was never restored even though their true spiritual virtue could remain intact. Perhaps the problem with this passage is not, as critics suggest, that Mormon equated virtue with virginity but that his cultural sense of the efficacy of legal restitution prompted him to overstate what was lost.

===Lingering Controversy===

As we have progressed through history, people in general – both inside and outside the Church -- have become more sensitized to sexual crimes. We use a more sympathetic vocabulary and much of the societal stigma that victims of sexual crimes have suffered has disappeared. What was once cloaked in flowery rhetoric can now be discussed in more precise and compassionate terms. This shift in language has been critical in assisting victims in the necessary healing after sexual assault and abuse.

Despite the current clarity of the Church’s position on sexual assault, the controversy still flares to life. Although older statements from church leaders have been interpreted in various ways and are of historical interest, it is incumbent upon those addressing this topic to keep original contexts in mind and to ultimately use current statements when describing the position of the modern church.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|abuse}} {{ldsorg|Gospel Topics, "Abuse"|http://www.lds.org/topics/abuse}}
#{{note|Scott1}} {{Ensign1|author=Richard G. Scott|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse]|date=May 1992}} {{eo}}
#{{note|Kimball}} {{Book:Kimball:Miracle of Forgiveness}}
#{{note|Gruber}} Aya Gruber, "Rape, Feminism, and the War on Crime," ''Washington Law Review, Vol 84.'' 2009(581-658).
#{{note|Clark}} {{CR1|author=J. Reuben Clark|date=April 1940|pages=21}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: Are Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") women taught to be “gratefully subservient to Mormon males” and that women must “not aspire…to independent thought”?

2013-04-23T05:11:02Z

JenniferQuist: /* {{Endnotes label}} */

<noinclude>{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
</noinclude>
=={{Criticism label}}==

In an unpublished paper “Mormon Women, Prozac, and Therapy," by Kent Ponder (copyrighted 2003, readily available on the Internet), the idea is put forward that women in the LDS church are taught to be “subservient” to men and are considered “eternally unalterable second-class.” {{ref|Ponder}} Among some of its more colorful statements are the claims that women are expected to be “gratefully subservient to Mormon males” {{ref|Ponder}} and that women must “not aspire…to independent thought.” {{ref|Ponder}}

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

The criticisms made in Ponder's 2003 paper suffer from the following defects:

*An overarching sexism, both overt and benevolent
*A particularly pointed and derogatory sexism leveled at devout LDS women
*The misrepresentation of LDS doctrine and clear signs of being out of touch with current Church structures and instructional materials
*Poor research methods, the use of unreferenced authority, and misleading terms
*Claims that contradict official statements of Church leaders and ignore the experiences of devout LDS women

These flaws are fatal to the arguments. The 2003 paper is not useful in an analysis of gender politics within the LDS Church. Instead, it is misleading, unduly inflammatory, and ought to be disregarded.

=={{Topics label}}==
{{SummaryItem
|link=/Statements
|subject=Statements
|summary=Statements by Church leaders regarding the roles of men and women with regard to each other.
}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

==={{Church response label}}===
Contrary to the criticism, Gordon B. Hinckley, the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the time of the criticism’s copyright, had this to say to us:
<blockquote>
“First let me say to you sisters that you do not hold a second place in our Father’s plan for the eternal happiness and well-being of His children. You are an absolutely essential part of that plan.” {{ref|Hinckley1}}
</blockquote>

To men who seek to use authoritarian cruelty to control us, President Hinckley said in the same address:

<blockquote>
“No man who engages in such evil and unbecoming behavior is worthy of the priesthood of God. No man who so conducts himself is worthy of the privileges of the house of the Lord. I regret that there are some men undeserving of the love of their wives and children. There are children who fear their fathers, and wives who fear their husbands. If there be any such men within the hearing of my voice, as a servant of the Lord I rebuke you and call you to repentance.” {{ref|Hinckley1}}
</blockquote>

===The following is a response to the problems with Kent Ponder’s work from a Feminist perspective===
===='''Problems with Ponder'''====

The author of the article is Kent Ponder. The focus of his paper is on anti-depressants use among women in the state of Utah. A general treatment of many of the logical, methodological, and psychopharmacological problems with Ponder’s work can be found here: [[Utah/Statistical claims/LDS use of antidepressants]].

====Problems with Underlying General Sexism: “Thank the Lord I’m Not Female.”{{ref|Ponder}}====

In an attempt to show how gender politics in Western society have evolved over the past 100 years, Ponder offers a description of former roles and power dynamics:
<blockquote>
"Most women used to be naturally dependent upon men for safety and livelihood, resulting in more-natural subservience to male control. Because subservience to males was more needed and natural, it was less oppressive..." {{ref|Ponder}}
</blockquote>
This characterization of centuries’ worth of male oppression of females as something that was once “needed and natural” is clearly sexist. We have never required nor benefitted from subservience and male control. To suggest we once did is to approve and validate the suffering of millions of women and girls throughout the course of human history.

Also advanced in the paper are hackneyed stereotypes of our feelings and behaviors. The claim is made that we “tend to be more alert to social relations than men.” The author writes at length about our abilities to “intuit.” He sets up our supposed intuitive powers in opposition to the ability to use reason and make deliberate inquiries. He introduces the thoughts of women he’s spoken with by saying, “Women tell me they intuitively sense…” {{ref|Ponder}} In another place, it’s observed that a problem is so glaring that “The women notice too.” {{ref|Ponder}}

This isn’t the only way we are treated as an inferior intellectual sub-class in the article. In a section meant to show “The Larger Perspective,” a review is given of the wisdom of thinkers who could help us in our struggles. All of them are men.

The paper dismisses hallmarks of LDS feminism such as self-reliance and the doctrine of a Heavenly Mother. According to the paper, this doctrine is a ploy meant to bind us up and secure our compliance.

There are misogynist cheap-shots too like an insult of the athletic ability of prominent female role model, Oprah Winfrey.

====Benevolent Sexism====

Along with these examples of overt sexism, the paper is steeped in benevolent sexism.

The word “innocent” is repeatedly invoked to describe LDS women who use anti-depressants. The word occurs six times, usually not far from other kinds of inflammatory language like “torment,” “horrendous,” and “anguish.” To describe grown women as “innocent” is to describe them in a diminutive way that diminishes the notions of their adulthood and autonomy. The word makes them seem childlike and desperate for the “needed and natural” male control and protection spoken of elsewhere in the paper. By making the women “innocent,” they are drawn back into a paternalistic, sexist system. Ponder's use of the word is patronizing. It’s classic benevolent sexism.

The patronizing tone and language continue throughout the paper. Ponder recounts marrying an “LDS girl.” {{ref|Ponder}} Perhaps he is speaking frankly about marrying an under-aged person. What’s more likely is that he is speaking of a peer woman using a childlike descriptor. Later in the paper, when talking about marriage, Ponder says women must marry "a man" rather than saying, "a boy." This shows that his use of childlike descriptors is not evenly applied between the genders. It's another example of benevolent sexism. Cutesy monikers are used in other places to describe women as well. Depressed LDS women are called “unhappy campers” {{ref|Ponder}} – a term often used to describe fussy infants – in another sexist diminution.

The view the paper takes of women is so simple the author presumes to be able to read our minds. In several places, he refers to what women – those inside and outside his interview group -- are thinking and feeling. At one point, he ventures an explanation of what “nearly all LDS girls internalize from near-infancy.” {{ref|Ponder}} Such a concept has never been measured nor is it measurable. “Near-infants” cannot report on their internal states.

====Sexism Toward Devout LDS Women in Particular====

An effective tool used by oppressive, small “p” patriarchs to make sure women do not unite and grow in power is to orchestrate situations where we will fight amongst ourselves. Such tactics are blatant in the paper when the “best and brightest” {{ref|Ponder}} of LDS women – that is, the disaffected and depressed – are pitted against the rest of us.

One stage in this tactic is to vilify devout LDS women and cast them in caricature. At the height of this kind of rhetoric, the paper compares the religious convictions of devout LDS women to “people willing even to strap bombs around their waists and blow themselves up.” {{ref|Ponder}} The suicide bomber comparison is revisited a second time, later in the paper.

In Ponder’s analysis, by definition, devout LDS women are not smart women. The claim is made that we are “unable to comprehend” {{ref|Ponder}} the thoughts and feelings of the women Ponder has interviewed. The paper denies the existence of “intellectually curious” {{ref|Ponder}} yet devout LDS women. It even warns, “Remember that, for many LDS women in Utah, this is really all they know.” {{ref|Ponder}}

On the other hand, Ponder’s respondents are described as being of “the highest-caliber in intelligence, education, rational ability and conscientiousness” {{ref|Ponder}}. No data nor other reasoning besides his opinion are provided to support this claim.

An analogy is crafted using metaphors about frustrated swimming prowess to illustrate the tension between the groups of LDS women. At its conclusion it is argued,

"The happy LDS woman is often the one who likes restriction of choices. She gains security from having to make fewer decisions since so many are made for her.” {{ref|Ponder}}

Again, the claim is made without any supporting qualitative or quantitative evidence. It is an expression of the author’s bias and nothing more.

====Problems with Misrepresentations of Doctrine====

Ponder speaks as if he’s an expert on LDS doctrine and life. However, a few glitches in the paper reveal a writer who is out of touch. He refers to positions in the Church hierarchy that do not exist right now as if they are current, namely, the Church Patriarch and Assistants to the Quorum of the Twelve. He also describes the format of Relief Society lesson manuals. But the format he knows is an old one that hasn’t been used at all in this century. It was replaced with manuals identical to the ones used by the men of the Church years before the 2003 copyright date of the article. This is not a writer who has intimate – or even cursory – knowledge of daily life in the current Church.

Similar gaffes come to light as LDS doctrine is put forth. Ponder produces a list of 24 things he claims “Any Mormon…will recognize” {{ref|Ponder}} as being mandatory for LDS women. The impact of the list is under-whelming. Most of the items – like tithing, doing genealogy in cultures that use patrilineal systems, being assigned a geographically determined Church unit, accepting callings, etc., -- apply to both male and female Church members equally. Some items deny and ignore the roles women play in the Church as teachers and leaders. And most items claim that female subservience is part of Mormon doctrine without providing any references to scriptural or prophetic sources authorized to make statements on doctrine.

All these references to the indoctrination of young women beg a question: what does the Church actually teach girls? At no point during the paper are there any direct references to what Church leaders and educators really say to young women about social and spiritual gender roles. The lesson manuals of the Church’s Young Women’s program for girls between the ages of twelve and eighteen contain a curriculum which emphasizes the importance of marriage and family but that also teaches girls that “each young woman has the power to bring happiness into her own life.” {{ref|YW1}} Lessons on responsibilities inside the home are balanced with lessons about self-reliance and the value of work, education, and personal development. Far from preaching inferiority and subservience, the Young Women's manuals include quotations such as this one by late member of the Quorum of the Twelves Apostles, John A. Widstoe: "There is indeed no priveleged class or sex within the true Church of Christ." {{ref|YW1}}

When addressing a worldwide gathering of LDS girls in 2001, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

:The whole gamut of human endeavor is now open to women. There is not anything that you cannot do if you will set your mind to it. You can include in the dream of the woman you would like to be a picture of one qualified to serve society and make a significant contribution to the world of which she will be a part. {{ref|HinckleyYW}}

Perhaps no references or quotations from Church leaders or official Church materials are presented to buttress Ponder’s claims about what young women are taught because such instruction on subservience simply does not exist and are, in fact, contradicted by the actual record. The author cannot quote what has been said because it annuls his position. And, of course, he cannot quote what has never been said.

Ponder correctly reports that an LDS woman “learns that she absolutely cannot enter the highest heavenly kingdom without a temple-married husband.” {{ref|Ponder}} However he does not go on to mention that, according to LDS scripture, the same is true for men. {{scripture||DC|131|2-3}}

He also contends that we require “permission from men” {{ref|Ponder}} in order to make decisions. Again, no evidence is offered to prove this claim – not even any anecdotal evidence from the “nearly three hundred” interviews or from Ponder’s family life. It’s a serious problem because the claim misrepresents how we live. No LDS woman is expected to grovel for permission or to follow the leadership of a man who leads her away from her Christian ideals. Through our scriptures and ordinances, we are taught to only consent to male leadership that is meek, compassionate, and loving. {{scripture||DC|121|41-42}}

There is even an example in LDS scriptures showing how women ought to act when men try to compel them to choices they know to be wrong. The story of Lamech and his wives, Adah and Zillah, depicts women who rebelled against male authority after Lamech confessed he had committed a murder. He tried to administer an oath of secrecy to his wives but, “they rebelled against him, and declared these things abroad, and had not compassion.” {{scripture||PGP|Mos|5|53}}

LDS doctrine is not properly represented in Ponder’s paper, either due to ignorance or for some more cunning reason.

====Problems with Methods====

The paper is not presented or intended as a rigorous work of social science. However, even in an informal study, certain minimum standards ought to be respected if one hopes to enjoy the privilege of making quasi-scientific claims.

Ponder claims to have done “extensive research” {{ref|Ponder}} through interviews. However, no methods are outlined and very little data is presented. No sample size is identified though he claims to have corresponded with “nearly three hundred women.” {{ref|Ponder}} Ponder never describes how the sample was selected so reviewers are not able to assess it for sampling errors. In the analysis of the data, no demographic profiles or other aggregate measures are provided. Key terms like “church-active believers” {{ref|Ponder}} are not defined. With a sample of this size, it’s surprising to find only seventeen direct quotes from respondents in the text of the paper. Most are brief and colorful rather than substantive. When it comes to articulating the subjects’ beliefs and attitudes, the author seems to prefer to use his own words.

Some other errors are failures to provide sources for statistics. Also missing are references to "studies" that go unnamed and uncredited. Experts are quoted but no names are given. Attempts at quantitative claims are usually vague and couched in terms like “very large” and “far more.” {{ref|Ponder}}

The text is peppered with phony psychological conditions like “cognitive-dissonance headaches”{{ref|Ponder}} Ponder also misrepresents Church parlance by repeatedly enclosing certain pet phrases like “One Size Fits All” {{ref|Ponder}} in quotation marks as if they are taken from common use in the LDS community and will be acknowledged by general Church membership. They are not.

====Problems with Personal Confounds====

Ponder acknowledges the role of his personal experiences and relationships in his contentions. He frankly reveals that his emotional state is not objective but “deeply offend[ed].” {{ref||Ponder}}

As is not uncommon in such critical pieces, Ponder expresses something like good will for the Church. He speaks for his female family members when the moment comes to complain about the Church. Ponder outlines hardships female family members have endured. They deal with problems such as: housework, childrearing, household finances, and mental and physical health problems.

Ponder reports that his approach to these struggles was once callous. He says:

<blockquote>
"What astonishes me now is recalling that, at that time, I blithely took for granted everything she was doing. I'm ashamed to admit that I never gave most of it a second thought. I was too busy exulting in my LDS male role to even perceive her work-horse status, which I accepted as normal status quo." {{ref||Ponder}}
</blockquote>

He goes on to deduce that it was the family’s connection to the Church that made life difficult. He claims, “some Mormon beliefs are direct root causes of serious harm to many women.” {{ref||Ponder}}

This is one of many instances where a clumsy leap is made from correlation to causation. One factor does not necessarily cause an effect simply because they occur in the same place, at the same time.

The problem of overloading female members of households is not exclusive to LDS homes. It’s an endemic problem – one revolving around flaws in the exchange economies of specific family units regardless of their religious beliefs. Outside the Church, women may not be burdened by large families. Instead, they swap this burden for the burden of full-time work outside the home. Even in homes where both adult partners have jobs, work inside the home is not equally divided. Women still do far more housework and childcare than men and they tend to perform the onerus and odious tasks. {{ref||Hochschild}}

Still, men’s overburdening of the women within families has been denounced by late Church President, Gordon B. Hinckley:

<blockquote>
“I see their husbands, and I feel like saying to them: “Wake up. Carry your share of the load. Do you really appreciate your wife? Do you know how much she does? Do you ever compliment her? Do you ever say thanks to her?” {{ref||Hinckley2}}
</blockquote>

President Hinckley also sought to relieve our stress by assuring us, “You are doing the best you can, and that best results in good to yourself and to others. Do not nag yourself with a sense of failure.” {{ref||Hinckley2}}

Ponder admits feeling “ashamed” for his part in his family’s unhappiness. This is a critical confound of his opinions and findings – one that we cannot assume is adequately counteracted by the mere admission of his feelings. Even if it were, his family’s experiences are not limited to LDS life. The case for causation has not been made and LDS doctrine cannot be accepted as the cause of their troubles.

Perhaps what's most troubling about this part of the analysis is the underlying assumption that outside LDS life, women live in some kind of well-balanced, egalitarian paradise where there's no longer any need to struggle and work toward greater gender equality. This assumption is badly flawed. It belongs in the same category as claims that racism has ended in America. Sexism has not been extiniguished outside the Church. Those who imply that it has been -- including Ponder and other critics -- are complicit in advancing a dangerous, backward, sexist delusion.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|Ponder}} Kent Ponder, “Mormon Women, Prozac, and Therapy,” unpublished, 2003. Online version accessed 30 May 2012. All emphases in original.
#{{note|Hinckley1}} Gordon B. Hinckley, “Women of the Church,” ''Ensign'', Nov. 1996.
#{{note|YW1}} Young Women Manual 1, 2002.
#{{note|HinckleyYW}} Gordon B. Hinckley, "How Can I Become the Woman of Whom I Dream?" ''Ensign'', Apr. 2001
#{{note|Hochschild}} Arlie Hochschild, ''The Second Shift'' (New York: Penguin), 2003.
#{{note|Hinckley2}} Gordon B. Hinckley, “To the Women of the Church,” ''Ensign'', Nov. 2003.

=={{Further reading label}}==

<noinclude>{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}</noinclude>

Question: Are Latter-day Saint ("Mormon") women taught to be “gratefully subservient to Mormon males” and that women must “not aspire…to independent thought”?

2013-04-23T05:09:09Z

JenniferQuist: /* Problems with Misrepresentations of Doctrine */

<noinclude>{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
</noinclude>
=={{Criticism label}}==

In an unpublished paper “Mormon Women, Prozac, and Therapy," by Kent Ponder (copyrighted 2003, readily available on the Internet), the idea is put forward that women in the LDS church are taught to be “subservient” to men and are considered “eternally unalterable second-class.” {{ref|Ponder}} Among some of its more colorful statements are the claims that women are expected to be “gratefully subservient to Mormon males” {{ref|Ponder}} and that women must “not aspire…to independent thought.” {{ref|Ponder}}

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

The criticisms made in Ponder's 2003 paper suffer from the following defects:

*An overarching sexism, both overt and benevolent
*A particularly pointed and derogatory sexism leveled at devout LDS women
*The misrepresentation of LDS doctrine and clear signs of being out of touch with current Church structures and instructional materials
*Poor research methods, the use of unreferenced authority, and misleading terms
*Claims that contradict official statements of Church leaders and ignore the experiences of devout LDS women

These flaws are fatal to the arguments. The 2003 paper is not useful in an analysis of gender politics within the LDS Church. Instead, it is misleading, unduly inflammatory, and ought to be disregarded.

=={{Topics label}}==
{{SummaryItem
|link=/Statements
|subject=Statements
|summary=Statements by Church leaders regarding the roles of men and women with regard to each other.
}}

== ==
{{Response label}}

==={{Church response label}}===
Contrary to the criticism, Gordon B. Hinckley, the President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints at the time of the criticism’s copyright, had this to say to us:
<blockquote>
“First let me say to you sisters that you do not hold a second place in our Father’s plan for the eternal happiness and well-being of His children. You are an absolutely essential part of that plan.” {{ref|Hinckley1}}
</blockquote>

To men who seek to use authoritarian cruelty to control us, President Hinckley said in the same address:

<blockquote>
“No man who engages in such evil and unbecoming behavior is worthy of the priesthood of God. No man who so conducts himself is worthy of the privileges of the house of the Lord. I regret that there are some men undeserving of the love of their wives and children. There are children who fear their fathers, and wives who fear their husbands. If there be any such men within the hearing of my voice, as a servant of the Lord I rebuke you and call you to repentance.” {{ref|Hinckley1}}
</blockquote>

===The following is a response to the problems with Kent Ponder’s work from a Feminist perspective===
===='''Problems with Ponder'''====

The author of the article is Kent Ponder. The focus of his paper is on anti-depressants use among women in the state of Utah. A general treatment of many of the logical, methodological, and psychopharmacological problems with Ponder’s work can be found here: [[Utah/Statistical claims/LDS use of antidepressants]].

====Problems with Underlying General Sexism: “Thank the Lord I’m Not Female.”{{ref|Ponder}}====

In an attempt to show how gender politics in Western society have evolved over the past 100 years, Ponder offers a description of former roles and power dynamics:
<blockquote>
"Most women used to be naturally dependent upon men for safety and livelihood, resulting in more-natural subservience to male control. Because subservience to males was more needed and natural, it was less oppressive..." {{ref|Ponder}}
</blockquote>
This characterization of centuries’ worth of male oppression of females as something that was once “needed and natural” is clearly sexist. We have never required nor benefitted from subservience and male control. To suggest we once did is to approve and validate the suffering of millions of women and girls throughout the course of human history.

Also advanced in the paper are hackneyed stereotypes of our feelings and behaviors. The claim is made that we “tend to be more alert to social relations than men.” The author writes at length about our abilities to “intuit.” He sets up our supposed intuitive powers in opposition to the ability to use reason and make deliberate inquiries. He introduces the thoughts of women he’s spoken with by saying, “Women tell me they intuitively sense…” {{ref|Ponder}} In another place, it’s observed that a problem is so glaring that “The women notice too.” {{ref|Ponder}}

This isn’t the only way we are treated as an inferior intellectual sub-class in the article. In a section meant to show “The Larger Perspective,” a review is given of the wisdom of thinkers who could help us in our struggles. All of them are men.

The paper dismisses hallmarks of LDS feminism such as self-reliance and the doctrine of a Heavenly Mother. According to the paper, this doctrine is a ploy meant to bind us up and secure our compliance.

There are misogynist cheap-shots too like an insult of the athletic ability of prominent female role model, Oprah Winfrey.

====Benevolent Sexism====

Along with these examples of overt sexism, the paper is steeped in benevolent sexism.

The word “innocent” is repeatedly invoked to describe LDS women who use anti-depressants. The word occurs six times, usually not far from other kinds of inflammatory language like “torment,” “horrendous,” and “anguish.” To describe grown women as “innocent” is to describe them in a diminutive way that diminishes the notions of their adulthood and autonomy. The word makes them seem childlike and desperate for the “needed and natural” male control and protection spoken of elsewhere in the paper. By making the women “innocent,” they are drawn back into a paternalistic, sexist system. Ponder's use of the word is patronizing. It’s classic benevolent sexism.

The patronizing tone and language continue throughout the paper. Ponder recounts marrying an “LDS girl.” {{ref|Ponder}} Perhaps he is speaking frankly about marrying an under-aged person. What’s more likely is that he is speaking of a peer woman using a childlike descriptor. Later in the paper, when talking about marriage, Ponder says women must marry "a man" rather than saying, "a boy." This shows that his use of childlike descriptors is not evenly applied between the genders. It's another example of benevolent sexism. Cutesy monikers are used in other places to describe women as well. Depressed LDS women are called “unhappy campers” {{ref|Ponder}} – a term often used to describe fussy infants – in another sexist diminution.

The view the paper takes of women is so simple the author presumes to be able to read our minds. In several places, he refers to what women – those inside and outside his interview group -- are thinking and feeling. At one point, he ventures an explanation of what “nearly all LDS girls internalize from near-infancy.” {{ref|Ponder}} Such a concept has never been measured nor is it measurable. “Near-infants” cannot report on their internal states.

====Sexism Toward Devout LDS Women in Particular====

An effective tool used by oppressive, small “p” patriarchs to make sure women do not unite and grow in power is to orchestrate situations where we will fight amongst ourselves. Such tactics are blatant in the paper when the “best and brightest” {{ref|Ponder}} of LDS women – that is, the disaffected and depressed – are pitted against the rest of us.

One stage in this tactic is to vilify devout LDS women and cast them in caricature. At the height of this kind of rhetoric, the paper compares the religious convictions of devout LDS women to “people willing even to strap bombs around their waists and blow themselves up.” {{ref|Ponder}} The suicide bomber comparison is revisited a second time, later in the paper.

In Ponder’s analysis, by definition, devout LDS women are not smart women. The claim is made that we are “unable to comprehend” {{ref|Ponder}} the thoughts and feelings of the women Ponder has interviewed. The paper denies the existence of “intellectually curious” {{ref|Ponder}} yet devout LDS women. It even warns, “Remember that, for many LDS women in Utah, this is really all they know.” {{ref|Ponder}}

On the other hand, Ponder’s respondents are described as being of “the highest-caliber in intelligence, education, rational ability and conscientiousness” {{ref|Ponder}}. No data nor other reasoning besides his opinion are provided to support this claim.

An analogy is crafted using metaphors about frustrated swimming prowess to illustrate the tension between the groups of LDS women. At its conclusion it is argued,

"The happy LDS woman is often the one who likes restriction of choices. She gains security from having to make fewer decisions since so many are made for her.” {{ref|Ponder}}

Again, the claim is made without any supporting qualitative or quantitative evidence. It is an expression of the author’s bias and nothing more.

====Problems with Misrepresentations of Doctrine====

Ponder speaks as if he’s an expert on LDS doctrine and life. However, a few glitches in the paper reveal a writer who is out of touch. He refers to positions in the Church hierarchy that do not exist right now as if they are current, namely, the Church Patriarch and Assistants to the Quorum of the Twelve. He also describes the format of Relief Society lesson manuals. But the format he knows is an old one that hasn’t been used at all in this century. It was replaced with manuals identical to the ones used by the men of the Church years before the 2003 copyright date of the article. This is not a writer who has intimate – or even cursory – knowledge of daily life in the current Church.

Similar gaffes come to light as LDS doctrine is put forth. Ponder produces a list of 24 things he claims “Any Mormon…will recognize” {{ref|Ponder}} as being mandatory for LDS women. The impact of the list is under-whelming. Most of the items – like tithing, doing genealogy in cultures that use patrilineal systems, being assigned a geographically determined Church unit, accepting callings, etc., -- apply to both male and female Church members equally. Some items deny and ignore the roles women play in the Church as teachers and leaders. And most items claim that female subservience is part of Mormon doctrine without providing any references to scriptural or prophetic sources authorized to make statements on doctrine.

All these references to the indoctrination of young women beg a question: what does the Church actually teach girls? At no point during the paper are there any direct references to what Church leaders and educators really say to young women about social and spiritual gender roles. The lesson manuals of the Church’s Young Women’s program for girls between the ages of twelve and eighteen contain a curriculum which emphasizes the importance of marriage and family but that also teaches girls that “each young woman has the power to bring happiness into her own life.” {{ref|YW1}} Lessons on responsibilities inside the home are balanced with lessons about self-reliance and the value of work, education, and personal development. Far from preaching inferiority and subservience, the Young Women's manuals include quotations such as this one by late member of the Quorum of the Twelves Apostles, John A. Widstoe: "There is indeed no priveleged class or sex within the true Church of Christ." {{ref|YW1}}

When addressing a worldwide gathering of LDS girls in 2001, Church President Gordon B. Hinckley said:

:The whole gamut of human endeavor is now open to women. There is not anything that you cannot do if you will set your mind to it. You can include in the dream of the woman you would like to be a picture of one qualified to serve society and make a significant contribution to the world of which she will be a part. {{ref|HinckleyYW}}

Perhaps no references or quotations from Church leaders or official Church materials are presented to buttress Ponder’s claims about what young women are taught because such instruction on subservience simply does not exist and are, in fact, contradicted by the actual record. The author cannot quote what has been said because it annuls his position. And, of course, he cannot quote what has never been said.

Ponder correctly reports that an LDS woman “learns that she absolutely cannot enter the highest heavenly kingdom without a temple-married husband.” {{ref|Ponder}} However he does not go on to mention that, according to LDS scripture, the same is true for men. {{scripture||DC|131|2-3}}

He also contends that we require “permission from men” {{ref|Ponder}} in order to make decisions. Again, no evidence is offered to prove this claim – not even any anecdotal evidence from the “nearly three hundred” interviews or from Ponder’s family life. It’s a serious problem because the claim misrepresents how we live. No LDS woman is expected to grovel for permission or to follow the leadership of a man who leads her away from her Christian ideals. Through our scriptures and ordinances, we are taught to only consent to male leadership that is meek, compassionate, and loving. {{scripture||DC|121|41-42}}

There is even an example in LDS scriptures showing how women ought to act when men try to compel them to choices they know to be wrong. The story of Lamech and his wives, Adah and Zillah, depicts women who rebelled against male authority after Lamech confessed he had committed a murder. He tried to administer an oath of secrecy to his wives but, “they rebelled against him, and declared these things abroad, and had not compassion.” {{scripture||PGP|Mos|5|53}}

LDS doctrine is not properly represented in Ponder’s paper, either due to ignorance or for some more cunning reason.

====Problems with Methods====

The paper is not presented or intended as a rigorous work of social science. However, even in an informal study, certain minimum standards ought to be respected if one hopes to enjoy the privilege of making quasi-scientific claims.

Ponder claims to have done “extensive research” {{ref|Ponder}} through interviews. However, no methods are outlined and very little data is presented. No sample size is identified though he claims to have corresponded with “nearly three hundred women.” {{ref|Ponder}} Ponder never describes how the sample was selected so reviewers are not able to assess it for sampling errors. In the analysis of the data, no demographic profiles or other aggregate measures are provided. Key terms like “church-active believers” {{ref|Ponder}} are not defined. With a sample of this size, it’s surprising to find only seventeen direct quotes from respondents in the text of the paper. Most are brief and colorful rather than substantive. When it comes to articulating the subjects’ beliefs and attitudes, the author seems to prefer to use his own words.

Some other errors are failures to provide sources for statistics. Also missing are references to "studies" that go unnamed and uncredited. Experts are quoted but no names are given. Attempts at quantitative claims are usually vague and couched in terms like “very large” and “far more.” {{ref|Ponder}}

The text is peppered with phony psychological conditions like “cognitive-dissonance headaches”{{ref|Ponder}} Ponder also misrepresents Church parlance by repeatedly enclosing certain pet phrases like “One Size Fits All” {{ref|Ponder}} in quotation marks as if they are taken from common use in the LDS community and will be acknowledged by general Church membership. They are not.

====Problems with Personal Confounds====

Ponder acknowledges the role of his personal experiences and relationships in his contentions. He frankly reveals that his emotional state is not objective but “deeply offend[ed].” {{ref||Ponder}}

As is not uncommon in such critical pieces, Ponder expresses something like good will for the Church. He speaks for his female family members when the moment comes to complain about the Church. Ponder outlines hardships female family members have endured. They deal with problems such as: housework, childrearing, household finances, and mental and physical health problems.

Ponder reports that his approach to these struggles was once callous. He says:

<blockquote>
"What astonishes me now is recalling that, at that time, I blithely took for granted everything she was doing. I'm ashamed to admit that I never gave most of it a second thought. I was too busy exulting in my LDS male role to even perceive her work-horse status, which I accepted as normal status quo." {{ref||Ponder}}
</blockquote>

He goes on to deduce that it was the family’s connection to the Church that made life difficult. He claims, “some Mormon beliefs are direct root causes of serious harm to many women.” {{ref||Ponder}}

This is one of many instances where a clumsy leap is made from correlation to causation. One factor does not necessarily cause an effect simply because they occur in the same place, at the same time.

The problem of overloading female members of households is not exclusive to LDS homes. It’s an endemic problem – one revolving around flaws in the exchange economies of specific family units regardless of their religious beliefs. Outside the Church, women may not be burdened by large families. Instead, they swap this burden for the burden of full-time work outside the home. Even in homes where both adult partners have jobs, work inside the home is not equally divided. Women still do far more housework and childcare than men and they tend to perform the onerus and odious tasks. {{ref||Hochschild}}

Still, men’s overburdening of the women within families has been denounced by late Church President, Gordon B. Hinckley:

<blockquote>
“I see their husbands, and I feel like saying to them: “Wake up. Carry your share of the load. Do you really appreciate your wife? Do you know how much she does? Do you ever compliment her? Do you ever say thanks to her?” {{ref||Hinckley2}}
</blockquote>

President Hinckley also sought to relieve our stress by assuring us, “You are doing the best you can, and that best results in good to yourself and to others. Do not nag yourself with a sense of failure.” {{ref||Hinckley2}}

Ponder admits feeling “ashamed” for his part in his family’s unhappiness. This is a critical confound of his opinions and findings – one that we cannot assume is adequately counteracted by the mere admission of his feelings. Even if it were, his family’s experiences are not limited to LDS life. The case for causation has not been made and LDS doctrine cannot be accepted as the cause of their troubles.

Perhaps what's most troubling about this part of the analysis is the underlying assumption that outside LDS life, women live in some kind of well-balanced, egalitarian paradise where there's no longer any need to struggle and work toward greater gender equality. This assumption is badly flawed. It belongs in the same category as claims that racism has ended in America. Sexism has not been extiniguished outside the Church. Those who imply that it has been -- including Ponder and other critics -- are complicit in advancing a dangerous, backward, sexist delusion.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|Ponder}} Kent Ponder, “Mormon Women, Prozac, and Therapy,” unpublished, 2003. Online version accessed 30 May 2012. All emphases in original.
#{{note|Hinckley1}} Gordon B. Hinckley, “Women of the Church,” ''Ensign'', Nov. 1996.
#{{note|YW1}} Young Women Manual 1, 2002.
#{{note|Hochschild}} Arlie Hochschild, ''The Second Shift'' (New York: Penguin), 2003.
#{{note|Hinckley2}} Gordon B. Hinckley, “To the Women of the Church,” ''Ensign'', Nov. 2003.

=={{Further reading label}}==

<noinclude>{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}</noinclude>

Women and the priesthood

2013-04-23T05:03:29Z

JenniferQuist: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{question}}
=={{Question label}}==

Why do women not exercise priesthood authority in the Church?

=={{Conclusion label}}==

God is the Father of all humanity, and no one—male or female—is more valued than any other. Through personal faithfulness, all people can have access to the blessings of the priesthood. Positions of influence within the Church are held by both men and women. From the foundation of the Church, women have been instructed to seek after the same kinds of spiritual gifts that men enjoy through the priesthood. The power of motherhood is an eternal spiritual gift and must not be underestimated or taken for granted as a sanctifying force in the lives of women regardless of whether they ever physically bear children. Men and women must make covenants with each other in the temple in order to qualify for the highest order of the priesthood. Men cannot advance to this order on their own and women are partners in it.

== ==
{{Response label}}

Priesthood is divine power shared with men. Its primary use is to serve and help others. As Jesus taught, “whosever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” ({{b||Matthew|20|27}}).

The blessings and ordinances of the priesthood are available to all Church members regardless of gender, social status, race, or culture {{scripture||2Ne|26|33}}. Access to them is limited only by: 1) adherence to standards of personal faithfulness and worthiness, and 2) sufficient maturity and experience in gospel living. (Requirements of maturity and experience set a pace for young people and new converts to assure there is adequate time for them to grow into new responsibilities.) After satisfying these requirements, people of all genders are not only allowed but expected to receive the blessings of the priesthood. Baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, sacrament, temple ordinances, and other priesthood blessings are freely given to all who are worthy, willing, and ready to receive them.

Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks, quoted one of his predecessors, John A. Widtsoe, saying, “Men have no greater claim than women upon the blessings that issue from the priesthood and accompany its possession.” {{ref|Oaks1}}

Gender differences in the priesthood arise when assignments are made to perform ordinances and offer blessings on behalf of the Lord. Only worthy men are assigned and ordained to offices within the priesthood. The reason this assignment is made along gender lines is not explicitly explained in LDS doctrine. However, several facts of Church life may indicate the roots of it.

===Women Serving in the Church===

LDS women serve as leaders, teachers, temple workers, and missionaries throughout the worldwide Church. In some positions, such as in the presidencies of the Church’s children’s organization (The Primary), women have stewardship over callings held by men. These men report to and take direction from women leaders regardless of the fact that these men are ordained to the priesthood and their female leaders are not.

Women sit as members on councils in locals wards, stakes, and in the higher levels of general Church councils. Women serving in general church leadership positions travel the world speaking and teaching alongside male leaders. Twice annually, at the Church’s General Conferences, women leaders address the entire Church offering guidance and direction. They are also involved in preparing Church instructional materials and in developing and directing the programs and policies of the Church. Items in official Church publications are authored by men and by women.

Contrary to critics’ complaints, women are not barred from positions of leadership and influence in the Church. Mentioning the roles women have in Church leadership is not the same thing as trying to argue that women hold the same kinds of very vocal and prominent leadership roles that men hold. Nowhere in the Church do women preside over congregations. This is well-known. However, the real contributions women make to Church leadership need to be described for the benefit of people who know little about the Church -- people who may be more familiar with critics' claims that women play ''no'' role at all in Church leadership. These descriptions continue to be offered in places like Mormon.org as replies to rhetoric that insists we serve in the Church only in child-minding and food preparation. Such rhetoric is deliberately misleading and requires correction. However, pointing out the roles women play as leaders is nowhere near the end of the discussion.

Latter-day Saints understand leadership in the Church in a different way than leadership is seen in mainstream society. Leadership in the Church should never be about power, prestige, or control over others. The Latter-day Saint ideal is a model of cooperative unity, and duties and responsibilities are delegated under divine direction. At present, those whom the Saints sustain as prophets have organized matters as they stand. This does not preclude changes in the future, but members of the Church believe that such changes must come from God by revelation to those he has delegated to lead the Church.

===Priesthood and Temple Admission===

In order to qualify for entrance to an LDS temple, members must hold certain key beliefs and live according to a code of behavior that makes them worthy to be there. This worthiness is endorsed by local leaders in the form of a written temple recommend. By qualifying for a temple recommend, baptized LDS women can enter the temple without any further ceremony.

The same is not true for men. In order to attend the temple, baptized, temple recommend-worthy men must be ordained to the priesthood. Without it, they are not admitted. Without priesthood ordinations, a man’s progress in the gospel stalls before he receives temple blessings. Women require no such formalities. Our progress can continue without ordinations to the priesthood.

Certainly, the reason for this isn’t because women are intrinsically less worthy or less powerful than men. Instead, the opposite may be true. Perhaps women who worthily hold temple recommends enjoy spiritual gifts that make us equal to priesthood-holding men without the need to be ordained ourselves. What we’re lacking isn’t the spiritual fortitude to hold the priesthood but the need to hold it ourselves. As Paul explained when he compared the Church to the body of Christ,
<blockquote>
“…those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need. But God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to the part which lacked.” {{scripture||1Cor|12|22-24}}
</blockquote>
One reading of this scripture may be that without a spiritual correction like the one made when men are ordained to the priesthood, men in the Church would be “feeble” and “uncomely” compared to the rest of us. With the priesthood, men’s spiritual potential becomes equal to our spiritual potential. Ordination to the priesthood might be a remedial measure and one only men need. Meanwhile, the “comely parts,” the women of the Church, “have no need.” Ordaining us to priesthood offices might nullify this “tempering” of the body of Christ – a tempering that was done in an effort to make the genders equal within the Church, not to make men superior.

If this premise is correct then what might men be lacking? One theory is that the social roles women usually fill tend to make us more charitable and selfless. Charity and service are certainly Christ-like attributes. However, this explanation is encumbered by stereotypes of both male and female behavior. Furthermore, it doesn’t seem to place enough emphasis on the operation of eternal spiritual gifts.

Some critics complain that any reference to women having no need to hold the priesthood themselves while men do need to hold it is a ploy meant to trick women into playing down our strengths in favour of bolstering male egos. It's argued that if women believe we are "naturally" better than men, we'll feel a responsibility to hide our strengths and intentionally let men out-perform us. Contradictions to such claims are clear in the teachings of LDS leaders such as First Presidency member Dieter F. Uchtdorf. In 2011, President Uchtdorf spoke at the annual gathering of women of the church, the General Relief Society meeting, and talked about goals and personal achievements. He told us, "Never stop striving for the best that is within you." {{ref|Uchtdorf}} This is not language meant to persuade us to restrain our best selves in order to keep the men of the Church from feeling threatened. Furthermore, the church does not teach that priesthood-holding men are inferior to women any more than it teaches that they are superior. As late member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, John A. Widstoe said, "There is indeed no priveleged class or sex within the true Church of Christ." {{ref|YW1}} Men's service in the priesthood makes the sexes equally gifted in spiritual strength. No member of either sex needs to feel inferior.

The LDS approach to priesthood is something like a maximalist feminist one where women are excused from ordination not because we’re undeserving or unable but because, for us, it’s unnecessary. Ordaining worthy women to the priesthood might be like trying to get fully sighted people to wear eyeglasses just to make a group of people seem like they’re all being treated evenhandedly. In a crowd where everyone is wearing glasses, everyone might look equal. But there’s actually an unfairness operating because half of the people in the crowd arrived there with full sight. The analogy reveals the absurdity. If we don’t need glasses, we don’t wear them. And if we, LDS women, don’t need to hold the priesthood ourselves, we aren’t ordained to it.

However, in LDS temples, women have always served alongside men. Women aren’t serving in the temple as housekeepers or waitresses but as “ordinance workers.” Women serve temple attendees as blessings are given and covenants are made. We have all the rights and powers needed to serve in these capacities even without receiving priesthood ordinations. As Church President Joseph Fielding Smith said, “It is within the privilege of the sisters of this Church to receive exaltation in the kingdom of God and receive authority and power as queens and priestesses.” {{ref|Smith1}}

===Gifts of the Spirit===

The blessings and gifts that often accompany priesthood service – things such as healing, speaking unlearned languages, receiving revelations, wisdom, discernment, and many others – are not reserved solely for priesthood holding men. Neither of the genders is limited in its access to spiritual gifts. This principle was taught in 1842 when Joseph Smith instructed a meeting of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo to pay attention to Paul’s teachings about gifts of the Spirit. Joseph said “these signs…should follow all that believe” {{ref|Smith2}} including women who believe.

===Motherhood===

Often, the female ability to mother children is presented as an analogue to male priesthood ordinations. Motherhood and priesthood are two different, interdependent, overlapping, and valid paths to becoming more like Christ. If properly traveled, both paths can be sanctifying.

The spiritual gift of motherhood is so reverenced Church President David O. MacKay called it “near to divinity.” {{ref|MacKay}} However, the way women receive this gift is not clearly explained in LDS theology. It has been described by latter-day prophets and apostles with such words as “inherent” and “natural.” However, it’s unlikely these words were chosen in order to say the complex and supernal gift of motherhood arises simply and effortlessly from female biology the same way cats and cows know how to nurse their young.

What’s more likely is that these words were used to express the way human motherhood arises from eternal, spiritual characteristics that we take with us from our pre-mortal lives. As we grow, learn, and master the use of our agency, there is interplay between our spiritual nature and our biological nature. As LDS scriptures teach, “the spirit and the body are the soul of man” (and woman). {{scripture||DC|88|15}} By extension, no act carried out by any human is purely the result of his or her sexual morphology. The spirit is always implicated as well.

Also telling is the fact that motherhood is not considered a mere demographic in the Church. It is understood as a spiritual characteristic that extends beyond reproductive success. In 2001, Second Counselor of the Relief Society General Presidency, Sheri Dew, taught,
<blockquote>
"While ''we'' tend to equate motherhood solely with maternity, in the Lord's language, the word ''mother'' has layers of meaning. Of all the words they could have chosen to define her role and her essence, both God the Father and Adam called Eve "the mother of all living" -- and they did so ''before'' she ever bore a child. Like Eve, our motherhood began ''before'' we were born." {{ref|Dew1}}
</blockquote>
Priesthood and motherhood are both sanctifying, eternal, spiritual gifts. They are both opportunities and responsibilities to offer selfless service. They are each great sources of power and influence. However, there is an essential difference between priesthood and motherhood.

The power that comes with motherhood is not always contingent upon the personal worthiness of the mother herself. It is possible – it’s actually quite commonplace – for women to enjoy motherhood without living the laws of the gospel and/or without having faith in Christ.

The same is not true of priesthood power. LDS scripture states that when men try to use their position as priesthood holders to,
<blockquote>
“cover our sins, gratify our pride, our vain ambitions, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men…the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man…he is left unto himself.” {{scripture||DC|121|37-38}}
</blockquote>
In other words, there is a divine check, a limiter, on men’s access to priesthood. No such limiter exists for women using the power of their motherhood. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why authority in the Church is given to the gender whose access to power and influence is more closely connected to personal faith and righteousness. The limiter built into the priesthood safeguards the Church from error. That isn’t to say that women are more likely than men to make mistakes. It’s just to say that when we do make mistakes, they might be more difficult to overcome since our access to motherhood power is more or less unrestrained.

===The Everlasting Covenant of Marriage===

LDS scripture states that the highest degree of priesthood power cannot be held by any man unless he is married through temple ordinances. {{scripture||DC|131|2-3}} This has been reiterated by General Relief Society Counselor, Sheri L. Dew, “ …the fullness of the priesthood contained in the highest ordinances of the house of the Lord [the temple] can be received only by a man and woman together.” {{ref|Dew2}} Clearly, all men who hold the highest degree of priesthood can only hold it jointly with their wives.

From the beginning, the ideal of marriage relationships has been the one Adam celebrated when he spoke of Eve saying, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh…therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. “ {{scripture||Gen|2|24}}

This ideal was restated by the Lord when he taught his disciples married couples “shall be one flesh: so then shall they be no more twain, but one flesh.” {{scripture||Mark|10|8}}

The connection between temple married men and women joined in this highest order of the priesthood can develop until it is inextricable and transcendent. The couple truly becomes one. This happens through personal righteousness, devotion, and the atonement of Christ as applied through the marriage covenant. Without a formal ordination, oneness within the covenant of marriage makes us partners in the priesthood to which our husbands have been ordained.

Both in the Old Testament and in the Book of Mormon passages of Isaiah, the prophet referred to his wife as “the prophetess.” {{scripture||Isa|8|3}}. The use of the term here could be two-fold. As Isaiah’s female counterpart, it’s fair to call his wife a prophetess regardless of her spiritual gifts. However, there may be much more to it. As it did for Isaiah’s wife, the possibility of achieving oneness in marriage has implications for the wives of men formally called to serve as leaders in the contemporary LDS Church. When male Church leaders grow in oneness with their wives, these women’s influence and inspiration becomes enmeshed with the men’s and the entire Church benefits.

Richard G. Scott explained, “as the Lord intends…a married couple [can] think, act, and rejoice as one – face challenges together and overcome them as one, to grow in love and understanding, and through temple ordinances be bound together as one whole, eternally. That is the plan.” (Richard G. Scott, "The Joy of Living the Great Plan of Happiness," Ensign, November, 1996.)

This oneness doesn’t end when couples are physically separated. It does not depend on the couple actually sitting beside each other in every presidency or council meeting. In a very real and personal way, wives of Church leaders help husbands both to receive inspiration and to shape the practical initiatives that will arise from that inspiration.

Perhaps speaking of Relief Society presidents as the female analogs of males who preside in the priesthood misses an important point. A look at women serving in callings as companions to theirs husbands -- such as temple matrons and the wives of mission presidents -- may reveal the true pattern for amplifying women's leadership roles in the Church. Our influence grows as we and our husbands focus on strengthening and improving oneness in marriage relationships and serving together as a sealed, unified whole. Calling for expansions of the roles of women called to Church auxiliary organizations will probably not do as much to increase the influence of women in the Church as improving charity and equality within individual marriages could accomplish. And this is what Church leaders -- both male and female -- have been calling for all along.

===In Other Ages===

Questions are sometimes raised about the role women have played in the priesthood in times past. For a discussion of biblical references to prophetesses, see here: [[Mormonism and gender issues/Women/As prophets anciently|Women as prophets anciently]]

Speculations are also raised about women holding the priesthood in the early Christian Church. Tertullian says that there were "writings which wrongly go under Paul's name" were forged by a presbyter (Elder) in Asia to give "a license for women's teaching and baptizing."{{ref|anf1}} The necessity of such a forgery suggests to some that women did not routinely teach and baptize in the early Church.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|Oakes1}} Dallin H. Oaks, “The Relief Society and the Church,” ''Ensign'', May 1992, 36.
#{{note|Uchtdorf}} Dieter F. Uchtdorf, "Forget Me Not," ''Ensign'', Nov 2011.
#{{note|YW1}} ''Young Women Manual 1'', "Lesson 16: Women and Priesthood Bearers," 2002, 67-70.
#{{note|Smith1}} Joseph Fielding Smith, “Relief Society – An Aid to the Priesthood,” 5. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|Smith2}} Joseph Smith, in Relief Society Minute Book, Nauvoo, Illinois, 28 Apr. 1842, Church History Library, 36. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|MacKay}} Message from the First Presidency, in Conference Report, Oct. 1942, 12; read by J. Reuben Clark Jr. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|Dew1}} Sheri L. Dew, "Are We Not All Mothers?" ''Ensign'', Nov. 2001, 96. Emphasis in original.
#{{note|Dew2}} Sheri L. Dew, “It is Not Good for Man or Woman to be Alone,” ''Ensign'', Nov., 2001,13.
#{{note|anf1}} {{anf1|author=Tertulian|article=De Baptismo|vol=3|start=677|citation=17}}

{{FurtherReading}}
[[fr:Women/Role in the Church/Priesthood]]

Women and the priesthood

2013-04-23T05:00:48Z

JenniferQuist: /* */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{question}}
=={{Question label}}==

Why do women not exercise priesthood authority in the Church?

=={{Conclusion label}}==

God is the Father of all humanity, and no one—male or female—is more valued than any other. Through personal faithfulness, all people can have access to the blessings of the priesthood. Positions of influence within the Church are held by both men and women. From the foundation of the Church, women have been instructed to seek after the same kinds of spiritual gifts that men enjoy through the priesthood. The power of motherhood is an eternal spiritual gift and must not be underestimated or taken for granted as a sanctifying force in the lives of women regardless of whether they ever physically bear children. Men and women must make covenants with each other in the temple in order to qualify for the highest order of the priesthood. Men cannot advance to this order on their own and women are partners in it.

== ==
{{Response label}}

Priesthood is divine authority as delegated to mortals. Priesthood exists only to serve and help others. As Jesus taught, “whosever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” ({{b||Matthew|20|27}}).

The blessings and ordinances of the priesthood are available to all Church members regardless of gender, social status, race, or culture {{scripture||2Ne|26|33}}. Access to them is limited only by: 1) adherence to standards of personal faithfulness and worthiness, and 2) sufficient maturity and experience in gospel living. (Requirements of maturity and experience set a pace for young people and new converts to assure there is adequate time for them to grow into new responsibilities.) After satisfying these requirements, people of all genders are not only allowed but expected to receive the blessings of the priesthood. Baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, sacrament, temple ordinances, and other priesthood blessings are freely given to all who are worthy, willing, and ready to receive them.

Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks, quoted one of his predecessors, John A. Widtsoe, saying, “Men have no greater claim than women upon the blessings that issue from the priesthood and accompany its possession.” {{ref|Oaks1}}

Gender differences in the priesthood arise when assignments are made to perform ordinances and offer blessings on behalf of the Lord. Only worthy men are assigned and ordained to offices within the priesthood. The reason this assignment is made along gender lines is not explicitly explained in LDS doctrine. However, several facts of Church life may indicate the roots of it.

===Women Serving in the Church===

LDS women serve as leaders, teachers, temple workers, and missionaries throughout the worldwide Church. In some positions, such as in the presidencies of the Church’s children’s organization (The Primary), women have stewardship over callings held by men. These men report to and take direction from women leaders regardless of the fact that these men are ordained to the priesthood and their female leaders are not.

Women sit as members on councils in locals wards, stakes, and in the higher levels of general Church councils. Women serving in general church leadership positions travel the world speaking and teaching alongside male leaders. Twice annually, at the Church’s General Conferences, women leaders address the entire Church offering guidance and direction. They are also involved in preparing Church instructional materials and in developing and directing the programs and policies of the Church. Items in official Church publications are authored by men and by women.

Contrary to critics’ complaints, women are not barred from positions of leadership and influence in the Church. Mentioning the roles women have in Church leadership is not the same thing as trying to argue that women hold the same kinds of very vocal and prominent leadership roles that men hold. Nowhere in the Church do women preside over congregations. This is well-known. However, the real contributions women make to Church leadership need to be described for the benefit of people who know little about the Church -- people who may be more familiar with critics' claims that women play ''no'' role at all in Church leadership. These descriptions continue to be offered in places like Mormon.org as replies to rhetoric that insists we serve in the Church only in child-minding and food preparation. Such rhetoric is deliberately misleading and requires correction. However, pointing out the roles women play as leaders is nowhere near the end of the discussion.

Latter-day Saints understand leadership in the Church in a different way than leadership is seen in mainstream society. Leadership in the Church should never be about power, prestige, or control over others. The Latter-day Saint ideal is a model of cooperative unity, and duties and responsibilities are delegated under divine direction. At present, those whom the Saints sustain as prophets have organized matters as they stand. This does not preclude changes in the future, but members of the Church believe that such changes must come from God by revelation to those he has delegated to lead the Church.

===Priesthood and Temple Admission===

In order to qualify for entrance to an LDS temple, members must hold certain key beliefs and live according to a code of behavior that makes them worthy to be there. This worthiness is endorsed by local leaders in the form of a written temple recommend. By qualifying for a temple recommend, baptized LDS women can enter the temple without any further ceremony.

The same is not true for men. In order to attend the temple, baptized, temple recommend-worthy men must be ordained to the priesthood. Without it, they are not admitted. Without priesthood ordinations, a man’s progress in the gospel stalls before he receives temple blessings. Women require no such formalities. Our progress can continue without ordinations to the priesthood.

Certainly, the reason for this isn’t because women are intrinsically less worthy or less powerful than men. Instead, the opposite may be true. Perhaps women who worthily hold temple recommends enjoy spiritual gifts that make us equal to priesthood-holding men without the need to be ordained ourselves. What we’re lacking isn’t the spiritual fortitude to hold the priesthood but the need to hold it ourselves. As Paul explained when he compared the Church to the body of Christ,
<blockquote>
“…those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need. But God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to the part which lacked.” {{scripture||1Cor|12|22-24}}
</blockquote>
One reading of this scripture may be that without a spiritual correction like the one made when men are ordained to the priesthood, men in the Church would be “feeble” and “uncomely” compared to the rest of us. With the priesthood, men’s spiritual potential becomes equal to our spiritual potential. Ordination to the priesthood might be a remedial measure and one only men need. Meanwhile, the “comely parts,” the women of the Church, “have no need.” Ordaining us to priesthood offices might nullify this “tempering” of the body of Christ – a tempering that was done in an effort to make the genders equal within the Church, not to make men superior.

If this premise is correct then what might men be lacking? One theory is that the social roles women usually fill tend to make us more charitable and selfless. Charity and service are certainly Christ-like attributes. However, this explanation is encumbered by stereotypes of both male and female behavior. Furthermore, it doesn’t seem to place enough emphasis on the operation of eternal spiritual gifts.

Some critics complain that any reference to women having no need to hold the priesthood themselves while men do need to hold it is a ploy meant to trick women into playing down our strengths in favour of bolstering male egos. It's argued that if women believe we are "naturally" better than men, we'll feel a responsibility to hide our strengths and intentionally let men out-perform us. Contradictions to such claims are clear in the teachings of LDS leaders such as First Presidency member Dieter F. Uchtdorf. In 2011, President Uchtdorf spoke at the annual gathering of women of the church, the General Relief Society meeting, and talked about goals and personal achievements. He told us, "Never stop striving for the best that is within you." {{ref|Uchtdorf}} This is not language meant to persuade us to restrain our best selves in order to keep the men of the Church from feeling threatened. Furthermore, the church does not teach that priesthood-holding men are inferior to women any more than it teaches that they are superior. As late member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, John A. Widstoe said, "There is indeed no priveleged class or sex within the true Church of Christ." {{ref|YW1}} Men's service in the priesthood makes the sexes equally gifted in spiritual strength. No member of either sex needs to feel inferior.

The LDS approach to priesthood is something like a maximalist feminist one where women are excused from ordination not because we’re undeserving or unable but because, for us, it’s unnecessary. Ordaining worthy women to the priesthood might be like trying to get fully sighted people to wear eyeglasses just to make a group of people seem like they’re all being treated evenhandedly. In a crowd where everyone is wearing glasses, everyone might look equal. But there’s actually an unfairness operating because half of the people in the crowd arrived there with full sight. The analogy reveals the absurdity. If we don’t need glasses, we don’t wear them. And if we, LDS women, don’t need to hold the priesthood ourselves, we aren’t ordained to it.

However, in LDS temples, women have always served alongside men. Women aren’t serving in the temple as housekeepers or waitresses but as “ordinance workers.” Women serve temple attendees as blessings are given and covenants are made. We have all the rights and powers needed to serve in these capacities even without receiving priesthood ordinations. As Church President Joseph Fielding Smith said, “It is within the privilege of the sisters of this Church to receive exaltation in the kingdom of God and receive authority and power as queens and priestesses.” {{ref|Smith1}}

===Gifts of the Spirit===

The blessings and gifts that often accompany priesthood service – things such as healing, speaking unlearned languages, receiving revelations, wisdom, discernment, and many others – are not reserved solely for priesthood holding men. Neither of the genders is limited in its access to spiritual gifts. This principle was taught in 1842 when Joseph Smith instructed a meeting of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo to pay attention to Paul’s teachings about gifts of the Spirit. Joseph said “these signs…should follow all that believe” {{ref|Smith2}} including women who believe.

===Motherhood===

Often, the female ability to mother children is presented as an analogue to male priesthood ordinations. Motherhood and priesthood are two different, interdependent, overlapping, and valid paths to becoming more like Christ. If properly traveled, both paths can be sanctifying.

The spiritual gift of motherhood is so reverenced Church President David O. MacKay called it “near to divinity.” {{ref|MacKay}} However, the way women receive this gift is not clearly explained in LDS theology. It has been described by latter-day prophets and apostles with such words as “inherent” and “natural.” However, it’s unlikely these words were chosen in order to say the complex and supernal gift of motherhood arises simply and effortlessly from female biology the same way cats and cows know how to nurse their young.

What’s more likely is that these words were used to express the way human motherhood arises from eternal, spiritual characteristics that we take with us from our pre-mortal lives. As we grow, learn, and master the use of our agency, there is interplay between our spiritual nature and our biological nature. As LDS scriptures teach, “the spirit and the body are the soul of man” (and woman). {{scripture||DC|88|15}} By extension, no act carried out by any human is purely the result of his or her sexual morphology. The spirit is always implicated as well.

Also telling is the fact that motherhood is not considered a mere demographic in the Church. It is understood as a spiritual characteristic that extends beyond reproductive success. In 2001, Second Counselor of the Relief Society General Presidency, Sheri Dew, taught,
<blockquote>
"While ''we'' tend to equate motherhood solely with maternity, in the Lord's language, the word ''mother'' has layers of meaning. Of all the words they could have chosen to define her role and her essence, both God the Father and Adam called Eve "the mother of all living" -- and they did so ''before'' she ever bore a child. Like Eve, our motherhood began ''before'' we were born." {{ref|Dew1}}
</blockquote>
Priesthood and motherhood are both sanctifying, eternal, spiritual gifts. They are both opportunities and responsibilities to offer selfless service. They are each great sources of power and influence. However, there is an essential difference between priesthood and motherhood.

The power that comes with motherhood is not always contingent upon the personal worthiness of the mother herself. It is possible – it’s actually quite commonplace – for women to enjoy motherhood without living the laws of the gospel and/or without having faith in Christ.

The same is not true of priesthood power. LDS scripture states that when men try to use their position as priesthood holders to,
<blockquote>
“cover our sins, gratify our pride, our vain ambitions, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men…the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man…he is left unto himself.” {{scripture||DC|121|37-38}}
</blockquote>
In other words, there is a divine check, a limiter, on men’s access to priesthood. No such limiter exists for women using the power of their motherhood. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why authority in the Church is given to the gender whose access to power and influence is more closely connected to personal faith and righteousness. The limiter built into the priesthood safeguards the Church from error. That isn’t to say that women are more likely than men to make mistakes. It’s just to say that when we do make mistakes, they might be more difficult to overcome since our access to motherhood power is more or less unrestrained.

===The Everlasting Covenant of Marriage===

LDS scripture states that the highest degree of priesthood power cannot be held by any man unless he is married through temple ordinances. {{scripture||DC|131|2-3}} This has been reiterated by General Relief Society Counselor, Sheri L. Dew, “ …the fullness of the priesthood contained in the highest ordinances of the house of the Lord [the temple] can be received only by a man and woman together.” {{ref|Dew2}} Clearly, all men who hold the highest degree of priesthood can only hold it jointly with their wives.

From the beginning, the ideal of marriage relationships has been the one Adam celebrated when he spoke of Eve saying, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh…therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. “ {{scripture||Gen|2|24}}

This ideal was restated by the Lord when he taught his disciples married couples “shall be one flesh: so then shall they be no more twain, but one flesh.” {{scripture||Mark|10|8}}

The connection between temple married men and women joined in this highest order of the priesthood can develop until it is inextricable and transcendent. The couple truly becomes one. This happens through personal righteousness, devotion, and the atonement of Christ as applied through the marriage covenant. Without a formal ordination, oneness within the covenant of marriage makes us partners in the priesthood to which our husbands have been ordained.

Both in the Old Testament and in the Book of Mormon passages of Isaiah, the prophet referred to his wife as “the prophetess.” {{scripture||Isa|8|3}}. The use of the term here could be two-fold. As Isaiah’s female counterpart, it’s fair to call his wife a prophetess regardless of her spiritual gifts. However, there may be much more to it. As it did for Isaiah’s wife, the possibility of achieving oneness in marriage has implications for the wives of men formally called to serve as leaders in the contemporary LDS Church. When male Church leaders grow in oneness with their wives, these women’s influence and inspiration becomes enmeshed with the men’s and the entire Church benefits.

Richard G. Scott explained, “as the Lord intends…a married couple [can] think, act, and rejoice as one – face challenges together and overcome them as one, to grow in love and understanding, and through temple ordinances be bound together as one whole, eternally. That is the plan.” (Richard G. Scott, "The Joy of Living the Great Plan of Happiness," Ensign, November, 1996.)

This oneness doesn’t end when couples are physically separated. It does not depend on the couple actually sitting beside each other in every presidency or council meeting. In a very real and personal way, wives of Church leaders help husbands both to receive inspiration and to shape the practical initiatives that will arise from that inspiration.

Perhaps speaking of Relief Society presidents as the female analogs of males who preside in the priesthood misses an important point. A look at women serving in callings as companions to theirs husbands -- such as temple matrons and the wives of mission presidents -- may reveal the true pattern for amplifying women's leadership roles in the Church. Our influence grows as we and our husbands focus on strengthening and improving oneness in marriage relationships and serving together as a sealed, unified whole. Calling for expansions of the roles of women called to Church auxiliary organizations will probably not do as much to increase the influence of women in the Church as improving charity and equality within individual marriages could accomplish. And this is what Church leaders -- both male and female -- have been calling for all along.

===In Other Ages===

Questions are sometimes raised about the role women have played in the priesthood in times past. For a discussion of biblical references to prophetesses, see here: [[Mormonism and gender issues/Women/As prophets anciently|Women as prophets anciently]]

Speculations are also raised about women holding the priesthood in the early Christian Church. Tertullian says that there were "writings which wrongly go under Paul's name" were forged by a presbyter (Elder) in Asia to give "a license for women's teaching and baptizing."{{ref|anf1}} The necessity of such a forgery suggests to some that women did not routinely teach and baptize in the early Church.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|Oakes1}} Dallin H. Oaks, “The Relief Society and the Church,” ''Ensign'', May 1992, 36.
#{{note|Uchtdorf}} Dieter F. Uchtdorf, "Forget Me Not," ''Ensign'', Nov 2011.
#{{note|YW1}} ''Young Women Manual 1'', "Lesson 16: Women and Priesthood Bearers," 2002, 67-70.
#{{note|Smith1}} Joseph Fielding Smith, “Relief Society – An Aid to the Priesthood,” 5. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|Smith2}} Joseph Smith, in Relief Society Minute Book, Nauvoo, Illinois, 28 Apr. 1842, Church History Library, 36. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|MacKay}} Message from the First Presidency, in Conference Report, Oct. 1942, 12; read by J. Reuben Clark Jr. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|Dew1}} Sheri L. Dew, "Are We Not All Mothers?" ''Ensign'', Nov. 2001, 96. Emphasis in original.
#{{note|Dew2}} Sheri L. Dew, “It is Not Good for Man or Woman to be Alone,” ''Ensign'', Nov., 2001,13.
#{{note|anf1}} {{anf1|author=Tertulian|article=De Baptismo|vol=3|start=677|citation=17}}

{{FurtherReading}}
[[fr:Women/Role in the Church/Priesthood]]

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ

2013-03-28T02:41:12Z

JenniferQuist: /* {{Topics label}} */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{summary}}
{{SSAPortal}}
<onlyinclude>
=[[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction|Mormonism and same-sex attraction]]=
<noinclude>
=={{Criticism label}}==
*The Church is accused of rejecting people who experience same-sex attraction.
*The Church is accused of rejecting people who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

The Church does not reject those who experience same-sex attraction. It is possible to experience same-sex attraction and be a faithful member in full fellowship. If those feelings take the form of an intimate physical relationship, then this is considered a sin in the same manner as when heterosexual feelings take the form of an intimate physical relationship outside of marriage.

== ==
{{Response label}}

===The Church's response===
<blockquote>
I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married.<br>
—Gordon B. Hinckley, [http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD “Why We Do Some of the Things We Do,”] ''Ensign'', Nov 1999, 52.
</blockquote>

The Church distinguishes between having same-sex attraction versus acting upon those feelings. Elder Dallin Oaks notes the distinction between having feelings of same-sex attraction and acting upon those feelings,
<blockquote>
[W]e should always distinguish between sinful acts and inappropriate feelings or potentially dangerous susceptibilities. We should reach out lovingly to those who are struggling to resist temptation. The First Presidency did this in their 14 November 1991 letter. After reaffirming the sinful nature of “fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior,” the Presidency added: “Individuals and their families desiring help with these matters should seek counsel from their bishop, branch president, stake or district president. We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues. Many will respond to Christlike love and inspired counsel as they receive an invitation to come back and apply the atoning and healing power of the Savior. <br>
—Dallin H. Oaks, [http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=43786e9ce9b1c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 “Same-Gender Attraction,”] ''Ensign'', Oct 1995, 7.
</blockquote>
</noinclude>
=={{Topics label}}==

{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Bullying and unkindness
|subject=Bullying and unkindness
|summary=Critics claim that LDS teachings against homosexual acts lead to bullying of gay youth or unchristian treatment of members or non-members with same-sex attraction. The Church has consistently taught that all people are children of God, and ought to be treated with love, dignity, and respect. They have specifically mentioned people with same-sex attraction, including those who act on their attractions.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Family members
|subject=Are family members taught to reject their LGBT children forcing many of them to become homeless?
|summary=Critics claim the LDS church encourages families to reject youth who are attracted to the same sex, identify as gay or participate in homosexual behavior, leading to a higher rate of homeless youth among Mormon families. In fact, LGBT youth nationwide are homeless at a higher rate than other youth regardless of religious affiliation. No causal connection has ever been made between being LDS, LGBT, and homeless. Furthermore, LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Non discrimination ordinances
|subject=Church support of non-discrimination ordinances
|summary=Since the Church teaches that homosexual conduct is sinful, does this mean it opposes efforts to protect those who engage in homosexual acts? The Church sustains the principle that all citizens are equal before the law. Members of the Church are particularly sensitized to this issue because of their long history of persecution at the hands of private citizens and government agents in the nineteenth century. Even though Church members may disagree with the choices made by those who engage in homosexual acts, the Church has endorsed various measures to ensure fair treatment and others who are attracted to the same sex.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Difficulties
|subject=Difficulties
|summary=Church leaders have encouraged members to be particularly kind and compassionate to those struggling with SSA. What are some of the unique challenges or difficulties faced by such members?
}} {{nw}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Does not persist beyond death
|subject=Persist beyond death?
|summary=Does attraction to the same sex persist beyond death?
}} {{nw}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Marriage_not_needed_for_exaltation#What_of_members_who_are_not_married.3F
|subject=Eternal fate of those unmarried?
|summary=In his article in the ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism'', James T. Duke explains the LDS doctrine on this subject: "People who live a worthy life but do not marry in the temples, for various reasons beyond their control, which might include not marrying, not having heard the gospel, or not having a temple available so that the marriage could be sealed for eternity, will at some time be given this opportunity. Latter-day Saints believe it is their privilege and duty to perform these sacred ordinances vicariously for deceased progenitors, and for others insofar as possible."
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy
|subject=Marriage as therapy?
|summary=Critics claim that Church leaders have advocated that those with same-sex attraction marry those of the opposite sex as part of the "therapy" for overcoming their same-sex desires or inclinations. The prophets and general authorities have, in their written statements, long been clear that marriage is not to be seen as a "treatment" for same-sex attraction.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Marriage
|subject=Marriage as a possibility
|summary=Critics claim it is harmful for Church leaders to allow those with same-sex attraction to voluntarily enter into a marriage. The Church has warned against entering into a marriage under false pretense, but there is no evidence that when done openly and honestly, these types of marriages fair any worse than other types of marriages.}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Origin
|subject=Why do some people have same-sex attraction?
|summary=What have past and present Church leaders taught about why some people are attracted to the same sex? The Church does not have an official position on the causes for same-sex attraction. Many Church leaders have indicated that we do not know the cause(s), and that this is a question for science.
}}<noinclude>
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Origin/Genetic
|subject=Is SSA "genetic"?
|summary=Is same-sex attraction "inborn"? Is it "genetic"?
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide
|subject=Suicide and same-sex attraction?
|summary=Critics charge that: 1) suicide rates are higher for those with same-sex attraction, 2) Church doctrine and teaching causes these higher suicide rates, and 3) there is an "epidemic" of suicide among gay Mormons
}}</noinclude>
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Boyd K. Packer October 2010 conference talk
|subject=President Boyd K. Packer's October 2010 conference talk
|summary=On October 10, 2010, President Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke during the Church's semi-annual general conference. Portions of President Packer's talk caused a firestorm of protest and, often, misrepresentation. This article examines President Packer's address, and compares it to past talks given by President Packer. As will be seen, President Packer's address has been misunderstood and misrepresented.
}}<noinclude>
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Boyd_K._Packer_October_2010_conference_talk/Critics%27_tactics
|subject=Critics' tactics
|summary=Given that same-sex attraction is a charged issue with political overtones, it is not surprising that some sincerely misunderstood President Packer's talk. Just as there are those who could sincerely misunderstand President Packer's talk, there are those who choose, for whatever reason, to purposely misunderstand.
}}</noinclude>
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Terminology
|subject=Terminology
|summary=Why does FAIR (and other LDS sources) typically refer to homosexual/gay/lesbian issues with such terms as "same-sex attraction" and heterosexual/straight issues with such terms as "opposite-sex attraction"?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/LGBT identity
|subject=Can a person identify as gay or lesbian and still be a member of the Church in good standing?
|summary=It is asserted that: 1) Members are encouraged to lie about their sexual orientation, 2) This isolates them from other members, and 3) Denying your sexual identity is harmful. Those who identify as straight, gay or bisexual are welcome in the Church and can go on as all other members. When a person joins the Church, they take upon themselves the name of Christ. We are taught to shun any identity which conflicts with this identity. The Church recognizes that a person's orientation is a core characteristic, but emphasizes that it is not the only one. We are encouraged not to identify ourselves primarily by our sexual feelings, but this is different than being closeted. We are not encouraged to lie or pretend to have another sexual orientation. This counsel extends to all, regardless of sexual orientation.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex_attraction/Aversion therapy performed at BYU
|subject=Aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970's
|summary=What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality in the 1970's? How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time? What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Honesty
|subject=Are members with same-sex attraction encouraged to be closeted or lie about their attractions?
|summary=Member with same-sex attractions are not encouraged to lie or hide their sexual attractions or to isolate themselves from others. All members are encouraged to avoid labels and not to identify themselves primarily by their sexual feelings. However, there is a difference between not identifying yourself primarily by your sexual feelings, and being "closeted". A person can be honest, share their feelings with others and be comfortable with who they are, including their sexuality, while still realizing that they are first and foremost a child of God.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Denial
|subject=What are the ramifications from denying a gay identity?
|summary=Critics argue that in order to be happy and healthy, a person with same-sex attraction needs to identify as gay and have a same-sex relationship. The church encourages members to view themselves as sons and daughters of God, and discourages any identity that interferes with that identity. Members who refer to themselves as straight, gay or lesbian are free to go on as all other members, but are advised not to identify themselves primarily by their sexual feelings.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Feelings versus acts
|subject=Feelings versus acts
|summary=What have past and present Church leaders taught about the distinction (if any) between sexual temptations, desires, feelings, or inclinations, and sexual acts?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Association
|subject=Being able to associate with people with same-sex attraction
|summary=Does the church allow people with same-sex attraction to associate with each other?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Christ's teachings on
|subject=Did Christ teach against same-sex relationships during his mortal ministry?
|summary=Some critics have asserted that our stance on same-sex relationships are not substantiated by the teachings of Christ during his mortal minstry. This is not the case. Christ taught a very strict law for sexual morality. He taught against sexual relationships outside of marriage and that marriage was between a man and a woman. While he did not specifically teach against the modern concept of same-sex relationships, he was clear that the only legitimate expression of sexuality was in a marriage between a man and woman.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Law of Moses
|subject=Why wasn't the prohibition against same-sex relationships recinded when the rest of the law of Moses was recinded?
|summary=While the law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, Christ specifically taught against fornication and adultery, which would include same-sex relationships. After Peter received a vision that the law of Moses had been fulfilled, the prohibition against fornication remained intact.}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Early LDS attitude toward
|subject=Early LDS did not oppose homosexual acts?
|summary=Critics claim that Joseph Smith and other nineteenth century Mormons were not strenuously opposed to same-sex acts or intimacy, and that the modern Church's opposition to homosexual conduct is a later aberration. Historian D. Michael Quinn's book, Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example is almost solely responsible for this claim. Quinn's methodology and conclusions are shoddy, and have been severely criticized by LDS and non-LDS historians.
}}<noinclude>
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Specific works/Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example
|subject=A FAIR Analysis of ''Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example''
|summary=FAIR analyzes claims made in a book by D. Michael Quinn that asserts that same-sex intimacy was accepted in the early 19th-century Church.
}}</noinclude>
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/False analogy/Priesthood ban
|subject=False analogy between same-sex marriage and the priesthood ban
|summary=An examination and comparison of the differences between the way the Church approaches same-sex attraction as opposed to the Priesthood ban.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/False analogy/Plural marriage
|subject=False analogy between same-sex marriage and plural marriage
|summary=An examination and comparison of the differences between the way the Church approaches same-sex attraction as opposed to plural marriage.
}} {{nw}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8
|subject=Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8
|summary=The passage of California Proposition 8 during the November 2008 election has generated a number of criticisms of the Church regarding a variety of issues including the separation of church and state, the Church's position relative to people who experience same-sex attraction, accusations of bigotry by members, and the rights of a non-profit organization to participate in the democratic process on matters not associated with elections of candidates.
}}<noinclude>
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Imposing morality
|subject=Does the Church seek to "impose its morality" on others?
|summary=Critics charge that by its political opposition to same-sex marriage, the Church is attempting to "impose its own morality" on those who are not members. The Church opposes legislation that seeks to control conscience or suppress the freedom of the soul and has supported legislation that expands the freedom to choose same-sex relationships. It has also sought to preserve the legal definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. These two things do not conflict.
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Religious freedom
|subject=How does same-sex marriage affect religious freedoms?
|summary=Religious freedoms and gay rights conflict in interesting and sometimes unexpected ways. This explains some of the potential threats to religious freedoms if marriage is redefined.
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/LGBT Rights
|subject=Does the Church oppose rights for same-sex couples?
|summary=The Church has emphasized that it does not object to the extension of rights associated with marriage to same-sex couples, as long as it does not interfere with other rights. Its objection is limited to redefining marriage so that it no longer refers to a union between a man and a woman.
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Effects on family
|subject=How will changing the definition of marriage affect families?
|summary=Part of the reasoning that the Church gave for protecting the definition of marriage is the effects it will have on families. What are those effects? What are the pros and cons of changing the definition of marriage?
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Agency
|subject=How does the definition of marriage affect agency?
|summary=Does the Church inhibit the agency of same-sex couples in defending the definition of marriage? Does changing the definition of marriage affect the agency of members of the Church with SSA?
}}{{nw}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Specific_works/8:_The_Mormon_Proposition
|subject=A FAIR Analysis of: ''8: The Mormon Proposition''
|summary=FAIR analyzes a documentary that purports to expose the "truth" behind the Church's involvement in California Proposition 8.
}}</noinclude>
</onlyinclude>

{{FurtherReading}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Homosexuality and the Church of Jesus Christ

2013-03-28T02:40:32Z

JenniferQuist: /* {{Topics label}} */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{summary}}
{{SSAPortal}}
<onlyinclude>
=[[Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction|Mormonism and same-sex attraction]]=
<noinclude>
=={{Criticism label}}==
*The Church is accused of rejecting people who experience same-sex attraction.
*The Church is accused of rejecting people who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual.

=={{Conclusion label}}==

The Church does not reject those who experience same-sex attraction. It is possible to experience same-sex attraction and be a faithful member in full fellowship. If those feelings take the form of an intimate physical relationship, then this is considered a sin in the same manner as when heterosexual feelings take the form of an intimate physical relationship outside of marriage.

== ==
{{Response label}}

===The Church's response===
<blockquote>
I emphasize this, I wish to say that our opposition to attempts to legalize same-sex marriage should never be interpreted as justification for hatred, intolerance, or abuse of those who profess homosexual tendencies, either individually or as a group. As I said from this pulpit one year ago, our hearts reach out to those who refer to themselves as gays and lesbians. We love and honor them as sons and daughters of God. They are welcome in the Church. It is expected, however, that they follow the same God-given rules of conduct that apply to everyone else, whether single or married.<br>
—Gordon B. Hinckley, [http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=ff1b6a4430c0c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD “Why We Do Some of the Things We Do,”] ''Ensign'', Nov 1999, 52.
</blockquote>

The Church distinguishes between having same-sex attraction versus acting upon those feelings. Elder Dallin Oaks notes the distinction between having feelings of same-sex attraction and acting upon those feelings,
<blockquote>
[W]e should always distinguish between sinful acts and inappropriate feelings or potentially dangerous susceptibilities. We should reach out lovingly to those who are struggling to resist temptation. The First Presidency did this in their 14 November 1991 letter. After reaffirming the sinful nature of “fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior,” the Presidency added: “Individuals and their families desiring help with these matters should seek counsel from their bishop, branch president, stake or district president. We encourage Church leaders and members to reach out with love and understanding to those struggling with these issues. Many will respond to Christlike love and inspired counsel as they receive an invitation to come back and apply the atoning and healing power of the Savior. <br>
—Dallin H. Oaks, [http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=43786e9ce9b1c010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1 “Same-Gender Attraction,”] ''Ensign'', Oct 1995, 7.
</blockquote>
</noinclude>
=={{Topics label}}==

{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Bullying and unkindness
|subject=Bullying and unkindness
|summary=Critics claim that LDS teachings against homosexual acts lead to bullying of gay youth or unchristian treatment of members or non-members with same-sex attraction. The Church has consistently taught that all people are children of God, and ought to be treated with love, dignity, and respect. They have specifically mentioned people with same-sex attraction, including those who act on their attractions.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Family members
|subject=Are family members taught to reject their children forcing many of them to become homeless?
|summary=Critics claim the LDS church encourages families to reject youth who are attracted to the same sex, identify as gay or participate in homosexual behavior, leading to a higher rate of homeless youth among Mormon families. In fact, LGBT youth nationwide are homeless at a higher rate than other youth regardless of religious affiliation. No causal connection has ever been made between being LDS, LGBT, and homeless. Furthermore, LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Non discrimination ordinances
|subject=Church support of non-discrimination ordinances
|summary=Since the Church teaches that homosexual conduct is sinful, does this mean it opposes efforts to protect those who engage in homosexual acts? The Church sustains the principle that all citizens are equal before the law. Members of the Church are particularly sensitized to this issue because of their long history of persecution at the hands of private citizens and government agents in the nineteenth century. Even though Church members may disagree with the choices made by those who engage in homosexual acts, the Church has endorsed various measures to ensure fair treatment and others who are attracted to the same sex.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Difficulties
|subject=Difficulties
|summary=Church leaders have encouraged members to be particularly kind and compassionate to those struggling with SSA. What are some of the unique challenges or difficulties faced by such members?
}} {{nw}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Does not persist beyond death
|subject=Persist beyond death?
|summary=Does attraction to the same sex persist beyond death?
}} {{nw}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Marriage_not_needed_for_exaltation#What_of_members_who_are_not_married.3F
|subject=Eternal fate of those unmarried?
|summary=In his article in the ''Encyclopedia of Mormonism'', James T. Duke explains the LDS doctrine on this subject: "People who live a worthy life but do not marry in the temples, for various reasons beyond their control, which might include not marrying, not having heard the gospel, or not having a temple available so that the marriage could be sealed for eternity, will at some time be given this opportunity. Latter-day Saints believe it is their privilege and duty to perform these sacred ordinances vicariously for deceased progenitors, and for others insofar as possible."
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Marriage as therapy
|subject=Marriage as therapy?
|summary=Critics claim that Church leaders have advocated that those with same-sex attraction marry those of the opposite sex as part of the "therapy" for overcoming their same-sex desires or inclinations. The prophets and general authorities have, in their written statements, long been clear that marriage is not to be seen as a "treatment" for same-sex attraction.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Marriage
|subject=Marriage as a possibility
|summary=Critics claim it is harmful for Church leaders to allow those with same-sex attraction to voluntarily enter into a marriage. The Church has warned against entering into a marriage under false pretense, but there is no evidence that when done openly and honestly, these types of marriages fair any worse than other types of marriages.}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Origin
|subject=Why do some people have same-sex attraction?
|summary=What have past and present Church leaders taught about why some people are attracted to the same sex? The Church does not have an official position on the causes for same-sex attraction. Many Church leaders have indicated that we do not know the cause(s), and that this is a question for science.
}}<noinclude>
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Origin/Genetic
|subject=Is SSA "genetic"?
|summary=Is same-sex attraction "inborn"? Is it "genetic"?
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Suicide
|subject=Suicide and same-sex attraction?
|summary=Critics charge that: 1) suicide rates are higher for those with same-sex attraction, 2) Church doctrine and teaching causes these higher suicide rates, and 3) there is an "epidemic" of suicide among gay Mormons
}}</noinclude>
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Boyd K. Packer October 2010 conference talk
|subject=President Boyd K. Packer's October 2010 conference talk
|summary=On October 10, 2010, President Boyd K. Packer of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles spoke during the Church's semi-annual general conference. Portions of President Packer's talk caused a firestorm of protest and, often, misrepresentation. This article examines President Packer's address, and compares it to past talks given by President Packer. As will be seen, President Packer's address has been misunderstood and misrepresented.
}}<noinclude>
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Boyd_K._Packer_October_2010_conference_talk/Critics%27_tactics
|subject=Critics' tactics
|summary=Given that same-sex attraction is a charged issue with political overtones, it is not surprising that some sincerely misunderstood President Packer's talk. Just as there are those who could sincerely misunderstand President Packer's talk, there are those who choose, for whatever reason, to purposely misunderstand.
}}</noinclude>
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Terminology
|subject=Terminology
|summary=Why does FAIR (and other LDS sources) typically refer to homosexual/gay/lesbian issues with such terms as "same-sex attraction" and heterosexual/straight issues with such terms as "opposite-sex attraction"?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/LGBT identity
|subject=Can a person identify as gay or lesbian and still be a member of the Church in good standing?
|summary=It is asserted that: 1) Members are encouraged to lie about their sexual orientation, 2) This isolates them from other members, and 3) Denying your sexual identity is harmful. Those who identify as straight, gay or bisexual are welcome in the Church and can go on as all other members. When a person joins the Church, they take upon themselves the name of Christ. We are taught to shun any identity which conflicts with this identity. The Church recognizes that a person's orientation is a core characteristic, but emphasizes that it is not the only one. We are encouraged not to identify ourselves primarily by our sexual feelings, but this is different than being closeted. We are not encouraged to lie or pretend to have another sexual orientation. This counsel extends to all, regardless of sexual orientation.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism_and_gender_issues/Same-sex_attraction/Aversion therapy performed at BYU
|subject=Aversion therapy performed at BYU in the 1970's
|summary=What was the history of BYU and aversion therapy for treating homosexuality in the 1970's? How did that relate to medical and psychological science as understood at that time? What was the role of the Church in BYU's treatments?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Honesty
|subject=Are members with same-sex attraction encouraged to be closeted or lie about their attractions?
|summary=Member with same-sex attractions are not encouraged to lie or hide their sexual attractions or to isolate themselves from others. All members are encouraged to avoid labels and not to identify themselves primarily by their sexual feelings. However, there is a difference between not identifying yourself primarily by your sexual feelings, and being "closeted". A person can be honest, share their feelings with others and be comfortable with who they are, including their sexuality, while still realizing that they are first and foremost a child of God.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Denial
|subject=What are the ramifications from denying a gay identity?
|summary=Critics argue that in order to be happy and healthy, a person with same-sex attraction needs to identify as gay and have a same-sex relationship. The church encourages members to view themselves as sons and daughters of God, and discourages any identity that interferes with that identity. Members who refer to themselves as straight, gay or lesbian are free to go on as all other members, but are advised not to identify themselves primarily by their sexual feelings.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Feelings versus acts
|subject=Feelings versus acts
|summary=What have past and present Church leaders taught about the distinction (if any) between sexual temptations, desires, feelings, or inclinations, and sexual acts?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Association
|subject=Being able to associate with people with same-sex attraction
|summary=Does the church allow people with same-sex attraction to associate with each other?
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Christ's teachings on
|subject=Did Christ teach against same-sex relationships during his mortal ministry?
|summary=Some critics have asserted that our stance on same-sex relationships are not substantiated by the teachings of Christ during his mortal minstry. This is not the case. Christ taught a very strict law for sexual morality. He taught against sexual relationships outside of marriage and that marriage was between a man and a woman. While he did not specifically teach against the modern concept of same-sex relationships, he was clear that the only legitimate expression of sexuality was in a marriage between a man and woman.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Law of Moses
|subject=Why wasn't the prohibition against same-sex relationships recinded when the rest of the law of Moses was recinded?
|summary=While the law of Moses was fulfilled in Christ, Christ specifically taught against fornication and adultery, which would include same-sex relationships. After Peter received a vision that the law of Moses had been fulfilled, the prohibition against fornication remained intact.}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/Early LDS attitude toward
|subject=Early LDS did not oppose homosexual acts?
|summary=Critics claim that Joseph Smith and other nineteenth century Mormons were not strenuously opposed to same-sex acts or intimacy, and that the modern Church's opposition to homosexual conduct is a later aberration. Historian D. Michael Quinn's book, Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example is almost solely responsible for this claim. Quinn's methodology and conclusions are shoddy, and have been severely criticized by LDS and non-LDS historians.
}}<noinclude>
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Specific works/Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example
|subject=A FAIR Analysis of ''Same-Sex Dynamics Among Nineteenth-Century Americans: A Mormon Example''
|summary=FAIR analyzes claims made in a book by D. Michael Quinn that asserts that same-sex intimacy was accepted in the early 19th-century Church.
}}</noinclude>
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/False analogy/Priesthood ban
|subject=False analogy between same-sex marriage and the priesthood ban
|summary=An examination and comparison of the differences between the way the Church approaches same-sex attraction as opposed to the Priesthood ban.
}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Mormonism and gender issues/Same-sex attraction/False analogy/Plural marriage
|subject=False analogy between same-sex marriage and plural marriage
|summary=An examination and comparison of the differences between the way the Church approaches same-sex attraction as opposed to plural marriage.
}} {{nw}}
{{SummaryItem
|link=Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8
|subject=Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8
|summary=The passage of California Proposition 8 during the November 2008 election has generated a number of criticisms of the Church regarding a variety of issues including the separation of church and state, the Church's position relative to people who experience same-sex attraction, accusations of bigotry by members, and the rights of a non-profit organization to participate in the democratic process on matters not associated with elections of candidates.
}}<noinclude>
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Imposing morality
|subject=Does the Church seek to "impose its morality" on others?
|summary=Critics charge that by its political opposition to same-sex marriage, the Church is attempting to "impose its own morality" on those who are not members. The Church opposes legislation that seeks to control conscience or suppress the freedom of the soul and has supported legislation that expands the freedom to choose same-sex relationships. It has also sought to preserve the legal definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. These two things do not conflict.
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Religious freedom
|subject=How does same-sex marriage affect religious freedoms?
|summary=Religious freedoms and gay rights conflict in interesting and sometimes unexpected ways. This explains some of the potential threats to religious freedoms if marriage is redefined.
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/LGBT Rights
|subject=Does the Church oppose rights for same-sex couples?
|summary=The Church has emphasized that it does not object to the extension of rights associated with marriage to same-sex couples, as long as it does not interfere with other rights. Its objection is limited to redefining marriage so that it no longer refers to a union between a man and a woman.
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Effects on family
|subject=How will changing the definition of marriage affect families?
|summary=Part of the reasoning that the Church gave for protecting the definition of marriage is the effects it will have on families. What are those effects? What are the pros and cons of changing the definition of marriage?
}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Church involvement in politics/Latter-day Saints and California Proposition 8/Agency
|subject=How does the definition of marriage affect agency?
|summary=Does the Church inhibit the agency of same-sex couples in defending the definition of marriage? Does changing the definition of marriage affect the agency of members of the Church with SSA?
}}{{nw}}
{{SummaryItem2
|link=Specific_works/8:_The_Mormon_Proposition
|subject=A FAIR Analysis of: ''8: The Mormon Proposition''
|summary=FAIR analyzes a documentary that purports to expose the "truth" behind the Church's involvement in California Proposition 8.
}}</noinclude>
</onlyinclude>

{{FurtherReading}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: Are Mormon family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless?

2013-03-28T02:35:57Z

JenniferQuist: /* Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}

=={{Criticism label}}==

Reports have appeared in the American media stating that large portions of the homeless youth in Utah are gay. Critics imply that the substantial LDS population in this area explains these high numbers of homeless youth. It’s inferred that LDS families force children with non-heterosexual orientations out of their homes.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered “an epidemic.” LGBT youth are homeless more often than straight youth all over the country, not just in Utah. A recent survey of LGBT youth in America found that while feeling more disconnected from peers and communities than youth across the country, LGBT youth in Utah actually enjoyed better and more supportive and accepting connections to family than youth nationwide. No statistics have ever been generated to show causal links between LDS affiliation and homelessness among LGBT youth.

Furthermore, believing in a moral code does not automatically result in the rejection of those who struggle with the code or who break the code. Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children. However, some parents may ignore the counsel of Church leaders and the scriptures and force LGBT children out of their homes. The Church is clear that this is not in harmony with the gospel, and that such parents are not worthy to hold temple recommends. The teachings of the Church help family members love and respect their children, regardless of sexual orientation or behavior. This love and respect leads to an increase of the child's mental and physical health.{{ref|ryan2010}} (See also [[Mormonism and culture/Wayward family members]])

== ==
{{Response label}}

There are several problems with the assertion that LDS families in Utah reject and expelled LGBT children from their homes:

1) Rates of homelessness among gay youth in Utah are similar to those found in other areas of the US. The high incidence is not limited to states with large LDS communities.

2) A national survey of LGBT youth in America found that youth in Utah actually enjoy better support from adults and family members than national averages. However, the youth reported more problems with peers and larger social structures and the media focused on these negative statistics. So far, the media have ignored the positive numbers on family support.

3) A causal connection between homelessness among gay youth and the LDS Church has never been substantiated with data. It remains merely an assertion and an expression of prejudice.

4) Church leaders and scriptures explicitly teach that children have claim on their parents for support. In addition to this responsibility, parents and other family members are instructed to extend unconditional love regardless of individual behaviors.

===Utah and the National Average===

Statistics on sexual orientation among homeless youth in Utah are typically derived from a survey given to youth ages 15 to 22 who access services for the homeless in Utah. It’s a written survey administered by Volunteers of America Utah. VOAU regularly surveys homeless youth using their facilities, inquiring about many factors including sexual orientation, the reasons for homelessness, and family background. In news items from 2012, a VOAU vice-president is quoted saying a recent survey revealed 42% of homeless youth using VOAU services self-identified as LGBT. {{ref|UPR}}

While reports of homelessness among gay youth collected by VOAU are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states.

The percentage of homeless youth throughout all of the US who self-identify as LGBT moves between 20 and 40 percent {{ref|taskforce}}. Most of the time, Utah posts rates of homeless gay youth at around one third, in the middle of the national range. {{ref|affirmation}} The finding of 42% is a high point. All gay youth, not just those in states with large LDS populations, experience homelessness at rates disproportionate to the rest of the population. Nationwide, the problem has been called “an epidemic.” {{ref|taskforce}} This doesn’t diminish the tragedy of the Utah figures but it does strengthen the notion that the Utah findings are typical of American society and are not aberrations arising from subcultures like the LDS Church.

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average. When questioned about the 2008 numbers, one manager of a program for homeless youth suggested it might have resulted from a change in the way youth were asked about their sexuality. Instead of asking them to identify themselves as straight, gay, lesbian, or transgendered, respondents were allowed to choose “other than heterosexual.” {{ref|affirmation}} It’s an option respondents might have been more comfortable with since many of them feel they’re still forming their identities and resist narrower definitions.

===Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah===

In 2012, the Washington D.C. based Human Rights Campaign released the partial results of an online survey of LGBT youth from across America. The survey recruited respondents through online social media and at places described as “LGBT youth centers.” {{ref|HRC}} 10,030 LGBT youth between the ages of 13 and 17 responded and their data were compared to those of 510 “straight” youth who were already members of online panels used in market research. HRC acknowledges issues with sampling place limitations on the survey data. The report on the survey explains, “Traditional measures of margin of error do not apply and the results here may not be representative of this population as a whole.” {{ref|HRC}}

Setting aside concerns with the methodology, the survey does yield some interesting results. When the survey first appeared in the media, emphasis was placed on differences between national averages and averages of youth in Utah. Most repeated were figures showing Utah youth were more likely to be verbally harassed and feel like they didn’t “fit in” in their communities.

However, the media seem to have ignored data showing LGBT youth in Utah were better connected to support from adults and family members than national averages.

Utah youth replied that they were “happy” 38% of the time while the national number, though close, is slightly lower at 37%.

When asked if they had “no adult to turn to” 29% of LGBT youth nationwide agreed while only 24% of Utah youth agreed. In Utah, LGBT youth are more likely to have an adult they can rely on involved in their lives.

LGBT youth inside Utah and across the country reported being “out” to immediate family at similar level with Utah youth being slightly more open at 58% instead of the national average of 56%. However, Utah youth were more open with their extended families. 34% of Utah youth were “out” with their extended families while on the national level only 25% of youth were “out” with their extended families.

When asked if they had an adult they could go to when worried or sad, 59% of Utah youth said “yes.” That’s far more than the 49% of youth across the country who report having access to this kind of emotional support from adults.

It’s possible that these supportive adults could be social workers or other non-family members. However, two factors point away from this possibility. The first is that Utah youths report greater than average feelings of animosity between themselves and the local and state governments that would be funding and supporting social agencies. {{ref|SLTribtable}} The second factor is that, when asked if their families were “not accepting” of their LGBT identity, youth in Utah were less likely (29%) to say they were not accepted than their peers in the rest of the US (33%). {{ref|SLTribtable}}

According to the HRC survey data, Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other LGBT American youth, not less. This finding runs counter to the assumption that LDS homes are more prone to break off ties with non-heterosexual children.

The results of the HRC survey depict Utah as a state where LGBT youth tend to feel more comfortable and connected to adults in general and to their families in particular than other LGBT American youth. Whether reported in the media or not, the data can speak for themselves to defy critics’ assertions and prejudices.

Failing to report on areas where Utah performs better in caring for LGBT youth than the nation as a whole is not the only foul committed by media outlets. They have also mistakenly reported a direct connection between being LGBT and being homeless because of being "kicked out" by intolerant parents. Either due to ignorance or perhaps for more cunning reasons, media covering the story have made statements claiming the 42% of homeless youth in Utah who are LGBT "report experiencing family rejection and being kicked out of their homes." {{ref|SLTrib}} This is simply wrong. The 42% figure refers only to the proportion of homeless youth who self-identify as LGBT. It says nothing about the reasons why this 42% are homeless. The youths' reasons for leaving home are as complex and varied as they are. Apart from not being borne out by any data, the idea that such a perfect correlation could exist between any two social factors (including factors like being LGBT and being kicked out of one's home) is highly unlikely.

===The Case for Causation===

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected by VOAU or HRC definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in LGBT youth. When asked about the causes of homelessness in LGBT youth, a VOAU vice-president told the ''Salt Lake Tribune'' the reasons for homelessness were mixed. He named economic factors (especially since the recession began), lapses in foster care, and abuse as well as irreconcilable differences between parents and children about sexual orientation. {{ref|SLTrib}}

Even when sexual orientation was the most commanding issue, it is sometimes the children, not the parents who insist on the separation that makes the child homeless.

And, as always, there are other faith groups in Utah besides the LDS Church. They also have children who identify as LGBT. In the ''Salt Lake Tribune’s'' coverage of the story in June 2012, the young woman interviewed about her experience of being kicked out of her home due to her sexual orientation was from a religious background that was not LDS. {{ref|SLTrib}} It’s just one anecdotal shred of evidence but it does reveal a problem with the assumption that all homeless LGBT youth in Utah are being victimized by the LDS Church.

===Church Teachings===

Should the case arise where an LDS parent did force a child to leave home because of that child's sexuality, the teachings of the Church are quick to denounce the parent's behavior. LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances. {{s||DC|83|4}} reads:

:All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.

{{b||Luke|17|2}} reads:

:It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

In 1992, the Church issued a statement to Church leaders saying:

:"If a person with homosexual problems chooses not to change, family members may have difficulty maintaining feelings of love and acceptance toward the person. Encourage them to continue loving the person and hoping that he or she may repent."{{ref|church.1992}}

In 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World taught:

:Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations... Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.{{ref|proc.1995}}

In 2007, Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman had an interview in which they were asked what they would do if they had a child who decided to be in a same-sex relationship. Elder Oaks responded:

:"It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”

:My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, “My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth...

:"Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues... even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues."{{ref|oaks.1}}

In the same interview, Elder Wickman responded:

:With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them...

:That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.{{ref|wickman.1}}

Families with members with same-sex attractions, including those in same-sex relationships, are strengthened through living the principles of love and respect taught by Jesus Christ. The sister of a woman (Leigh) who is involved in a sexual relationship with another woman wrote an "Ensign" article in which she describes how the Church has helped her with her relationship with her sister:

:"I know the best thing I can do to have a close relationship with my sister is to have a close relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. Leigh recently commented that it has been through the way our family has loved her that she has felt what she understood to be God’s love."{{ref|ensign.1}}

While we are taught to love and treat everyone with kindness, the Church puts particular weight on the way we treat our family members, including those who are attracted to the same sex. In order to enter into the temple, a member must first answer this question:

:Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

If there is anything that is not in harmony with the teachings, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

===Other citations===
Further citations which illustrate these same principles include:

Elder Quenton L. Cook in 2009:

:It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation “free for all men” but has “commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.”{{ref|cook.2009}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|UPR}} Jessica Gail, “Utah, one of the worst places to be LGBT and homeless,” Utah Public Radio, June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10, 2012. http://upr.org/post/utah-one-worst-places-be-lgbt-and-homeless
#{{note|taskforce}} Nicholas Ray, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness,” National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf
#{{note|affirmation}} “Throw-Away Kids,” originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.
#{{note|HRC}} “Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings,” Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.
#{{note|SLTribtable}} Rebecca Trounson, “Gay teens less likely to be happy, nationwide survey finds,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 7, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54262370-68/gay-percent-lgbt-survey.html.csp.
# {{note|SLTrib}} Melinda Rogers, “LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.
#{{note|ryan2010}} [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x/full Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults]
#{{note|church.1992}} Understand and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems
#{{note|proc.1995}} {{General Conference|article=The Family: A Proclamation to the World|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|date=1995}}
#{{note|oaks.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|wickman.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|ensign.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=35ce1a01e8d43210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|article=The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh|date=2009}}
#{{note|cook.2009}} {{General Conference|author=Quinton L. Cook|article=Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children|date=April 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/our-fathers-plan-big-enough-for-all-his-children?lang=eng}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: Are Mormon family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless?

2013-03-28T02:35:22Z

JenniferQuist: /* The Case for Causation */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}

=={{Criticism label}}==

Reports have appeared in the American media stating that large portions of the homeless youth in Utah are gay. Critics imply that the substantial LDS population in this area explains these high numbers of homeless youth. It’s inferred that LDS families force children with non-heterosexual orientations out of their homes.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered “an epidemic.” LGBT youth are homeless more often than straight youth all over the country, not just in Utah. A recent survey of LGBT youth in America found that while feeling more disconnected from peers and communities than youth across the country, LGBT youth in Utah actually enjoyed better and more supportive and accepting connections to family than youth nationwide. No statistics have ever been generated to show causal links between LDS affiliation and homelessness among LGBT youth.

Furthermore, believing in a moral code does not automatically result in the rejection of those who struggle with the code or who break the code. Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children. However, some parents may ignore the counsel of Church leaders and the scriptures and force LGBT children out of their homes. The Church is clear that this is not in harmony with the gospel, and that such parents are not worthy to hold temple recommends. The teachings of the Church help family members love and respect their children, regardless of sexual orientation or behavior. This love and respect leads to an increase of the child's mental and physical health.{{ref|ryan2010}} (See also [[Mormonism and culture/Wayward family members]])

== ==
{{Response label}}

There are several problems with the assertion that LDS families in Utah reject and expelled LGBT children from their homes:

1) Rates of homelessness among gay youth in Utah are similar to those found in other areas of the US. The high incidence is not limited to states with large LDS communities.

2) A national survey of LGBT youth in America found that youth in Utah actually enjoy better support from adults and family members than national averages. However, the youth reported more problems with peers and larger social structures and the media focused on these negative statistics. So far, the media have ignored the positive numbers on family support.

3) A causal connection between homelessness among gay youth and the LDS Church has never been substantiated with data. It remains merely an assertion and an expression of prejudice.

4) Church leaders and scriptures explicitly teach that children have claim on their parents for support. In addition to this responsibility, parents and other family members are instructed to extend unconditional love regardless of individual behaviors.

===Utah and the National Average===

Statistics on sexual orientation among homeless youth in Utah are typically derived from a survey given to youth ages 15 to 22 who access services for the homeless in Utah. It’s a written survey administered by Volunteers of America Utah. VOAU regularly surveys homeless youth using their facilities, inquiring about many factors including sexual orientation, the reasons for homelessness, and family background. In news items from 2012, a VOAU vice-president is quoted saying a recent survey revealed 42% of homeless youth using VOAU services self-identified as LGBT. {{ref|UPR}}

While reports of homelessness among gay youth collected by VOAU are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states.

The percentage of homeless youth throughout all of the US who self-identify as LGBT moves between 20 and 40 percent {{ref|taskforce}}. Most of the time, Utah posts rates of homeless gay youth at around one third, in the middle of the national range. {{ref|affirmation}} The finding of 42% is a high point. All gay youth, not just those in states with large LDS populations, experience homelessness at rates disproportionate to the rest of the population. Nationwide, the problem has been called “an epidemic.” {{ref|taskforce}} This doesn’t diminish the tragedy of the Utah figures but it does strengthen the notion that the Utah findings are typical of American society and are not aberrations arising from subcultures like the LDS Church.

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average. When questioned about the 2008 numbers, one manager of a program for homeless youth suggested it might have resulted from a change in the way youth were asked about their sexuality. Instead of asking them to identify themselves as straight, gay, lesbian, or transgendered, respondents were allowed to choose “other than heterosexual.” {{ref|affirmation}} It’s an option respondents might have been more comfortable with since many of them feel they’re still forming their identities and resist narrower definitions.

===Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah===

In 2012, the Washington D.C. based Human Rights Campaign released the partial results of an online survey of LGBT youth from across America. The survey recruited respondents through online social media and at places described as “LGBT youth centers.” {{ref|HRC}} 10030 LGBT youth between the ages of 13 and 17 responded and their data were compared to those of 510 “straight” youth who were already members of online panels used in market research. HRC acknowledges issues with sampling place limitations on the survey data. The report on the survey explains, “Traditional measures of margin of error do not apply and the results here may not be representative of this population as a whole.” {{ref|HRC}}

Setting aside concerns with the methodology, the survey does yield some interesting results. When the survey first appeared in the media, emphasis was placed on differences between national averages and averages of youth in Utah. Most repeated were figures showing Utah youth were more likely to be verbally harassed and feel like they didn’t “fit in” in their communities.

However, the media seem to have ignored data showing LGBT youth in Utah were better connected to support from adults and family members than national averages.

Utah youth replied that they were “happy” 38% of the time while the national number, though close, is slightly lower at 37%.

When asked if they had “no adult to turn to” 29% of LGBT youth nationwide agreed while only 24% of Utah youth agreed. In Utah, LGBT youth are more likely to have an adult they can rely on involved in their lives.

LGBT youth inside Utah and across the country reported being “out” to immediate family at similar level with Utah youth being slightly more open at 58% instead of the national average of 56%. However, Utah youth were more open with their extended families. 34% of Utah youth were “out” with their extended families while on the national level only 25% of youth were “out” with their extended families.

When asked if they had an adult they could go to when worried or sad, 59% of Utah youth said “yes.” That’s far more than the 49% of youth across the country who report having access to this kind of emotional support from adults.

It’s possible that these supportive adults could be social workers or other non-family members. However, two factors point away from this possibility. The first is that Utah youths report greater than average feelings of animosity between themselves and the local and state governments that would be funding and supporting social agencies. {{ref|SLTribtable}} The second factor is that, when asked if their families were “not accepting” of their LGBT identity, youth in Utah were less likely (29%) to say they were not accepted than their peers in the rest of the US (33%). {{ref|SLTribtable}}

According to the HRC survey data, Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other LGBT American youth, not less. This finding runs counter to the assumption that LDS homes are more prone to break off ties with non-heterosexual children.

The results of the HRC survey depict Utah as a state where LGBT youth tend to feel more comfortable and connected to adults in general and to their families in particular than other LGBT American youth. Whether reported in the media or not, the data can speak for themselves to defy critics’ assertions and prejudices.

Failing to report on areas where Utah performs better in caring for LGBT youth than the nation as a whole is not the only foul committed by media outlets. They have also mistakenly reported a direct connection between being LGBT and being homeless because of being "kicked out" by intolerant parents. Either due to ignorance or perhaps for more cunning reasons, media covering the story have made statements claiming the 42% of homeless youth in Utah who are LGBT "report experiencing family rejection and being kicked out of their homes." {{ref|SLTrib}} This is simply wrong. The 42% figure refers only to the proportion of homeless youth who self-identify as LGBT. It says nothing about the reasons why this 42% are homeless. The youths' reasons for leaving home are as complex and varied as they are. Apart from not being borne out by any data, the idea that such a perfect correlation could exist between any two social factors (including factors like being LGBT and being kicked out of one's home) is highly unlikely.

===The Case for Causation===

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected by VOAU or HRC definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in LGBT youth. When asked about the causes of homelessness in LGBT youth, a VOAU vice-president told the ''Salt Lake Tribune'' the reasons for homelessness were mixed. He named economic factors (especially since the recession began), lapses in foster care, and abuse as well as irreconcilable differences between parents and children about sexual orientation. {{ref|SLTrib}}

Even when sexual orientation was the most commanding issue, it is sometimes the children, not the parents who insist on the separation that makes the child homeless.

And, as always, there are other faith groups in Utah besides the LDS Church. They also have children who identify as LGBT. In the ''Salt Lake Tribune’s'' coverage of the story in June 2012, the young woman interviewed about her experience of being kicked out of her home due to her sexual orientation was from a religious background that was not LDS. {{ref|SLTrib}} It’s just one anecdotal shred of evidence but it does reveal a problem with the assumption that all homeless LGBT youth in Utah are being victimized by the LDS Church.

===Church Teachings===

Should the case arise where an LDS parent did force a child to leave home because of that child's sexuality, the teachings of the Church are quick to denounce the parent's behavior. LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances. {{s||DC|83|4}} reads:

:All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.

{{b||Luke|17|2}} reads:

:It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

In 1992, the Church issued a statement to Church leaders saying:

:"If a person with homosexual problems chooses not to change, family members may have difficulty maintaining feelings of love and acceptance toward the person. Encourage them to continue loving the person and hoping that he or she may repent."{{ref|church.1992}}

In 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World taught:

:Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations... Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.{{ref|proc.1995}}

In 2007, Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman had an interview in which they were asked what they would do if they had a child who decided to be in a same-sex relationship. Elder Oaks responded:

:"It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”

:My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, “My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth...

:"Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues... even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues."{{ref|oaks.1}}

In the same interview, Elder Wickman responded:

:With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them...

:That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.{{ref|wickman.1}}

Families with members with same-sex attractions, including those in same-sex relationships, are strengthened through living the principles of love and respect taught by Jesus Christ. The sister of a woman (Leigh) who is involved in a sexual relationship with another woman wrote an "Ensign" article in which she describes how the Church has helped her with her relationship with her sister:

:"I know the best thing I can do to have a close relationship with my sister is to have a close relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. Leigh recently commented that it has been through the way our family has loved her that she has felt what she understood to be God’s love."{{ref|ensign.1}}

While we are taught to love and treat everyone with kindness, the Church puts particular weight on the way we treat our family members, including those who are attracted to the same sex. In order to enter into the temple, a member must first answer this question:

:Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

If there is anything that is not in harmony with the teachings, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

===Other citations===
Further citations which illustrate these same principles include:

Elder Quenton L. Cook in 2009:

:It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation “free for all men” but has “commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.”{{ref|cook.2009}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|UPR}} Jessica Gail, “Utah, one of the worst places to be LGBT and homeless,” Utah Public Radio, June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10, 2012. http://upr.org/post/utah-one-worst-places-be-lgbt-and-homeless
#{{note|taskforce}} Nicholas Ray, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness,” National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf
#{{note|affirmation}} “Throw-Away Kids,” originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.
#{{note|HRC}} “Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings,” Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.
#{{note|SLTribtable}} Rebecca Trounson, “Gay teens less likely to be happy, nationwide survey finds,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 7, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54262370-68/gay-percent-lgbt-survey.html.csp.
# {{note|SLTrib}} Melinda Rogers, “LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.
#{{note|ryan2010}} [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x/full Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults]
#{{note|church.1992}} Understand and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems
#{{note|proc.1995}} {{General Conference|article=The Family: A Proclamation to the World|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|date=1995}}
#{{note|oaks.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|wickman.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|ensign.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=35ce1a01e8d43210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|article=The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh|date=2009}}
#{{note|cook.2009}} {{General Conference|author=Quinton L. Cook|article=Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children|date=April 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/our-fathers-plan-big-enough-for-all-his-children?lang=eng}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Abuse victims and lack of culpability

2013-01-23T17:58:23Z

JenniferQuist: /* {{Conclusion label}} */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
==Criticism==

Critics of the LDS Church have complained that Church leaders have commanded members – particularly women -- to “fight to the death” in order to protect ourselves from sexual assault. The claims go on to insist that LDS survivors of sexual abuse and assault must feel guilty to be alive.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

As far as we can determine, no senior Church leader has ever used the words "fight to the death" to describe how members should respond to sexual assault or abuse. The Church's position is that victims are not guilty. Past Church leaders have compared the value of "virtue" to the value of one's life. However, current Church statements are clear that victims of sexual assault and abuse are to be treated with love and compassion, not condemnation.

{{Response label}}

===Statements from Church Sources===

As far as we have been able to determine, there is no record of the phrase “fight to the death” ever being used by a senior Church leader when counseling members about how to respond to sexual assault. This exact phrase is a sensationalized exaggeration that does not reflect current church teachings on this sensitive topic.

The Church’s position on the culpability of victims of sexual assault is available on the official Church website:

:Victims of abuse should be assured that they are not to blame for the harmful behavior of others. They do not need to feel guilt. If they have been a victim of rape or other sexual abuse, whether they have been abused by an acquaintance, a stranger, or even a family member, victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sexual sin. {{ref|abuse}}

Speaking in the Church’s General Conference in 1992, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Richard G. Scott restated the Church’s position in strong and personal terms:

:''I solemnly testify that when another’s acts of violence, perversion, or incest hurt you terribly, against your will, you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty.'' {{ref|Scott1}}

In the early LDS Church, violent opponents of the Church in Missouri used rape as a weapon. Crimes like these are alluded to in the Doctrine and Covenants (See {{scripture||DC|123|1-17}}) and are utterly denounced as “dark and hellish.”

The Church’s most basic statement of beliefs, The Articles of Faith, states that people are accountable for their own sins and not for mistakes made by others. {{scripture||AoF|1|2}}

===Spencer W. Kimball’s ''The Miracle of Forgiveness''===

The following statement does appear in the 1969 book ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' written by member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Spencer W. Kimball.

:Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is absolutely no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle. {{ref|Kimball}}

Kimball would later be called as President of the Church and ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' was widely read among LDS membership. It is the statement quoted above that is most often used to support the claim that the term “fight to the death” was expected in a sexual assault.

The phrase is used by critics of the Church but it also sometimes appears as a folk-saying among members. Particularly people of the Baby Boom generation who lived in the American heartland of the Church may remember hearing this phrase when they were young. Sometimes it came complete with clumsy but colorful and memorable object lessons. However, it’s important to distinguish unofficial slogans and crude demonstrations from what Church leaders in positions to pronounce an official stance on the issue actually said. Well-meaning but misguided interpretations passed around by provincial teachers and leaders aren’t uncommon in an organization like the Church which turns most of its administration over to non-professional volunteers. But being common doesn’t make these interpretations into official Church positions.

Feminist scholars outside the LDS Church have noted that the notion of victims of sexual assault being expected to fight to the death existed outside the Church in mainstream American social and legal culture.

:White men...had a virtual license to rape, as the law required "true" victims to be ultimately innocent ladies who would rather fight to the death than give up their virginity. {{ref|Gruber}}

Further, the argument is made that this underlying assumption about victims was powerful and prevalent enough to shape sexual assault laws up until the Women's Movement demanded something better. Though LDS leaders spoke of sexual integrity in terms of life and death they cannot be held responsible for inventing it. The idea had a cultural momentum that existed independently of the comments of LDS leaders.

By now, Kimball and the other twentieth century Church leaders he quoted in ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' have been dead for decades. They are no longer available to clarify what they meant when they spoke about chastity in general and about the innocence of victims of sexual assault in particular. This uncertainty means there can be more than one interpretation of what their comments could mean.

One interpretation does indeed seem to suggest that people who have survived sexual assault ought to have gone to extreme lengths to resist. It’s true that colorful and sometimes exaggerated rhetorical devices were used by past Church leaders to impress upon members the importance of preserving virtue and to describe the heinousness of sexual abuse and assault.

The Lord himself used rhetorical hyperbole when teaching about sexual morality. In the section of the Sermon on the Mount where he denounced adultery and lust, Jesus told his disciples “if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out.” {{scripture||Mat|5|29}} This passage is not taken literally. We understand that Jesus was using powerful figurative language to convey a message about how dangerous and damaging sexual sin is. Hyperbole like this is a common device in all kinds of rhetoric and particularly in religious rhetoric.

Other interpretations of Kimballs’ statement also exist. For instance, Kimball recommends “a struggle” against sexual assault but he does not demand that the struggle continue until the victim dies in order for her or him to escape “condemnation.” Perhaps Kimball was saying it might be easier for the victim to avoid future feelings of guilt and regret if he or she decisively resisted the attack. As a longtime ecclesiastical minister, Kimball would have been familiar with the typical feelings of guilt and shame that often afflict victims of sexual assault and abuse. In order for victims to be better able to overcome these feelings, he may have wanted victims to be able to assure themselves there was “absolutely no voluntary participation” on their part.

This interpretation springs on the fact that Kimball did not say it is better to die defending one’s virtue than it is to live. Precisely what he said was, “it is better to die defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.” Perhaps Kimball was warning that it is better to die than to not resist an assault. This is a very different thing than saying it is better to die than to survive a sexual assault.

The second interpretation may sound jarring to twenty-first century readers. However, Kimball was not writing from the best of all possible worlds but from a real-world social and legal climate that was much more steeped in sexism than the one most of us inhabit today. A look at American rape law during Kimball's time shows a disturbingly sexist system where courts would not convict men of sexual assault when the complaint was uncorroborated. {{ref|Gruber}} Complaints of sexual assault are often uncorroborated since they usually happen in private where there are no witnesses besides the attacker and the victim. This meant the courts could demand more gruesome and concrete evidence than a woman's testimony alone in order to convict.

As a non-LDS feminist scholar explains:

:Sexist gender norms were woven into the very fabric of rape law in the form of iniquitous obstacles to prosecution such as resistance and corroboration requirements...these rules tended to privilege rape defendants. {{ref|Gruber}}

It may be disgusting, but if a victim could show she was injured in the course of the attack, her attacker was less able to claim he had her consent and less likely to be acquitted. That was the reality of rape laws in America for most of the twentieth century. Kimball did not invent these laws. He did not foresee any change in them. He could only speak of the reality of world in which he lived. And the reality was that, before the law, the victim of sexual assault who had physically resisted her attacker was "in a more favorable position."

===Other Church Leaders===

Other quotations by other early and mid-twentieth century Church leaders are also referred to by critics insisting the Church wants victims of sexual assault to “fight to the death.”

In ''The Miracle of Forgiveness,'' Kimball quotes Church President David O. McKay saying:

:Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives. Do not tamper with sin . . . do not permit yourselves to be led into temptation. Conduct yourselves seemly and with due regard, particularly you young boys, to the sanctity of womanhood. Do not pollute it." {{ref|Kimball}}

President McKay does not directly address a situation of sexual assault in this passage from a section of the book called “Dangers to Youth”. In introducing the quote, Kimball addresses normal social situations like dating relationships where normal urges and temptation are the issues, not violent criminal acts.

In this context, McKay is making a point about not mistaking feelings and behaviors that may be acceptable to the rest of society as being acceptable to the Church’s moral code. He is concerned that the true gravity of sexual misconduct has been lost and he’s trying to restore it by comparing it to a life-or-death situation. In McKay’s view, sexual sin was worse than physical death since, unrepented of, it brought on a more lasting and tragic spiritual death. In that way, it was a life-or-death situation.

Apostle J. Reuben Clark also made comments comparing the value of chastity to the value of life.

:Mothers in Israel, teach your sons to honor and revere, to protect to the last, pure womanhood; teach your daughters that their most priceless jewel is a clean, undefiled body; teach both sons and daughters that chastity is worth more than life itself.” {{ref|Clark}}

Clark speaks of the value of an “undefiled body” but it’s accepted in religious parlance that people are able to defile themselves. (See {{scripture||Dan|1|8}}, {{scripture||Matt|15|11}}) It’s also possible for people to defile other people’s bodies with their full consent. Like McKay, Clark is not necessarily speaking of protecting ourselves from sexual assault. Rather, he’s warning us to choose righteously. Those who are assaulted remain chaste and “not guilty.” {{ref|abuse}}

===Virtue vs. Virginity===

Critics point to a place where the issue of sexual assault gets murky in the Book of Mormon. To fairly understand this passage (See {{scripture||Moro|9|9-10}}) we must try to see the situation as Mormon, the writer, saw it himself. We do not usually refer to the Law of Moses in the modern Church. It was discontinued over two thousand years ago and has never been used in the restored Church. However, the non-Jaredite peoples of the Book of Mormon had both cultural and religious roots in the Law of Moses and these must be accounted for when making sense of their history.

According to the Law of Moses, when a woman was sexually assaulted, she was considered innocent by God and her fellow men and women (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-26}}). The prophet Mormon lived about 400 years after the end of the Law of Moses. There doesn’t seem to be anything in the Book of Mormon to show to what extent the Law of Moses once practiced by Mormon’s people might have still been influencing the way he understood and spoke about the world. The old law might have had no influence at all or it might have retained some power to color his interpretations and his expressions. If the Law of Moses was still part of Mormon’s cultural memory, he might have had an understanding of the state of a rape victim’s virtue – her state of moral cleanliness – that’s nuanced differently than the understanding we have now. When mourning the violent sex crimes of his people at Moriantum, Mormon used the words “chastity and virtue” to describe what the daughters of the Lamanites had lost when they were assaulted instead of simply saying “virginity.”

:And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue— And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery. {{scripture||Moro|9|9-10}}

Even though the wording might be muddled by the limited vocabulary or perhaps by the sensibilities of the times in which Mormon or his translator lived in, Mormon’s sorrow for what happened to the women is unmistakable. He wrote of an atrocity. Mormon did not condemn the women for being kidnapped, raped, tortured, murdered, and cannibalized. He did condemn the “great abominations” of their attackers.

If Mormon was influenced by cultural traces of the Law of Moses, he would have believed that when a woman was forcibly deprived of her virginity, she remained innocent. Despite the wording, he would have believed they had lost their virginity, not their virtue. In the Law of Moses, penalties against attackers were put in place to serve a purpose similar to restitution. (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-29}}) Once the Law was satisfied, it was as if the victim’s former state – her “chastity and virtue” -- was restored. However, the men who victimized women at Moriantum were never lawfully penalized.

Perhaps part of what Mormon lamented was the fact that the injustices would remain unaddressed. Maybe, as he saw it, the crimes against the women were deepened because no legal version of “restitution” would ever be made. In this way, the legal construct of the women’s “chastity and virtue” was never restored even though their true spiritual virtue could remain intact. Perhaps the problem with this passage is not, as critics suggest, that Mormon equated virtue with virginity but that his cultural sense of the efficacy of legal restitution prompted him to overstate what was lost.

===Lingering Controversy===

As we have progressed through history, people in general – both inside and outside the Church -- have become more sensitized to sexual crimes. We use a more sympathetic vocabulary and much of the societal stigma that victims of sexual crimes have suffered has disappeared. What was once cloaked in flowery rhetoric can now be discussed in more precise and compassionate terms. This shift in language has been critical in assisting victims in the necessary healing after sexual assault and abuse.

Despite the current clarity of the Church’s position on sexual assault, the controversy still flares to life. Although older statements from church leaders have been interpreted in various ways and are of historical interest, it is incumbent upon those addressing this topic to keep original contexts in mind and to ultimately use current statements when describing the position of the modern church.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|abuse}} {{ldsorg|Gospel Topics, "Abuse"|http://www.lds.org/topics/abuse}}
#{{note|Scott1}} {{Ensign1|author=Richard G. Scott|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse]|date=May 1992}} {{eo}}
#{{note|Kimball}} {{Book:Kimball:Miracle of Forgiveness}}
#{{note|Gruber}} Aya Gruber, "Rape, Feminism, and the War on Crime," ''Washington Law Review, Vol 84.'' 2009(581-658).
#{{note|Clark}} {{CR1|author=J. Reuben Clark|date=April 1940|pages=21}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Abuse victims and lack of culpability

2013-01-23T04:25:36Z

JenniferQuist: /* {{Endnotes label}} */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
==Criticism==

Critics of the LDS Church have complained that Church leaders have commanded members – particularly women -- to “fight to the death” in order to protect ourselves from sexual assault. The claims go on to insist that LDS survivors of sexual abuse and assault must feel guilty to be alive.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

As far as we can determine, no senior Church leader has ever used the words "fight to the death" to describe how members should respond to sexual assault or abuse. The Church's position is that victims are not guilty. Past Church leaders have compared the value of "virtue" to the value of one's life. However, current Church statements are clear that victims of sexual assault and abuse are to be treated with love and compassion, not condemnation.

{{Response label}}

===Statements from Church Sources===

As far as we have been able to determine, there is no record of the phrase “fight to the death” ever being used by a senior Church leader when counseling members about how to respond to sexual assault. This exact phrase is a sensationalized exaggeration that does not reflect current church teachings on this sensitive topic.

The Church’s position on the culpability of victims of sexual assault is available on the official Church website:

:Victims of abuse should be assured that they are not to blame for the harmful behavior of others. They do not need to feel guilt. If they have been a victim of rape or other sexual abuse, whether they have been abused by an acquaintance, a stranger, or even a family member, victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sexual sin. {{ref|abuse}}

Speaking in the Church’s General Conference in 1992, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Richard G. Scott restated the Church’s position in strong and personal terms:

:''I solemnly testify that when another’s acts of violence, perversion, or incest hurt you terribly, against your will, you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty.'' {{ref|Scott1}}

In the early LDS Church, violent opponents of the Church in Missouri used rape as a weapon. Crimes like these are alluded to in the Doctrine and Covenants (See {{scripture||DC|123|1-17}}) and are utterly denounced as “dark and hellish.”

The Church’s most basic statement of beliefs, The Articles of Faith, states that people are accountable for their own sins and not for mistakes made by others. {{scripture||AoF|1|2}}

===Spencer W. Kimball’s ''The Miracle of Forgiveness''===

The following statement does appear in the 1969 book ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' written by member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Spencer W. Kimball.

:Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is absolutely no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle. {{ref|Kimball}}

Kimball would later be called as President of the Church and ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' was widely read among LDS membership. It is the statement quoted above that is most often used to support the claim that the term “fight to the death” was expected in a sexual assault.

The phrase is used by critics of the Church but it also sometimes appears as a folk-saying among members. Particularly people of the Baby Boom generation who lived in the American heartland of the Church may remember hearing this phrase when they were young. Sometimes it came complete with clumsy but colorful and memorable object lessons. However, it’s important to distinguish unofficial slogans and crude demonstrations from what Church leaders in positions to pronounce an official stance on the issue actually said. Well-meaning but misguided interpretations passed around by provincial teachers and leaders aren’t uncommon in an organization like the Church which turns most of its administration over to non-professional volunteers. But being common doesn’t make these interpretations into official Church positions.

By now, Kimball and the other twentieth century Church leaders he quoted in ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' have been dead for decades. They are no longer available to clarify what they meant when they spoke about chastity in general and about the innocence of victims of sexual assault in particular. This uncertainty means there can be more than one interpretation of what their comments could mean.

One interpretation does indeed seem to suggest that people who have survived sexual assault ought to have gone to extreme lengths to resist. It’s true that colorful and sometimes exaggerated rhetorical devices were used by past Church leaders to impress upon members the importance of preserving virtue and to describe the heinousness of sexual abuse and assault.

The Lord himself used rhetorical hyperbole when teaching about sexual morality. In the section of the Sermon on the Mount where he denounced adultery and lust, Jesus told his disciples “if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out.” {{scripture||Mat|5|29}} This passage is not taken literally. We understand that Jesus was using powerful figurative language to convey a message about how dangerous and damaging sexual sin is. Hyperbole like this is a common device in all kinds of rhetoric and particularly in religious rhetoric.

Other interpretations of Kimballs’ statement also exist. For instance, Kimball recommends “a struggle” against sexual assault but he does not demand that the struggle continue until the victim dies in order for her or him to escape “condemnation.” Perhaps Kimball was saying it might be easier for the victim to avoid future feelings of guilt and regret if he or she decisively resisted the attack. As a longtime ecclesiastical minister, Kimball would have been familiar with the typical feelings of guilt and shame that often afflict victims of sexual assault and abuse. In order for victims to be better able to overcome these feelings, he may have wanted victims to be able to assure themselves there was “absolutely no voluntary participation” on their part.

This interpretation springs on the fact that Kimball did not say it is better to die defending one’s virtue than it is to live. Precisely what he said was, “it is better to die defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.” Perhaps Kimball was warning that it is better to die than to not resist an assault. This is a very different thing than saying it is better to die than to survive a sexual assault.

The second interpretation may sound jarring to twenty-first century readers. However, Kimball was not writing from the best of all possible worlds but from a real-world social and legal climate that was much more steeped in sexism than the one most of us inhabit today. A look at American rape case law during Kimball's time shows a disturbingly sexist system where courts could choose not to convict men of sexual assault when the complaint was uncorroborated. {{ref|Gruber}} Complaints of sexual assault are often uncorroborated since they usually happen in private where there are no witnesses besides the attacker and the victim. This meant the courts could demand more gruesome and concrete evidence than a woman's testimony alone in order to convict. It may be disgusting, but if a victim could show she was injured in the course of the attack, her attacker was less able to claim he had her consent and less likely to be acquitted. That was the reality of rape laws in America for most of the twentieth century. Kimball could only speak of the reality of world in which he lived.

Other quotations by other early and mid-twentieth century Church leaders are also referred to by critics insisting the Church wants victims of sexual assault to “fight to the death.”

In ''The Miracle of Forgiveness,'' Kimball quotes Church President David O. McKay saying:

:Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives. Do not tamper with sin . . . do not permit yourselves to be led into temptation. Conduct yourselves seemly and with due regard, particularly you young boys, to the sanctity of womanhood. Do not pollute it." {{ref|Kimball}}

President McKay does not directly address a situation of sexual assault in this passage from a section of the book called “Dangers to Youth”. In introducing the quote, Kimball addresses normal social situations like dating relationships where normal urges and temptation are the issues, not violent criminal acts.

In this context, McKay is making a point about not mistaking feelings and behaviors that may be acceptable to the rest of society as being acceptable to the Church’s moral code. He is concerned that the true gravity of sexual misconduct has been lost and he’s trying to restore it by comparing it to a life-or-death situation. In McKay’s view, sexual sin was worse than physical death since, unrepented of, it brought on a more lasting and tragic spiritual death. In that way, it was a life-or-death situation.

Apostle J. Reuben Clark also made comments comparing the value of chastity to the value of life.

:Mothers in Israel, teach your sons to honor and revere, to protect to the last, pure womanhood; teach your daughters that their most priceless jewel is a clean, undefiled body; teach both sons and daughters that chastity is worth more than life itself.” {{ref|Clark}}

Clark speaks of the value of an “undefiled body” but it’s accepted in religious parlance that people are able to defile themselves. (See {{scripture||Dan|1|8}}, {{scripture||Matt|15|11}}) It’s also possible for people to defile other people’s bodies with their full consent. Like McKay, Clark is not necessarily speaking of protecting ourselves from sexual assault. Rather, he’s warning us to choose righteously. Those who are assaulted remain chaste and “not guilty.” {{ref|abuse}}

===Virtue vs. Virginity===

Critics point to a place where the issue of sexual assault gets murky in the Book of Mormon. To fairly understand this passage (See {{scripture||Moro|9|9-10}}) we must try to see the situation as Mormon, the writer, saw it himself. We do not usually refer to the Law of Moses in the modern Church. It was discontinued over two thousand years ago and has never been used in the restored Church. However, the non-Jaredite peoples of the Book of Mormon had both cultural and religious roots in the Law of Moses and these must be accounted for when making sense of their history.

According to the Law of Moses, when a woman was sexually assaulted, she was considered innocent by God and her fellow men and women (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-26}}). The prophet Mormon lived about 400 years after the end of the Law of Moses. There doesn’t seem to be anything in the Book of Mormon to show to what extent the Law of Moses once practiced by Mormon’s people might have still been influencing the way he understood and spoke about the world. The old law might have had no influence at all or it might have retained some power to color his interpretations and his expressions. If the Law of Moses was still part of Mormon’s cultural memory, he might have had an understanding of the state of a rape victim’s virtue – her state of moral cleanliness – that’s nuanced differently than the understanding we have now. When mourning the violent sex crimes of his people at Moriantum, Mormon used the words “chastity and virtue” to describe what the daughters of the Lamanites had lost when they were assaulted instead of simply saying “virginity.”

:And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue— And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery. {{scripture||Moro|9|9-10}}

Even though the wording might be muddled by the limited vocabulary or perhaps by the sensibilities of the times in which Mormon or his translator lived in, Mormon’s sorrow for what happened to the women is unmistakable. He wrote of an atrocity. Mormon did not condemn the women for being kidnapped, raped, tortured, murdered, and cannibalized. He did condemn the “great abominations” of their attackers.

If Mormon was influenced by cultural traces of the Law of Moses, he would have believed that when a woman was forcibly deprived of her virginity, she remained innocent. Despite the wording, he would have believed they had lost their virginity, not their virtue. In the Law of Moses, penalties against attackers were put in place to serve a purpose similar to restitution. (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-29}}) Once the Law was satisfied, it was as if the victim’s former state – her “chastity and virtue” -- was restored. However, the men who victimized women at Moriantum were never lawfully penalized.

Perhaps part of what Mormon lamented was the fact that the injustices would remain unaddressed. Maybe, as he saw it, the crimes against the women were deepened because no legal version of “restitution” would ever be made. In this way, the legal construct of the women’s “chastity and virtue” was never restored even though their true spiritual virtue could remain intact. Perhaps the problem with this passage is not, as critics suggest, that Mormon equated virtue with virginity but that his cultural sense of the efficacy of legal restitution prompted him to overstate what was lost.

===Lingering Controversy===

As we have progressed through history, people in general – both inside and outside the Church -- have become more sensitized to sexual crimes. We use a more sympathetic vocabulary and much of the societal stigma that victims of sexual crimes have suffered has disappeared. What was once cloaked in flowery rhetoric can now be discussed in more precise and compassionate terms. This shift in language has been critical in assisting victims in the necessary healing after sexual assault and abuse.

Despite the current clarity of the Church’s position on sexual assault, the controversy still flares to life. Although older statements from church leaders have been interpreted in various ways and are of historical interest, it is incumbent upon those addressing this topic to use current statements when describing the position of the modern church.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|abuse}} {{ldsorg|Gospel Topics, "Abuse"|http://www.lds.org/topics/abuse}}
#{{note|Scott1}} {{Ensign1|author=Richard G. Scott|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse]|date=May 1992}} {{eo}}
#{{note|Kimball}} {{Book:Kimball:Miracle of Forgiveness}}
#{{note|Gruber}} Aya Gruber, "Rape, Feminism, and the War on Crime," ''Washington Law Review, Vol 84.'' 2009(581-658).
#{{note|Clark}} {{CR1|author=J. Reuben Clark|date=April 1940|pages=21}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Abuse victims and lack of culpability

2013-01-23T04:20:32Z

JenniferQuist: /* Spencer W. Kimball’s The Miracle of Forgiveness */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
==Criticism==

Critics of the LDS Church have complained that Church leaders have commanded members – particularly women -- to “fight to the death” in order to protect ourselves from sexual assault. The claims go on to insist that LDS survivors of sexual abuse and assault must feel guilty to be alive.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

As far as we can determine, no senior Church leader has ever used the words "fight to the death" to describe how members should respond to sexual assault or abuse. The Church's position is that victims are not guilty. Past Church leaders have compared the value of "virtue" to the value of one's life. However, current Church statements are clear that victims of sexual assault and abuse are to be treated with love and compassion, not condemnation.

{{Response label}}

===Statements from Church Sources===

As far as we have been able to determine, there is no record of the phrase “fight to the death” ever being used by a senior Church leader when counseling members about how to respond to sexual assault. This exact phrase is a sensationalized exaggeration that does not reflect current church teachings on this sensitive topic.

The Church’s position on the culpability of victims of sexual assault is available on the official Church website:

:Victims of abuse should be assured that they are not to blame for the harmful behavior of others. They do not need to feel guilt. If they have been a victim of rape or other sexual abuse, whether they have been abused by an acquaintance, a stranger, or even a family member, victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sexual sin. {{ref|abuse}}

Speaking in the Church’s General Conference in 1992, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Richard G. Scott restated the Church’s position in strong and personal terms:

:''I solemnly testify that when another’s acts of violence, perversion, or incest hurt you terribly, against your will, you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty.'' {{ref|Scott1}}

In the early LDS Church, violent opponents of the Church in Missouri used rape as a weapon. Crimes like these are alluded to in the Doctrine and Covenants (See {{scripture||DC|123|1-17}}) and are utterly denounced as “dark and hellish.”

The Church’s most basic statement of beliefs, The Articles of Faith, states that people are accountable for their own sins and not for mistakes made by others. {{scripture||AoF|1|2}}

===Spencer W. Kimball’s ''The Miracle of Forgiveness''===

The following statement does appear in the 1969 book ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' written by member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Spencer W. Kimball.

:Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is absolutely no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle. {{ref|Kimball}}

Kimball would later be called as President of the Church and ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' was widely read among LDS membership. It is the statement quoted above that is most often used to support the claim that the term “fight to the death” was expected in a sexual assault.

The phrase is used by critics of the Church but it also sometimes appears as a folk-saying among members. Particularly people of the Baby Boom generation who lived in the American heartland of the Church may remember hearing this phrase when they were young. Sometimes it came complete with clumsy but colorful and memorable object lessons. However, it’s important to distinguish unofficial slogans and crude demonstrations from what Church leaders in positions to pronounce an official stance on the issue actually said. Well-meaning but misguided interpretations passed around by provincial teachers and leaders aren’t uncommon in an organization like the Church which turns most of its administration over to non-professional volunteers. But being common doesn’t make these interpretations into official Church positions.

By now, Kimball and the other twentieth century Church leaders he quoted in ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' have been dead for decades. They are no longer available to clarify what they meant when they spoke about chastity in general and about the innocence of victims of sexual assault in particular. This uncertainty means there can be more than one interpretation of what their comments could mean.

One interpretation does indeed seem to suggest that people who have survived sexual assault ought to have gone to extreme lengths to resist. It’s true that colorful and sometimes exaggerated rhetorical devices were used by past Church leaders to impress upon members the importance of preserving virtue and to describe the heinousness of sexual abuse and assault.

The Lord himself used rhetorical hyperbole when teaching about sexual morality. In the section of the Sermon on the Mount where he denounced adultery and lust, Jesus told his disciples “if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out.” {{scripture||Mat|5|29}} This passage is not taken literally. We understand that Jesus was using powerful figurative language to convey a message about how dangerous and damaging sexual sin is. Hyperbole like this is a common device in all kinds of rhetoric and particularly in religious rhetoric.

Other interpretations of Kimballs’ statement also exist. For instance, Kimball recommends “a struggle” against sexual assault but he does not demand that the struggle continue until the victim dies in order for her or him to escape “condemnation.” Perhaps Kimball was saying it might be easier for the victim to avoid future feelings of guilt and regret if he or she decisively resisted the attack. As a longtime ecclesiastical minister, Kimball would have been familiar with the typical feelings of guilt and shame that often afflict victims of sexual assault and abuse. In order for victims to be better able to overcome these feelings, he may have wanted victims to be able to assure themselves there was “absolutely no voluntary participation” on their part.

This interpretation springs on the fact that Kimball did not say it is better to die defending one’s virtue than it is to live. Precisely what he said was, “it is better to die defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.” Perhaps Kimball was warning that it is better to die than to not resist an assault. This is a very different thing than saying it is better to die than to survive a sexual assault.

The second interpretation may sound jarring to twenty-first century readers. However, Kimball was not writing from the best of all possible worlds but from a real-world social and legal climate that was much more steeped in sexism than the one most of us inhabit today. A look at American rape case law during Kimball's time shows a disturbingly sexist system where courts could choose not to convict men of sexual assault when the complaint was uncorroborated. {{ref|Gruber}} Complaints of sexual assault are often uncorroborated since they usually happen in private where there are no witnesses besides the attacker and the victim. This meant the courts could demand more gruesome and concrete evidence than a woman's testimony alone in order to convict. It may be disgusting, but if a victim could show she was injured in the course of the attack, her attacker was less able to claim he had her consent and less likely to be acquitted. That was the reality of rape laws in America for most of the twentieth century. Kimball could only speak of the reality of world in which he lived.

Other quotations by other early and mid-twentieth century Church leaders are also referred to by critics insisting the Church wants victims of sexual assault to “fight to the death.”

In ''The Miracle of Forgiveness,'' Kimball quotes Church President David O. McKay saying:

:Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives. Do not tamper with sin . . . do not permit yourselves to be led into temptation. Conduct yourselves seemly and with due regard, particularly you young boys, to the sanctity of womanhood. Do not pollute it." {{ref|Kimball}}

President McKay does not directly address a situation of sexual assault in this passage from a section of the book called “Dangers to Youth”. In introducing the quote, Kimball addresses normal social situations like dating relationships where normal urges and temptation are the issues, not violent criminal acts.

In this context, McKay is making a point about not mistaking feelings and behaviors that may be acceptable to the rest of society as being acceptable to the Church’s moral code. He is concerned that the true gravity of sexual misconduct has been lost and he’s trying to restore it by comparing it to a life-or-death situation. In McKay’s view, sexual sin was worse than physical death since, unrepented of, it brought on a more lasting and tragic spiritual death. In that way, it was a life-or-death situation.

Apostle J. Reuben Clark also made comments comparing the value of chastity to the value of life.

:Mothers in Israel, teach your sons to honor and revere, to protect to the last, pure womanhood; teach your daughters that their most priceless jewel is a clean, undefiled body; teach both sons and daughters that chastity is worth more than life itself.” {{ref|Clark}}

Clark speaks of the value of an “undefiled body” but it’s accepted in religious parlance that people are able to defile themselves. (See {{scripture||Dan|1|8}}, {{scripture||Matt|15|11}}) It’s also possible for people to defile other people’s bodies with their full consent. Like McKay, Clark is not necessarily speaking of protecting ourselves from sexual assault. Rather, he’s warning us to choose righteously. Those who are assaulted remain chaste and “not guilty.” {{ref|abuse}}

===Virtue vs. Virginity===

Critics point to a place where the issue of sexual assault gets murky in the Book of Mormon. To fairly understand this passage (See {{scripture||Moro|9|9-10}}) we must try to see the situation as Mormon, the writer, saw it himself. We do not usually refer to the Law of Moses in the modern Church. It was discontinued over two thousand years ago and has never been used in the restored Church. However, the non-Jaredite peoples of the Book of Mormon had both cultural and religious roots in the Law of Moses and these must be accounted for when making sense of their history.

According to the Law of Moses, when a woman was sexually assaulted, she was considered innocent by God and her fellow men and women (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-26}}). The prophet Mormon lived about 400 years after the end of the Law of Moses. There doesn’t seem to be anything in the Book of Mormon to show to what extent the Law of Moses once practiced by Mormon’s people might have still been influencing the way he understood and spoke about the world. The old law might have had no influence at all or it might have retained some power to color his interpretations and his expressions. If the Law of Moses was still part of Mormon’s cultural memory, he might have had an understanding of the state of a rape victim’s virtue – her state of moral cleanliness – that’s nuanced differently than the understanding we have now. When mourning the violent sex crimes of his people at Moriantum, Mormon used the words “chastity and virtue” to describe what the daughters of the Lamanites had lost when they were assaulted instead of simply saying “virginity.”

:And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue— And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery. {{scripture||Moro|9|9-10}}

Even though the wording might be muddled by the limited vocabulary or perhaps by the sensibilities of the times in which Mormon or his translator lived in, Mormon’s sorrow for what happened to the women is unmistakable. He wrote of an atrocity. Mormon did not condemn the women for being kidnapped, raped, tortured, murdered, and cannibalized. He did condemn the “great abominations” of their attackers.

If Mormon was influenced by cultural traces of the Law of Moses, he would have believed that when a woman was forcibly deprived of her virginity, she remained innocent. Despite the wording, he would have believed they had lost their virginity, not their virtue. In the Law of Moses, penalties against attackers were put in place to serve a purpose similar to restitution. (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-29}}) Once the Law was satisfied, it was as if the victim’s former state – her “chastity and virtue” -- was restored. However, the men who victimized women at Moriantum were never lawfully penalized.

Perhaps part of what Mormon lamented was the fact that the injustices would remain unaddressed. Maybe, as he saw it, the crimes against the women were deepened because no legal version of “restitution” would ever be made. In this way, the legal construct of the women’s “chastity and virtue” was never restored even though their true spiritual virtue could remain intact. Perhaps the problem with this passage is not, as critics suggest, that Mormon equated virtue with virginity but that his cultural sense of the efficacy of legal restitution prompted him to overstate what was lost.

===Lingering Controversy===

As we have progressed through history, people in general – both inside and outside the Church -- have become more sensitized to sexual crimes. We use a more sympathetic vocabulary and much of the societal stigma that victims of sexual crimes have suffered has disappeared. What was once cloaked in flowery rhetoric can now be discussed in more precise and compassionate terms. This shift in language has been critical in assisting victims in the necessary healing after sexual assault and abuse.

Despite the current clarity of the Church’s position on sexual assault, the controversy still flares to life. Although older statements from church leaders have been interpreted in various ways and are of historical interest, it is incumbent upon those addressing this topic to use current statements when describing the position of the modern church.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|abuse}} {{ldsorg|Gospel Topics, "Abuse"|http://www.lds.org/topics/abuse}}
#{{note|Scott1}} {{Ensign1|author=Richard G. Scott|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse]|date=May 1992}} {{eo}}
#{{note|Kimball}} {{Book:Kimball:Miracle of Forgiveness}}
#{{note|Clark}} {{CR1|author=J. Reuben Clark|date=April 1940|pages=21}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Abuse victims and lack of culpability

2013-01-23T03:21:44Z

JenniferQuist: /* Spencer W. Kimball’s The Miracle of Forgiveness */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
==Criticism==

Critics of the LDS Church have complained that Church leaders have commanded members – particularly women -- to “fight to the death” in order to protect ourselves from sexual assault. The claims go on to insist that LDS survivors of sexual abuse and assault must feel guilty to be alive.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

As far as we can determine, no senior Church leader has ever used the words "fight to the death" to describe how members should respond to sexual assault or abuse. The Church's position is that victims are not guilty. Past Church leaders have compared the value of "virtue" to the value of one's life. However, current Church statements are clear that victims of sexual assault and abuse are to be treated with love and compassion, not condemnation.

{{Response label}}

===Statements from Church Sources===

As far as we have been able to determine, there is no record of the phrase “fight to the death” ever being used by a senior Church leader when counseling members about how to respond to sexual assault. This exact phrase is a sensationalized exaggeration that does not reflect current church teachings on this sensitive topic.

The Church’s position on the culpability of victims of sexual assault is available on the official Church website:

:Victims of abuse should be assured that they are not to blame for the harmful behavior of others. They do not need to feel guilt. If they have been a victim of rape or other sexual abuse, whether they have been abused by an acquaintance, a stranger, or even a family member, victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sexual sin. {{ref|abuse}}

Speaking in the Church’s General Conference in 1992, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Richard G. Scott restated the Church’s position in strong and personal terms:

:''I solemnly testify that when another’s acts of violence, perversion, or incest hurt you terribly, against your will, you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty.'' {{ref|Scott1}}

In the early LDS Church, violent opponents of the Church in Missouri used rape as a weapon. Crimes like these are alluded to in the Doctrine and Covenants (See {{scripture||DC|123|1-17}}) and are utterly denounced as “dark and hellish.”

The Church’s most basic statement of beliefs, The Articles of Faith, states that people are accountable for their own sins and not for mistakes made by others. {{scripture||AoF|1|2}}

===Spencer W. Kimball’s ''The Miracle of Forgiveness''===

The following statement does appear in the 1969 book ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' written by member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Spencer W. Kimball.

:Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is absolutely no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle. {{ref|Kimball}}

Kimball would later be called as President of the Church and ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' was widely read among LDS membership. It is the statement quoted above that is most often used to support the claim that the term “fight to the death” was expected in a sexual assault.

The phrase is used by critics of the Church but it also sometimes appears as a folk-saying among members. Particularly people of the Baby Boom generation who lived in the American heartland of the Church may remember hearing this phrase when they were young. Sometimes it came complete with clumsy but colorful and memorable object lessons. However, it’s important to distinguish unofficial slogans and crude demonstrations from what Church leaders in positions to pronounce an official stance on the issue actually said. Well-meaning but misguided interpretations passed around by provincial teachers and leaders aren’t uncommon in an organization like the Church which turns most of its administration over to non-professional volunteers. But being common doesn’t make these interpretations into official Church positions.

By now, Kimball and the other twentieth century Church leaders he quoted in ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' have been dead for decades. They are no longer available to clarify what they meant when they spoke about chastity in general and about the innocence of victims of sexual assault in particular. This uncertainty means there can be more than one interpretation of what their comments could mean.

One interpretation does indeed seem to suggest that people who have survived sexual assault ought to have gone to extreme lengths to resist. It’s true that colorful and sometimes exaggerated rhetorical devices were used by past Church leaders to impress upon members the importance of preserving virtue and to describe the heinousness of sexual abuse and assault.

The Lord himself used rhetorical hyperbole when teaching about sexual morality. In the section of the Sermon on the Mount where he denounced adultery and lust, Jesus told his disciples “if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out.” {{scripture||Mat|5|29}} This passage is not taken literally. We understand that Jesus was using powerful figurative language to convey a message about how dangerous and damaging sexual sin is. Hyperbole like this is a common device in all kinds of rhetoric and particularly in religious rhetoric.

Other interpretations of Kimballs’ statement also exist. For instance, Kimball recommends “a struggle” against sexual assault but he does not demand that the struggle continue until the victim dies in order for her or him to escape “condemnation.” Perhaps Kimball was saying it might be easier for the victim to avoid future feelings of guilt and regret if he or she decisively resisted the attack. As a longtime ecclesiastical minister, Kimball would have been familiar with the typical feelings of guilt and shame that often afflict victims of sexual assault and abuse. In order for victims to be better able to overcome these feelings, he may have wanted victims to be able to assure themselves there was “absolutely no voluntary participation” on their part.

This interpretation springs on the fact that Kimball did not say it is better to die defending one’s virtue than it is to live. Precisely what he said was, “it is better to die defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.” Perhaps Kimball was warning that it is better to die than to not resist an assault. This is a very different thing than saying it is better to die than to survive a sexual assault.

The second interpretation may sound jarring to twenty-first century readers. But Kimball was not writing from the best of all possible worlds but from a real-world social and legal climate that was much more steeped in sexism than the one most of us inhabit today.

Other quotations by other early and mid-twentieth century Church leaders are also referred to by critics insisting the Church wants victims of sexual assault to “fight to the death.”

In ''The Miracle of Forgiveness,'' Kimball quotes Church President David O. McKay saying:

:Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives. Do not tamper with sin . . . do not permit yourselves to be led into temptation. Conduct yourselves seemly and with due regard, particularly you young boys, to the sanctity of womanhood. Do not pollute it." {{ref|Kimball}}

President McKay does not directly address a situation of sexual assault in this passage from a section of the book called “Dangers to Youth”. In introducing the quote, Kimball addresses normal social situations like dating relationships where normal urges and temptation are the issues, not violent criminal acts.

In this context, McKay is making a point about not mistaking feelings and behaviors that may be acceptable to the rest of society as being acceptable to the Church’s moral code. He is concerned that the true gravity of sexual misconduct has been lost and he’s trying to restore it by comparing it to a life-or-death situation. In McKay’s view, sexual sin was worse than physical death since, unrepented of, it brought on a more lasting and tragic spiritual death. In that way, it was a life-or-death situation.

Apostle J. Reuben Clark also made comments comparing the value of chastity to the value of life.

:Mothers in Israel, teach your sons to honor and revere, to protect to the last, pure womanhood; teach your daughters that their most priceless jewel is a clean, undefiled body; teach both sons and daughters that chastity is worth more than life itself.” {{ref|Clark}}

Clark speaks of the value of an “undefiled body” but it’s accepted in religious parlance that people are able to defile themselves. (See {{scripture||Dan|1|8}}, {{scripture||Matt|15|11}}) It’s also possible for people to defile other people’s bodies with their full consent. Like McKay, Clark is not necessarily speaking of protecting ourselves from sexual assault. Rather, he’s warning us to choose righteously. Those who are assaulted remain chaste and “not guilty.” {{ref|abuse}}

===Virtue vs. Virginity===

Critics point to a place where the issue of sexual assault gets murky in the Book of Mormon. To fairly understand this passage (See {{scripture||Moro|9|9-10}}) we must try to see the situation as Mormon, the writer, saw it himself. We do not usually refer to the Law of Moses in the modern Church. It was discontinued over two thousand years ago and has never been used in the restored Church. However, the non-Jaredite peoples of the Book of Mormon had both cultural and religious roots in the Law of Moses and these must be accounted for when making sense of their history.

According to the Law of Moses, when a woman was sexually assaulted, she was considered innocent by God and her fellow men and women (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-26}}). The prophet Mormon lived about 400 years after the end of the Law of Moses. There doesn’t seem to be anything in the Book of Mormon to show to what extent the Law of Moses once practiced by Mormon’s people might have still been influencing the way he understood and spoke about the world. The old law might have had no influence at all or it might have retained some power to color his interpretations and his expressions. If the Law of Moses was still part of Mormon’s cultural memory, he might have had an understanding of the state of a rape victim’s virtue – her state of moral cleanliness – that’s nuanced differently than the understanding we have now. When mourning the violent sex crimes of his people at Moriantum, Mormon used the words “chastity and virtue” to describe what the daughters of the Lamanites had lost when they were assaulted instead of simply saying “virginity.”

:And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue— And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery. {{scripture||Moro|9|9-10}}

Even though the wording might be muddled by the limited vocabulary or perhaps by the sensibilities of the times in which Mormon or his translator lived in, Mormon’s sorrow for what happened to the women is unmistakable. He wrote of an atrocity. Mormon did not condemn the women for being kidnapped, raped, tortured, murdered, and cannibalized. He did condemn the “great abominations” of their attackers.

If Mormon was influenced by cultural traces of the Law of Moses, he would have believed that when a woman was forcibly deprived of her virginity, she remained innocent. Despite the wording, he would have believed they had lost their virginity, not their virtue. In the Law of Moses, penalties against attackers were put in place to serve a purpose similar to restitution. (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-29}}) Once the Law was satisfied, it was as if the victim’s former state – her “chastity and virtue” -- was restored. However, the men who victimized women at Moriantum were never lawfully penalized.

Perhaps part of what Mormon lamented was the fact that the injustices would remain unaddressed. Maybe, as he saw it, the crimes against the women were deepened because no legal version of “restitution” would ever be made. In this way, the legal construct of the women’s “chastity and virtue” was never restored even though their true spiritual virtue could remain intact. Perhaps the problem with this passage is not, as critics suggest, that Mormon equated virtue with virginity but that his cultural sense of the efficacy of legal restitution prompted him to overstate what was lost.

===Lingering Controversy===

As we have progressed through history, people in general – both inside and outside the Church -- have become more sensitized to sexual crimes. We use a more sympathetic vocabulary and much of the societal stigma that victims of sexual crimes have suffered has disappeared. What was once cloaked in flowery rhetoric can now be discussed in more precise and compassionate terms. This shift in language has been critical in assisting victims in the necessary healing after sexual assault and abuse.

Despite the current clarity of the Church’s position on sexual assault, the controversy still flares to life. Although older statements from church leaders have been interpreted in various ways and are of historical interest, it is incumbent upon those addressing this topic to use current statements when describing the position of the modern church.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|abuse}} {{ldsorg|Gospel Topics, "Abuse"|http://www.lds.org/topics/abuse}}
#{{note|Scott1}} {{Ensign1|author=Richard G. Scott|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse]|date=May 1992}} {{eo}}
#{{note|Kimball}} {{Book:Kimball:Miracle of Forgiveness}}
#{{note|Clark}} {{CR1|author=J. Reuben Clark|date=April 1940|pages=21}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Abuse victims and lack of culpability

2013-01-17T21:54:19Z

JenniferQuist: /* Spencer W. Kimball’s The Miracle of Forgiveness */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
==Criticism==

Critics of the LDS Church have complained that Church leaders have commanded members – particularly women -- to “fight to the death” in order to protect ourselves from sexual assault. The claims go on to insist that LDS survivors of sexual abuse and assault must feel guilty to be alive.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

As far as we can determine, no senior Church leader has ever used the words "fight to the death" to describe how members should respond to sexual assault or abuse. The Church's position is that victims are not guilty. Past Church leaders have compared the value of "virtue" to the value of one's life. However, current Church statements are clear that victims of sexual assault and abuse are to be treated with love and compassion, not condemnation.

{{Response label}}

===Statements from Church Sources===

As far as we have been able to determine, there is no record of the phrase “fight to the death” ever being used by a senior Church leader when counseling members about how to respond to sexual assault. This exact phrase is a sensationalized exaggeration that does not reflect current church teachings on this sensitive topic.

The Church’s position on the culpability of victims of sexual assault is available on the official Church website:

:Victims of abuse should be assured that they are not to blame for the harmful behavior of others. They do not need to feel guilt. If they have been a victim of rape or other sexual abuse, whether they have been abused by an acquaintance, a stranger, or even a family member, victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sexual sin. {{ref|abuse}}

Speaking in the Church’s General Conference in 1992, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Richard G. Scott restated the Church’s position in strong and personal terms:

:''I solemnly testify that when another’s acts of violence, perversion, or incest hurt you terribly, against your will, you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty.'' {{ref|Scott1}}

In the early LDS Church, violent opponents of the Church in Missouri used rape as a weapon. Crimes like these are alluded to in the Doctrine and Covenants (See {{scripture||DC|123|1-17}}) and are utterly denounced as “dark and hellish.”

The Church’s most basic statement of beliefs, The Articles of Faith, states that people are accountable for their own sins and not for mistakes made by others. {{scripture||AoF|1|2}}

===Spencer W. Kimball’s ''The Miracle of Forgiveness''===

The following statement does appear in the 1969 book ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' written by member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Spencer W. Kimball.

:Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is absolutely no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle. {{ref|Kimball}}

Kimball would later be called as President of the Church and ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' was widely read among LDS membership. It is the statement quoted above that is most often used to support the claim that the term “fight to the death” was expected in a sexual assault.

The phrase is used by critics of the Church but it also sometimes appears as a folk-saying among members. Particularly people of the Baby Boom generation who lived in the American heartland of the Church may remember hearing this phrase when they were young. Sometimes it came complete with clumsy but colorful and memorable object lessons. However, it’s important to distinguish unofficial slogans and crude demonstrations from what Church leaders in positions to pronounce an official stance on the issue actually said. Well-meaning but misguided interpretations passed around by provincial teachers and leaders aren’t uncommon in an organization like the Church which turns most of its administration over to non-professional volunteers. But being common doesn’t make these interpretations into official Church positions.

By now, Kimball and the other twentieth century Church leaders he quoted in ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' have been dead for decades. They are no longer available to clarify what they meant when they spoke about chastity in general and about the innocence of victims of sexual assault in particular. This uncertainty means there can be more than one interpretation of what their comments could mean.

One interpretation does indeed seem to suggest that people who have survived sexual assault ought to have gone to extreme lengths to resist. It’s true that colorful and sometimes exaggerated rhetorical devices were used by past Church leaders to impress upon members the importance of preserving virtue and to describe the heinousness of sexual abuse and assault.

The Lord himself used rhetorical hyperbole when teaching about sexual morality. In the section of the Sermon on the Mount where he denounced adultery and lust, Jesus told his disciples “if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out.” {{scripture||Mat|5|29}} This passage is not taken literally. We understand that Jesus was using powerful figurative language to convey a message about how dangerous and damaging sexual sin is. Hyperbole like this is a common device in all kinds of rhetoric and particularly in religious rhetoric.

Other interpretations of Kimballs’ statement also exist. For instance, Kimball recommends “a struggle” against sexual assault but he does not demand that the struggle continue until the victim dies in order for her or him to escape “condemnation.” Perhaps Kimball was saying it might be easier for the victim to avoid future feelings of guilt and regret if he or she decisively resisted the attack. As a longtime ecclesiastical minister, Kimball would have been familiar with the typical feelings of guilt and shame that often afflict victims of sexual assault and abuse. In order for victims to be better able to overcome these feelings, he may have wanted victims to be able to assure themselves there was “absolutely no voluntary participation” on their part.

This interpretation springs on the fact that Kimball did not say it is better to die defending one’s virtue than it is to live. Precisely what he said was, “it is better to die defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.” Perhaps Kimball was warning that it is better to die than to not resist an assault. This is a very different thing than saying it is better to die than to survive a sexual assault.

Other quotations by other early and mid-twentieth century Church leaders are also referred to by critics insisting the Church wants victims of sexual assault to “fight to the death.”

In ''The Miracle of Forgiveness,'' Kimball quotes Church President David O. McKay saying:

:Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives. Do not tamper with sin . . . do not permit yourselves to be led into temptation. Conduct yourselves seemly and with due regard, particularly you young boys, to the sanctity of womanhood. Do not pollute it." {{ref|Kimball}}

President McKay does not directly address a situation of sexual assault in this passage from a section of the book called “Dangers to Youth”. In introducing the quote, Kimball addresses normal social situations like dating relationships where normal urges and temptation are the issues, not violent criminal acts.

In this context, McKay is making a point about not mistaking feelings and behaviors that may be acceptable to the rest of society as being acceptable to the Church’s moral code. He is concerned that the true gravity of sexual misconduct has been lost and he’s trying to restore it by comparing it to a life-or-death situation. In McKay’s view, sexual sin was worse than physical death since, unrepented of, it brought on a more lasting and tragic spiritual death. In that way, it was a life-or-death situation.

Apostle J. Reuben Clark also made comments comparing the value of chastity to the value of life.

:Mothers in Israel, teach your sons to honor and revere, to protect to the last, pure womanhood; teach your daughters that their most priceless jewel is a clean, undefiled body; teach both sons and daughters that chastity is worth more than life itself.” {{ref|Clark}}

Clark speaks of the value of an “undefiled body” but it’s accepted in religious parlance that people are able to defile themselves. (See {{scripture||Dan|1|8}}, {{scripture||Matt|15|11}}) It’s also possible for people to defile other people’s bodies with their full consent. Like McKay, Clark is not necessarily speaking of protecting ourselves from sexual assault. Rather, he’s warning us to choose righteously. Those who are assaulted remain chaste and “not guilty.” {{ref|abuse}}

===Virtue vs. Virginity===

Critics point to a place where the issue of sexual assault gets murky in the Book of Mormon. To fairly understand this passage (See {{scripture||Moro|9|9-10}}) we must try to see the situation as Mormon, the writer, saw it himself. We do not usually refer to the Law of Moses in the modern Church. It was discontinued over two thousand years ago and has never been used in the restored Church. However, the non-Jaredite peoples of the Book of Mormon had both cultural and religious roots in the Law of Moses and these must be accounted for when making sense of their history.

According to the Law of Moses, when a woman was sexually assaulted, she was considered innocent by God and her fellow men and women (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-26}}). The prophet Mormon lived about 400 years after the end of the Law of Moses. There doesn’t seem to be anything in the Book of Mormon to show to what extent the Law of Moses once practiced by Mormon’s people might have still been influencing the way he understood and spoke about the world. The old law might have had no influence at all or it might have retained some power to color his interpretations and his expressions. If the Law of Moses was still part of Mormon’s cultural memory, he might have had an understanding of the state of a rape victim’s virtue – her state of moral cleanliness – that’s nuanced differently than the understanding we have now. When mourning the violent sex crimes of his people at Moriantum, Mormon used the words “chastity and virtue” to describe what the daughters of the Lamanites had lost when they were assaulted instead of simply saying “virginity.”

:And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue— And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery. {{scripture||Moro|9|9-10}}

Even though the wording might be muddled by the limited vocabulary or perhaps by the sensibilities of the times in which Mormon or his translator lived in, Mormon’s sorrow for what happened to the women is unmistakable. He wrote of an atrocity. Mormon did not condemn the women for being kidnapped, raped, tortured, murdered, and cannibalized. He did condemn the “great abominations” of their attackers.

If Mormon was influenced by cultural traces of the Law of Moses, he would have believed that when a woman was forcibly deprived of her virginity, she remained innocent. Despite the wording, he would have believed they had lost their virginity, not their virtue. In the Law of Moses, penalties against attackers were put in place to serve a purpose similar to restitution. (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-29}}) Once the Law was satisfied, it was as if the victim’s former state – her “chastity and virtue” -- was restored. However, the men who victimized women at Moriantum were never lawfully penalized.

Perhaps part of what Mormon lamented was the fact that the injustices would remain unaddressed. Maybe, as he saw it, the crimes against the women were deepened because no legal version of “restitution” would ever be made. In this way, the legal construct of the women’s “chastity and virtue” was never restored even though their true spiritual virtue could remain intact. Perhaps the problem with this passage is not, as critics suggest, that Mormon equated virtue with virginity but that his cultural sense of the efficacy of legal restitution prompted him to overstate what was lost.

===Lingering Controversy===

As we have progressed through history, people in general – both inside and outside the Church -- have become more sensitized to sexual crimes. We use a more sympathetic vocabulary and much of the societal stigma that victims of sexual crimes have suffered has disappeared. What was once cloaked in flowery rhetoric can now be discussed in more precise and compassionate terms. This shift in language has been critical in assisting victims in the necessary healing after sexual assault and abuse.

Despite the current clarity of the Church’s position on sexual assault, the controversy still flares to life. Although older statements from church leaders have been interpreted in various ways and are of historical interest, it is incumbent upon those addressing this topic to use current statements when describing the position of the modern church.

=={{Endnotes label}}==

#{{note|abuse}} {{ldsorg|Gospel Topics, "Abuse"|http://www.lds.org/topics/abuse}}
#{{note|Scott1}} {{Ensign1|author=Richard G. Scott|article=[https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1992/04/healing-the-tragic-scars-of-abuse Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse]|date=May 1992}} {{eo}}
#{{note|Kimball}} {{Book:Kimball:Miracle of Forgiveness}}
#{{note|Clark}} {{CR1|author=J. Reuben Clark|date=April 1940|pages=21}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Abuse victims and lack of culpability

2013-01-17T21:47:35Z

JenniferQuist: /* Lingering Controversy */

Abuse victims and lack of culpability

2013-01-17T21:45:55Z

JenniferQuist: /* Spencer W. Kimball’s The Miracle of Forgiveness */

Mormonism and gender issues/Women

2013-01-08T19:04:52Z

JenniferQuist: /* {{Topics label}} */

Abuse victims and lack of culpability

2013-01-08T18:56:58Z

JenniferQuist: /* Lack of Context */

==Criticism==

Critics of the LDS Church have complained that Church leaders have commanded members – particularly women -- to “fight to the death” in order to protect ourselves from sexual assault. The claims go on to insist that LDS survivors of sexual abuse and assault must feel guilty to be alive.

==Supporting Data==

===Statements from Church Sources===

As far as we have been able to determine, despite being ubiquitous in discussions on the topic, there is no record of the phrase “fight to the death” ever being used by a senior Church leader when counseling members about how to respond to sexual assault. This exact phrase appears to have been coined as an over-simplification and a sensationalization.

The Church’s position on the culpability of victims of sexual assault is made clear and widely available on the official Church website:

:Victims of abuse should be assured that they are not to blame for the harmful behavior of others. They do not need to feel guilt. If they have been a victim of rape or other sexual abuse, whether they have been abused by an acquaintance, a stranger, or even a family member, victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sexual sin. {{ref|abuse}}

Speaking in the Church’s General Conference in 1992, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Richard G. Scott restated the Church’s position in strong and personal terms:

:''I solemnly testify that when another’s acts of violence, perversion, or incest hurt you terribly, against your will, you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty.'' {{ref|Scott1}}

In the early LDS Church, violent opponents of the Church in Missouri used rape as a weapon. Crimes like these are alluded to in the Doctrine and Covenants (See {{scripture||DC|123|1-17}}) and are utterly denounced as “dark and hellish.” While mention is made of the suffering of the abused women, nothing is written to suggest the women ought to have “fought to the death.”

Even the Church’s most basic statement of beliefs, The Articles of Faith, makes it clear that people are accountable for their own sins and not for mistakes made by others. {{scripture||AoF|1|2}}

===Kimball’s, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness''===

The following statement does appear in the 1969 book ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' written by member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Spencer W. Kimball.

:Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is absolutely no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle. {{ref|Kimball}}

Kimball would later be called as President of the Church and ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' was widely read among LDS membership. It is the statement quoted above that is paraphrased, over-simplified, and retold as Kimball commanding victims to “fight to the death” to stop a sexual assault. The phrase is used by critics of the Church but it also sometimes appears as a folk-saying among members. No matter who repeats it, mere repetition of the words “fight to the death” doesn’t make them a fair paraphrase of what Kimball actually said.

In reality, Kimball’s statement recommends “a struggle” against sexual assault but it does not demand that the struggle continue until the victim dies in order for her or him to escape “condemnation.”

Kimball’s intent seems to be for the victim to be able to avoid future feelings of guilt and regret for not having decisively resisted the attack. As a longtime ecclesiastical minister, Kimball would have been familiar with the typical feelings of guilt, self-blame, and self-loathing that often torment victims of sexual assaults and abuse. In order for victims to be better able to overcome these feelings, he seems to want victims to be able to assure themselves there was “absolutely no voluntary participation” on their part.

Kimball does not say it is better to die defending one’s virtue than it is to live. He says “it is better to die defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.” The last clause of the sentence is vital in understanding the meaning and should not be truncated for simplicity or for a more sensational effect. Kimball’s warning is that it is better to die than to not resist an assault. He makes no statement on how intense the resistance must be. And he certainly does not say it is better to die than to survive a sexual assault.

===Lingering Controversy===

Despite the current clarity of the Church’s position, some still ruminate over the colorful and sometimes exaggerated rhetorical devices used by past Church leaders to describe the heinousness of sexual abuse and assault. There are several reasons why some confusion may remain.

====Shifts in Language and Rhetorical Style====

As we have progressed through history, people in general – both inside and outside the Church -- have become better equipped to talk about sexual misbehavior. We have a broader, more familiar vocabulary and much of the stigma has disappeared. What was once so keenly awkward to say in public that it typically became cloaked in flowery, emotional rhetoric can now be discussed in more calm, clinical, and precise terms.

This shift in our language has been illuminating and helpful for dealing with sexual assault and abuse. However, it may also cause the true meaning of past statements on the topic to become muddled. When we look back at them with the clearer, more exacting lenses of our current way of speaking and understanding, we might feel we’ve uncovered problems that were never intended by the speakers and never so perceived by the original audiences.

Some have drawn a parallel between past Church leaders’ comments on resisting sexual assault and past nationalist comments on resisting Communism. There was once a saying in America that went “better dead than red.” It was a strong denouncement of Communism and literally meant that the speaker would rather fight and be killed than live as a Communist. However, when we look back at this statement now, it’s not likely that we would believe the speaker meant to extend his hyperbole to say that it would be better for the millions of people living in Communist countries to rise up and dash themselves against their nations’ militaries rather than to preserve their lives by bearing with Communism and resisting only in whatever tempered ways they could find. “Better dead than red” is a figurative statement meant to express the vehement revulsion the speaker has for a situation he or she can still avoid. It is not meant as a literal prescription for people unable to avoid the same situation.

Likewise, statements from Church leaders living in the “better dead than red” era that say similar things about valuing “virtue” over life ought to be understood with the same kind of circumspection. These are figurative expressions meant to inspire and motivate people who still have freedom and choices, not literal expressions meant to condemn those who are already oppressed and victimized.

The Lord himself used rhetorical hyperbole when teaching about sexual morality. In the section of the Sermon on the Mount where he denounced adultery and lust, Jesus told his disciples “if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out.” {{scripture||Mat|5|29}} Even very devout Christians do not take this passage literally. We understand that Jesus was not trying to institute self-mutilation as part of gospel living. Instead, we understand that he was using powerful figurative language to convey a message about how dangerous and damaging sexual sin is. Hyperbole like this is a common device in all kinds of rhetoric and particularly in religious rhetoric. It seems odd that we would lose the proper perspective of its usage where victims of sexual assault are concerned.

Perhaps the most unfortunate place where a shift in language clouds the issue of sexual assault is in the Book of Mormon itself. The non-Jaredite peoples of the Book of Mormon had cultural and religious roots in the Law of Moses. According to the Law of Moses, when a woman was sexually assaulted, she was considered innocent by God and her fellow men and women (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-26}}). Coming from this kind of background, the prophet Mormon would not have considered victims of sexual assault as having lost their virtue – their state of moral cleanliness -- along with their virginity. However, when mourning the crimes of his people at Moriantum, Mormon used the words “chastity and virtue” to describe what the daughters of the Lamanites had lost when they were assaulted by Nephites in the final years of the civilization.

:And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue— And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery. {{scripture||Moro|9|9-10}}

Even though the wording might be muddled by the limited vocabulary or perhaps by the sensibilities of the times in which Mormon or his translator lived in, Mormon’s sorrow for what happened to the women is unmistakable. He wrote of an atrocity. He did not condemn the victims but he did condemn the “great abominations” of their attackers. It’s difficult to imagine a person reading this account in good faith and then coming away with the impression that Mormon believed the women sinned in being kidnapped, raped, tortured, murdered, and cannibalized. The exact choice of words may not make it clear on its own but once the tone and context of the rest of the story are considered, we can see that Mormon mourned the loss of the women’s virginity rather than what we would call today their “virtue.”

Perhaps the Law of Moses is part of what makes Mormon’s comments confusing for modern readers. According to the Law, when a woman was forcibly deprived of her virginity – a loss for which no real restitution can be made – the Law provided penalties against the attacker which were perceived as something similar to restitution. (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-29}}) Once the Law was satisfied, it was as if the victim’s former state – her “chastity and virtue” -- was restored. However, the women victimized at Moriantum never had any of the traditional remedies of the Law (or whatever Nephite law came after it) applied to their situation. Perhaps part of what Mormon lamented was the fact that the injustices would remain unaddressed. The crimes against the women were deepened because no legal version of “restitution” would ever be made. In this way, the legal construct of the women’s “chastity and virtue” was never restored even though their true spiritual virtue could remain intact.

====Lack of Context====

Other quotations by other early and mid-twentieth century Church leaders are also referred to by critics insisting the Church wants victims of sexual assault to “fight to the death.”

In ''The Miracle of Forgiveness,'' Kimball quotes Church President David O. McKay saying:

:Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives. Do not tamper with sin . . . do not permit yourselves to be led into temptation. Conduct yourselves seemly and with due regard, particularly you young boys, to the sanctity of womanhood. Do not pollute it." {{ref|Kimball}}

Unlike in Kimball’s own commentary, nowhere in this passage from a section of the book called “Dangers to Youth” does President McKay directly address a situation of sexual assault. His counsel is more ordinary and cautionary rather than extraordinary and remedial. In introducing the quote, Kimball addresses normal social situations like dating relationships where normal urges and temptation are the issues, not violent criminal acts.

In this context, McKay is making a point about not mistaking feelings and behaviors that may be acceptable to the rest of society as being acceptable to the Church’s moral code. He is concerned that the true gravity of sexual misconduct has been lost and he’s trying to restore it by comparing it to a life-or-death situation. In McKay’s view, sexual sin was worse than physical death since, unrepented of, it brought on a more lasting and tragic spiritual death. In that way, it was a life-or-death situation – but not in the way critics would interpret it.

It’s important to note that McKay also does not utter the words “fight to the death.” In fact, there is no mention of fighting at all, only of “preserving your virtue.” This counsel could mean many, many things short of literally fighting to the death.

Apostle J. Reuben Clark also made comments comparing the value of chastity to the value of life.

:Mothers in Israel, teach your sons to honor and revere, to protect to the last, pure womanhood; teach your daughters that their most priceless jewel is a clean, undefiled body; teach both sons and daughters that chastity is worth more than life itself.” {{ref|Clark}}

Clark speaks of the value of an “undefiled body” but it’s accepted in religious parlance that people are able to defile themselves. (See {{scripture||Dan|1|8}}, {{scripture||Matt|15|11}}) It’s also possible for people to defile other people’s bodies with their full consent. Like McKay, Clark is not necessarily speaking of protecting ourselves from sexual assault. Rather, he’s warning us to choose righteously. He doesn’t appear to be talking about people for whom there is no choice but to be defiled. Those who are assaulted remain chaste and “not guilty.” {{ref|abuse}} Clark is warning against being unchaste – a condition that can really only be arrived at by choice.

==Summary==

As far as we can determine, no senior Church leader has ever used the words "fight to the death" to describe how members should respond to sexual assault or abuse. The Church's position is that victims are not guilty. Past Church leaders have compared the value of "virtue" to the value of one's life but they haven't said this in contexts where those victimized by others are condemned for surviving attacks. There are a few instances where shifts in language, rhetorical style, and a lack of context might give rise to confusion for modern readers. However, current Church statements make it clear that victims of sexual assault and abuse are received with love and compassion, not condemnation.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|abuse}} lds.org, Topics, Abuse. http://www.lds.org/topics/abuse?lang=eng
#{{note|Scott1}} Richard G. Scott, “Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse,” ''Ensign,'' May 1992. Emphasis in original.
#{{note|Kimball}} Spencer W. Kimball, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness,'' Bookcraft, 1969.
#{{note|Clark}} J. Reuben Clark, Conference Report (April 1940): 21.

Abuse victims and lack of culpability

2013-01-08T18:49:56Z

JenniferQuist: /* References */

==Criticism==

Critics of the LDS Church have complained that Church leaders have commanded members – particularly women -- to “fight to the death” in order to protect ourselves from sexual assault. The claims go on to insist that LDS survivors of sexual abuse and assault must feel guilty to be alive.

==Supporting Data==

===Statements from Church Sources===

As far as we have been able to determine, despite being ubiquitous in discussions on the topic, there is no record of the phrase “fight to the death” ever being used by a senior Church leader when counseling members about how to respond to sexual assault. This exact phrase appears to have been coined as an over-simplification and a sensationalization.

The Church’s position on the culpability of victims of sexual assault is made clear and widely available on the official Church website:

:Victims of abuse should be assured that they are not to blame for the harmful behavior of others. They do not need to feel guilt. If they have been a victim of rape or other sexual abuse, whether they have been abused by an acquaintance, a stranger, or even a family member, victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sexual sin. {{ref|abuse}}

Speaking in the Church’s General Conference in 1992, member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Richard G. Scott restated the Church’s position in strong and personal terms:

:''I solemnly testify that when another’s acts of violence, perversion, or incest hurt you terribly, against your will, you are not responsible and you must not feel guilty.'' {{ref|Scott1}}

In the early LDS Church, violent opponents of the Church in Missouri used rape as a weapon. Crimes like these are alluded to in the Doctrine and Covenants (See {{scripture||DC|123|1-17}}) and are utterly denounced as “dark and hellish.” While mention is made of the suffering of the abused women, nothing is written to suggest the women ought to have “fought to the death.”

Even the Church’s most basic statement of beliefs, The Articles of Faith, makes it clear that people are accountable for their own sins and not for mistakes made by others. {{scripture||AoF|1|2}}

===Kimball’s, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness''===

The following statement does appear in the 1969 book ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' written by member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Spencer W. Kimball.

:Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. Even in forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no condemnation where there is absolutely no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle. {{ref|Kimball}}

Kimball would later be called as President of the Church and ''The Miracle of Forgiveness'' was widely read among LDS membership. It is the statement quoted above that is paraphrased, over-simplified, and retold as Kimball commanding victims to “fight to the death” to stop a sexual assault. The phrase is used by critics of the Church but it also sometimes appears as a folk-saying among members. No matter who repeats it, mere repetition of the words “fight to the death” doesn’t make them a fair paraphrase of what Kimball actually said.

In reality, Kimball’s statement recommends “a struggle” against sexual assault but it does not demand that the struggle continue until the victim dies in order for her or him to escape “condemnation.”

Kimball’s intent seems to be for the victim to be able to avoid future feelings of guilt and regret for not having decisively resisted the attack. As a longtime ecclesiastical minister, Kimball would have been familiar with the typical feelings of guilt, self-blame, and self-loathing that often torment victims of sexual assaults and abuse. In order for victims to be better able to overcome these feelings, he seems to want victims to be able to assure themselves there was “absolutely no voluntary participation” on their part.

Kimball does not say it is better to die defending one’s virtue than it is to live. He says “it is better to die defending one’s virtue than to live having lost it without a struggle.” The last clause of the sentence is vital in understanding the meaning and should not be truncated for simplicity or for a more sensational effect. Kimball’s warning is that it is better to die than to not resist an assault. He makes no statement on how intense the resistance must be. And he certainly does not say it is better to die than to survive a sexual assault.

===Lingering Controversy===

Despite the current clarity of the Church’s position, some still ruminate over the colorful and sometimes exaggerated rhetorical devices used by past Church leaders to describe the heinousness of sexual abuse and assault. There are several reasons why some confusion may remain.

====Shifts in Language and Rhetorical Style====

As we have progressed through history, people in general – both inside and outside the Church -- have become better equipped to talk about sexual misbehavior. We have a broader, more familiar vocabulary and much of the stigma has disappeared. What was once so keenly awkward to say in public that it typically became cloaked in flowery, emotional rhetoric can now be discussed in more calm, clinical, and precise terms.

This shift in our language has been illuminating and helpful for dealing with sexual assault and abuse. However, it may also cause the true meaning of past statements on the topic to become muddled. When we look back at them with the clearer, more exacting lenses of our current way of speaking and understanding, we might feel we’ve uncovered problems that were never intended by the speakers and never so perceived by the original audiences.

Some have drawn a parallel between past Church leaders’ comments on resisting sexual assault and past nationalist comments on resisting Communism. There was once a saying in America that went “better dead than red.” It was a strong denouncement of Communism and literally meant that the speaker would rather fight and be killed than live as a Communist. However, when we look back at this statement now, it’s not likely that we would believe the speaker meant to extend his hyperbole to say that it would be better for the millions of people living in Communist countries to rise up and dash themselves against their nations’ militaries rather than to preserve their lives by bearing with Communism and resisting only in whatever tempered ways they could find. “Better dead than red” is a figurative statement meant to express the vehement revulsion the speaker has for a situation he or she can still avoid. It is not meant as a literal prescription for people unable to avoid the same situation.

Likewise, statements from Church leaders living in the “better dead than red” era that say similar things about valuing “virtue” over life ought to be understood with the same kind of circumspection. These are figurative expressions meant to inspire and motivate people who still have freedom and choices, not literal expressions meant to condemn those who are already oppressed and victimized.

The Lord himself used rhetorical hyperbole when teaching about sexual morality. In the section of the Sermon on the Mount where he denounced adultery and lust, Jesus told his disciples “if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out.” {{scripture||Mat|5|29}} Even very devout Christians do not take this passage literally. We understand that Jesus was not trying to institute self-mutilation as part of gospel living. Instead, we understand that he was using powerful figurative language to convey a message about how dangerous and damaging sexual sin is. Hyperbole like this is a common device in all kinds of rhetoric and particularly in religious rhetoric. It seems odd that we would lose the proper perspective of its usage where victims of sexual assault are concerned.

Perhaps the most unfortunate place where a shift in language clouds the issue of sexual assault is in the Book of Mormon itself. The non-Jaredite peoples of the Book of Mormon had cultural and religious roots in the Law of Moses. According to the Law of Moses, when a woman was sexually assaulted, she was considered innocent by God and her fellow men and women (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-26}}). Coming from this kind of background, the prophet Mormon would not have considered victims of sexual assault as having lost their virtue – their state of moral cleanliness -- along with their virginity. However, when mourning the crimes of his people at Moriantum, Mormon used the words “chastity and virtue” to describe what the daughters of the Lamanites had lost when they were assaulted by Nephites in the final years of the civilization.

:And notwithstanding this great abomination of the Lamanites, it doth not exceed that of our people in Moriantum. For behold, many of the daughters of the Lamanites have they taken prisoners; and after depriving them of that which was most dear and precious above all things, which is chastity and virtue— And after they had done this thing, they did murder them in a most cruel manner, torturing their bodies even unto death; and after they have done this, they devour their flesh like unto wild beasts, because of the hardness of their hearts; and they do it for a token of bravery. {{scripture||Moro|9|9-10}}

Even though the wording might be muddled by the limited vocabulary or perhaps by the sensibilities of the times in which Mormon or his translator lived in, Mormon’s sorrow for what happened to the women is unmistakable. He wrote of an atrocity. He did not condemn the victims but he did condemn the “great abominations” of their attackers. It’s difficult to imagine a person reading this account in good faith and then coming away with the impression that Mormon believed the women sinned in being kidnapped, raped, tortured, murdered, and cannibalized. The exact choice of words may not make it clear on its own but once the tone and context of the rest of the story are considered, we can see that Mormon mourned the loss of the women’s virginity rather than what we would call today their “virtue.”

Perhaps the Law of Moses is part of what makes Mormon’s comments confusing for modern readers. According to the Law, when a woman was forcibly deprived of her virginity – a loss for which no real restitution can be made – the Law provided penalties against the attacker which were perceived as something similar to restitution. (See {{scripture||Deut|22|25-29}}) Once the Law was satisfied, it was as if the victim’s former state – her “chastity and virtue” -- was restored. However, the women victimized at Moriantum never had any of the traditional remedies of the Law (or whatever Nephite law came after it) applied to their situation. Perhaps part of what Mormon lamented was the fact that the injustices would remain unaddressed. The crimes against the women were deepened because no legal version of “restitution” would ever be made. In this way, the legal construct of the women’s “chastity and virtue” was never restored even though their true spiritual virtue could remain intact.

====Lack of Context====

Other quotations by other early and mid-twentieth century Church leaders are also referred to by critics insisting the Church wants victims of sexual assault to “fight to the death.”

In ''The Miracle of Forgiveness,'' Kimball quotes Church President David O. McKay saying:

:Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose your lives. Do not tamper with sin . . . do not permit yourselves to be led into temptation. Conduct yourselves seemly and with due regard, particularly you young boys, to the sanctity of womanhood. Do not pollute it." {{ref|Kimball}}

Unlike in Kimball’s own commentary, nowhere in this passage from a section of the book called “Dangers to Youth” does President McKay directly address a situation of sexual assault. His counsel is more ordinary and cautionary rather than extraordinary and remedial. In introducing the quote, Kimball addresses normal social situations like dating relationships where normal urges and temptation are the issues, not violent criminal acts.

In this context, McKay is making a point about not mistaking feelings and behaviors that may be acceptable to the rest of society as being acceptable to the Church’s moral code. He is concerned that the true gravity of sexual misconduct has been lost and he’s trying to restore it by comparing it to a life-or-death situation. In McKay’s view, sexual sin was worse than physical death since, unrepented of, it brought on a more lasting and tragic spiritual death. In that way, it was a life-or-death situation – but not in the way critics would interpret it.

It’s important to note that McKay also does not utter the words “fight to the death.” In fact, there is no mention of fighting at all, only of “preserving your virtue.” This counsel could mean many, many things short of literally fighting to the death.

Apostle J. Reuben Clark also made comments comparing the value of chastity to the value of life.

:Mothers in Israel, teach your sons to honor and revere, to protect to the last, pure womanhood; teach your daughters that their most priceless jewel is a clean, undefiled body; teach both sons and daughters that chastity is worth more than life itself.” {{ref|Clark}}

Clark speaks of the value of an “undefiled body” but it’s accepted in religious parlance that people are able to defile themselves. (See {{scripture||Dan|1|8}}, {{scripture||Matt|15|11}}) It’s also possible for people to defile other people’s bodies with their full consent. Like McKay, Clark is not necessarily speaking of protecting ourselves from sexual assault. Rather, he’s warning us to choose righteously. He doesn’t appear to be talking about people for whom there is no choice but to be defiled. Those who are assaulted remain chaste and “not guilty.” {{ref|abuse}} Clark is warning against being unchaste – a condition that can really only be arrived at by choice.

==Endnotes==

#{{note|abuse}} lds.org, Topics, Abuse. http://www.lds.org/topics/abuse?lang=eng
#{{note|Scott1}} Richard G. Scott, “Healing the Tragic Scars of Abuse,” ''Ensign,'' May 1992. Emphasis in original.
#{{note|Kimball}} Spencer W. Kimball, ''The Miracle of Forgiveness,'' Bookcraft, 1969.
#{{note|Clark}} J. Reuben Clark, Conference Report (April 1940): 21.

Abuse victims and lack of culpability

2013-01-08T18:46:20Z

JenniferQuist: Created page with "==Criticism== Critics of the LDS Church have complained that Church leaders have commanded members – particularly women -- to “fight to the death” in order to protect o..."

Question: What is the Mormon position on abortion?

2013-01-02T21:08:15Z

JenniferQuist: /* Abortion as a Political Issue */

Question: What is the Mormon position on abortion?

2013-01-02T21:06:07Z

JenniferQuist: /* Exceptions Where Abortion May Be Appropriate */

Question: What is the Mormon position on abortion?

2013-01-02T21:03:33Z

JenniferQuist: /* Exceptions Where Abortion May Be Appropriate */

Mormonism and gender issues/Women

2012-12-31T05:20:51Z

JenniferQuist: /* {{Topics label}} */

Question: What is the Mormon position on abortion?

2012-12-31T05:17:53Z

JenniferQuist: /* Exceptions Where Abortion May Be Appropriate */

Question: What is the Mormon position on abortion?

2012-12-31T05:17:03Z

JenniferQuist: /* Abortion as a Political Issue */

Question: What is the Mormon position on abortion?

2012-12-31T05:16:16Z

JenniferQuist: /* Abortion as a Political Issue */

Question: What is the Mormon position on abortion?

2012-12-31T05:15:07Z

JenniferQuist: /* {{Endnotes label}} */

Question: What is the Mormon position on abortion?

2012-12-31T05:11:22Z

JenniferQuist: /* */

Women and the priesthood

2012-12-18T01:12:26Z

JenniferQuist: /* The Everlasting Covenant of Marriage */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{question}}
=={{Question label}}==

Why do women not exercise priesthood authority in the Church?

=={{Conclusion label}}==

God is the Father of all humanity, and no one—male or female—is more valued than any other. Through personal faithfulness, all people can have access to the blessings of the priesthood. Positions of influence within the Church are held by both men and women. From the foundation of the Church, women have been instructed to seek after the same kinds of spiritual gifts that men enjoy through the priesthood. The power of motherhood is an eternal spiritual gift and must not be underestimated or taken for granted as a sanctifying force in the lives of women regardless of whether they ever physically bear children. Men and women must make covenants with each other in the temple in order to qualify for the highest order of the priesthood. Men cannot advance to this order on their own and women are partners in it.

== ==
{{Response label}}

Priesthood is God’s authority as delegated to mortals. Priesthood exists only to serve and help others. As Jesus taught, “whosever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” ({{b||Matthew|20|27}}).

The blessings and ordinances of the priesthood are available to all Church members regardless of gender, social status, race, or culture {{scripture||2Ne|26|33}}. Access to them is limited only by: 1) adherence to standards of personal faithfulness and worthiness, and 2) sufficient maturity and experience in gospel living. (Requirements of maturity and experience set a pace for young people and new converts to assure there is adequate time for them to grow into new responsibilities.) After satisfying these requirements, people of all genders are not only allowed but expected to receive the blessings of the priesthood. Baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, sacrament, temple ordinances, and other priesthood blessings are freely given to all who are worthy, willing, and ready to receive them.

Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks, quoted one of his predecessors, John A. Widtsoe, saying, “Men have no greater claim than women upon the blessings that issue from the priesthood and accompany its possession.” {{ref|Oaks1}}

Gender differences in the priesthood arise when assignments are made to perform ordinances and offer blessings on behalf of the Lord. Only worthy men are assigned and ordained to offices within the priesthood. The reason this assignment is made along gender lines is not explicitly explained in LDS doctrine. However, several facts of Church life may indicate the roots of it.

===Women Serving in the Church===

LDS women serve as leaders, teachers, temple workers, and missionaries throughout the worldwide Church. In some positions, such as in the presidencies of the Church’s children’s organization (The Primary), women have stewardship over callings held by men. These men report to and take direction from women leaders regardless of the fact that these men are ordained to the priesthood and their female leaders are not.

Women sit as members on councils in locals wards, stakes, and in the higher levels of general Church councils. Women serving in general church leadership positions travel the world speaking and teaching alongside male leaders. Twice annually, at the Church’s General Conferences, women leaders address the entire Church offering guidance and direction. They are also involved in preparing Church instructional materials and in developing and directing the programs and policies of the Church. Items in official Church publications are authored by men and by women.

Contrary to critics’ complaints, women are not barred from positions of leadership and influence in the Church. Mentioning the roles women have in Church leadership is not the same thing as trying to argue that women hold the same kinds of very vocal and prominent leadership roles that men hold. Nowhere in the Church do women preside over congregations. This is well-known. However, the real contributions women make to Church leadership need to be described for the benefit of people who know little about the Church -- people who may be more familiar with critics' claims that women play ''no'' role at all in Church leadership. These descriptions continue to be offered in places like Mormon.org as replies to rhetoric that insists we serve in the Church only in child-minding and food preparation. Such rhetoric is deliberately misleading and requires correction. However, pointing out the roles women play as leaders is nowhere near the end of the discussion.

Latter-day Saints understand leadership in the Church in a different way than leadership is seen in mainstream society. Leadership in the Church should never be about power, prestige, or control over others. The Latter-day Saint ideal is a model of cooperative unity, and duties and responsibilities are delegated under divine direction. At present, those whom the Saints sustain as prophets have organized matters as they stand. This does not preclude changes in the future, but members of the Church believe that such changes must come from God by revelation to those he has delegated to lead the Church.

===Priesthood and Temple Admission===

In order to qualify for entrance to an LDS temple, members must hold certain key beliefs and live according to a code of behavior that makes them worthy to be there. This worthiness is endorsed by local leaders in the form of a written temple recommend. By qualifying for a temple recommend, baptized LDS women can enter the temple without any further ceremony.

The same is not true for men. In order to attend the temple, baptized, temple recommend-worthy men must be ordained to the priesthood. Without it, they are not admitted. Without priesthood ordinations, a man’s progress in the gospel stalls before he receives temple blessings. Women require no such formalities. Our progress can continue without ordinations to the priesthood.

Certainly, the reason for this isn’t because women are intrinsically less worthy or less powerful than men. Instead, the opposite may be true. Perhaps women who worthily hold temple recommends enjoy spiritual gifts that make us equal to priesthood-holding men without the need to be ordained ourselves. What we’re lacking isn’t the spiritual fortitude to hold the priesthood but the need to hold it ourselves. As Paul explained when he compared the Church to the body of Christ,
<blockquote>
“…those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need. But God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to the part which lacked.” {{scripture||1Cor|12|22-24}}
</blockquote>
One reading of this scripture may be that without a spiritual correction like the one made when men are ordained to the priesthood, men in the Church would be “feeble” and “uncomely” compared to the rest of us. With the priesthood, men’s spiritual potential becomes equal to our spiritual potential. Ordination to the priesthood might be a remedial measure and one only men need. Meanwhile, the “comely parts,” the women of the Church, “have no need.” Ordaining us to priesthood offices might nullify this “tempering” of the body of Christ – a tempering that was done in an effort to make the genders equal within the Church, not to make men superior.

If this premise is correct then what might men be lacking? One theory is that the social roles women usually fill tend to make us more charitable and selfless. Charity and service are certainly Christ-like attributes. However, this explanation is encumbered by stereotypes of both male and female behavior. Furthermore, it doesn’t seem to place enough emphasis on the operation of eternal spiritual gifts.

Some critics complain that any reference to women having no need to hold the priesthood themselves while men do need to hold it is a ploy meant to trick women into playing down our strengths in favour of bolstering male egos. It's argued that if women believe we are "naturally" better than men, we'll feel a responsibility to hide our strengths and intentionally let men out-perform us. Contradictions to such claims are clear in the teachings of LDS leaders such as First Presidency member Dieter F. Uchtdorf. In 2011, President Uchtdorf spoke at the annual gathering of women of the church, the General Relief Society meeting, and talked about goals and personal achievements. He told us, "Never stop striving for the best that is within you." {{ref|Uchtdorf}} This is not language meant to persuade us to restrain our best selves in order to keep the men of the Church from feeling threatened. Furthermore, the church does not teach that priesthood-holding men are inferior to women any more than it teaches that they are superior. As late member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, John A. Widstoe said, "There is indeed no priveleged class or sex within the true Church of Christ." {{ref|YW1}} Men's service in the priesthood makes the sexes equally gifted in spiritual strength. No member of either sex needs to feel inferior.

The LDS approach to priesthood is something like a maximalist feminist one where women are excused from ordination not because we’re undeserving or unable but because, for us, it’s unnecessary. Ordaining worthy women to the priesthood might be like trying to get fully sighted people to wear eyeglasses just to make a group of people seem like they’re all being treated evenhandedly. In a crowd where everyone is wearing glasses, everyone might look equal. But there’s actually an unfairness operating because half of the people in the crowd arrived there with full sight. The analogy reveals the absurdity. If we don’t need glasses, we don’t wear them. And if we, LDS women, don’t need to hold the priesthood ourselves, we aren’t ordained to it.

However, in LDS temples, women have always served alongside men. Women aren’t serving in the temple as housekeepers or waitresses but as “ordinance workers.” Women serve temple attendees as blessings are given and covenants are made. We have all the rights and powers needed to serve in these capacities even without receiving priesthood ordinations. As Church President Joseph Fielding Smith said, “It is within the privilege of the sisters of this Church to receive exaltation in the kingdom of God and receive authority and power as queens and priestesses.” {{ref|Smith1}}

===Gifts of the Spirit===

The blessings and gifts that often accompany priesthood service – things such as healing, speaking unlearned languages, receiving revelations, wisdom, discernment, and many others – are not reserved solely for priesthood holding men. Neither of the genders is limited in its access to spiritual gifts. This principle was taught in 1842 when Joseph Smith instructed a meeting of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo to pay attention to Paul’s teachings about gifts of the Spirit. Joseph said “these signs…should follow all that believe” {{ref|Smith2}} including women who believe.

===Motherhood===

Often, the female ability to mother children is presented as an analogue to male priesthood ordinations. Motherhood and priesthood are two different, interdependent, overlapping, and valid paths to becoming more like Christ. If properly traveled, both paths can be sanctifying.

The spiritual gift of motherhood is so reverenced Church President David O. MacKay called it “near to divinity.” {{ref|MacKay}} However, the way women receive this gift is not clearly explained in LDS theology. It has been described by latter-day prophets and apostles with such words as “inherent” and “natural.” However, it’s unlikely these words were chosen in order to say the complex and supernal gift of motherhood arises simply and effortlessly from female biology the same way cats and cows know how to nurse their young.

What’s more likely is that these words were used to express the way human motherhood arises from eternal, spiritual characteristics that we take with us from our pre-mortal lives. As we grow, learn, and master the use of our agency, there is interplay between our spiritual nature and our biological nature. As LDS scriptures teach, “the spirit and the body are the soul of man” (and woman). {{scripture||DC|88|15}} By extension, no act carried out by any human is purely the result of his or her sexual morphology. The spirit is always implicated as well.

Also telling is the fact that motherhood is not considered a mere demographic in the Church. It is understood as a spiritual characteristic that extends beyond reproductive success. In 2001, Second Counselor of the Relief Society General Presidency, Sheri Dew, taught,
<blockquote>
"While ''we'' tend to equate motherhood solely with maternity, in the Lord's language, the word ''mother'' has layers of meaning. Of all the words they could have chosen to define her role and her essence, both God the Father and Adam called Eve "the mother of all living" -- and they did so ''before'' she ever bore a child. Like Eve, our motherhood began ''before'' we were born." {{ref|Dew1}}
</blockquote>
Priesthood and motherhood are both sanctifying, eternal, spiritual gifts. They are both opportunities and responsibilities to offer selfless service. They are each great sources of power and influence. However, there is an essential difference between priesthood and motherhood.

The power that comes with motherhood is not always contingent upon the personal worthiness of the mother herself. It is possible – it’s actually quite commonplace – for women to enjoy motherhood without living the laws of the gospel and/or without having faith in Christ.

The same is not true of priesthood power. LDS scripture states that when men try to use their position as priesthood holders to,
<blockquote>
“cover our sins, gratify our pride, our vain ambitions, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men…the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man…he is left unto himself.” {{scripture||DC|121|37-38}}
</blockquote>
In other words, there is a divine check, a limiter, on men’s access to priesthood. No such limiter exists for women using the power of their motherhood. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why authority in the Church is given to the gender whose access to power and influence is more closely connected to personal faith and righteousness. The limiter built into the priesthood safeguards the Church from error. That isn’t to say that women are more likely than men to make mistakes. It’s just to say that when we do make mistakes, they might be more difficult to overcome since our access to motherhood power is more or less unrestrained.

===The Everlasting Covenant of Marriage===

LDS scripture states that the highest degree of priesthood power cannot be held by any man unless he is married through temple ordinances. {{scripture||DC|131|2-3}} This has been reiterated by General Relief Society Counselor, Sheri L. Dew, “ …the fullness of the priesthood contained in the highest ordinances of the house of the Lord [the temple] can be received only by a man and woman together.” {{ref|Dew2}} Clearly, all men who hold the highest degree of priesthood can only hold it jointly with their wives.

From the beginning, the ideal of marriage relationships has been the one Adam celebrated when he spoke of Eve saying, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh…therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. “ {{scripture||Gen|2|24}}

This ideal was restated by the Lord when he taught his disciples married couples “shall be one flesh: so then shall they be no more twain, but one flesh.” {{scripture||Mark|10|8}}

The connection between temple married men and women joined in this highest order of the priesthood can develop until it is inextricable and transcendent. The couple truly becomes one. This happens through personal righteousness, devotion, and the atonement of Christ as applied through the marriage covenant. Without a formal ordination, oneness within the covenant of marriage makes us partners in the priesthood to which our husbands have been ordained.

Both in the Old Testament and in the Book of Mormon passages of Isaiah, the prophet referred to his wife as “the prophetess.” {{scripture||Isa|8|3}}. The use of the term here could be two-fold. As Isaiah’s female counterpart, it’s fair to call his wife a prophetess regardless of her spiritual gifts. However, there may be much more to it. As it did for Isaiah’s wife, the possibility of achieving oneness in marriage has implications for the wives of men formally called to serve as leaders in the contemporary LDS Church. When male Church leaders grow in oneness with their wives, these women’s influence and inspiration becomes enmeshed with the men’s and the entire Church benefits.

Richard G. Scott explained, “as the Lord intends…a married couple [can] think, act, and rejoice as one – face challenges together and overcome them as one, to grow in love and understanding, and through temple ordinances be bound together as one whole, eternally. That is the plan.” (Richard G. Scott, "The Joy of Living the Great Plan of Happiness," Ensign, November, 1996.)

This oneness doesn’t end when couples are physically separated. It does not depend on the couple actually sitting beside each other in every presidency or council meeting. In a very real and personal way, wives of Church leaders help husbands both to receive inspiration and to shape the practical initiatives that will arise from that inspiration.

Perhaps speaking of Relief Society presidents as the female analogs of males who preside in the priesthood misses an important point. A look at women serving in callings as companions to theirs husbands -- such as temple matrons and the wives of mission presidents -- may reveal the true pattern for amplifying women's leadership roles in the Church. Our influence grows as we and our husbands focus on strengthening and improving oneness in marriage relationships and serving together as a sealed, unified whole. Calling for expansions of the roles of women called to Church auxiliary organizations will probably not do as much to increase the influence of women in the Church as improving charity and equality within individual marriages could accomplish. And this is what Church leaders -- both male and female -- have been calling for all along.

===In Other Ages===

Questions are sometimes raised about the role women have played in the priesthood in times past. For a discussion of biblical references to prophetesses, see here: [[Mormonism and gender issues/Women/As prophets anciently|Women as prophets anciently]]

Speculations are also raised about women holding the priesthood in the early Christian Church. Tertullian says that there were "writings which wrongly go under Paul's name" were forged by a presbyter (Elder) in Asia to give "a license for women's teaching and baptizing."{{ref|anf1}} The necessity of such a forgery suggests to some that women did not routinely teach and baptize in the early Church.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|Oakes1}} Dallin H. Oaks, “The Relief Society and the Church,” ''Ensign'', May 1992, 36.
#{{note|Uchtdorf}} Dieter F. Uchtdorf, "Forget Me Not," ''Ensign'', Nov 2011.
#{{note|YW1}} ''Young Women Manual 1'', "Lesson 16: Women and Priesthood Bearers," 2002, 67-70.
#{{note|Smith1}} Joseph Fielding Smith, “Relief Society – An Aid to the Priesthood,” 5. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|Smith2}} Joseph Smith, in Relief Society Minute Book, Nauvoo, Illinois, 28 Apr. 1842, Church History Library, 36. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|MacKay}} Message from the First Presidency, in Conference Report, Oct. 1942, 12; read by J. Reuben Clark Jr. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|Dew1}} Sheri L. Dew, "Are We Not All Mothers?" ''Ensign'', Nov. 2001, 96. Emphasis in original.
#{{note|Dew2}} Sheri L. Dew, “It is Not Good for Man or Woman to be Alone,” ''Ensign'', Nov., 2001,13.
#{{note|anf1}} {{anf1|author=Tertulian|article=De Baptismo|vol=3|start=677|citation=17}}

{{FurtherReading}}
[[fr:Women/Role in the Church/Priesthood]]

Women and the priesthood

2012-12-11T22:43:23Z

JenniferQuist: /* The Everlasting Covenant of Marriage */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{question}}
=={{Question label}}==

Why do women not exercise priesthood authority in the Church?

=={{Conclusion label}}==

God is the Father of all humanity, and no one—male or female—is more valued than any other. Through personal faithfulness, all people can have access to the blessings of the priesthood. Positions of influence within the Church are held by both men and women. From the foundation of the Church, women have been instructed to seek after the same kinds of spiritual gifts that men enjoy through the priesthood. The power of motherhood is an eternal spiritual gift and must not be underestimated or taken for granted as a sanctifying force in the lives of women regardless of whether they ever physically bear children. Men and women must make covenants with each other in the temple in order to qualify for the highest order of the priesthood. Men cannot advance to this order on their own and women are partners in it.

== ==
{{Response label}}

Priesthood is God’s authority as delegated to mortals. Priesthood exists only to serve and help others. As Jesus taught, “whosever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” ({{b||Matthew|20|27}}).

The blessings and ordinances of the priesthood are available to all Church members regardless of gender, social status, race, or culture {{scripture||2Ne|26|33}}. Access to them is limited only by: 1) adherence to standards of personal faithfulness and worthiness, and 2) sufficient maturity and experience in gospel living. (Requirements of maturity and experience set a pace for young people and new converts to assure there is adequate time for them to grow into new responsibilities.) After satisfying these requirements, people of all genders are not only allowed but expected to receive the blessings of the priesthood. Baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, sacrament, temple ordinances, and other priesthood blessings are freely given to all who are worthy, willing, and ready to receive them.

Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks, quoted one of his predecessors, John A. Widtsoe, saying, “Men have no greater claim than women upon the blessings that issue from the priesthood and accompany its possession.” {{ref|Oaks1}}

Gender differences in the priesthood arise when assignments are made to perform ordinances and offer blessings on behalf of the Lord. Only worthy men are assigned and ordained to offices within the priesthood. The reason this assignment is made along gender lines is not explicitly explained in LDS doctrine. However, several facts of Church life may indicate the roots of it.

===Women Serving in the Church===

LDS women serve as leaders, teachers, temple workers, and missionaries throughout the worldwide Church. In some positions, such as in the presidencies of the Church’s children’s organization (The Primary), women have stewardship over callings held by men. These men report to and take direction from women leaders regardless of the fact that these men are ordained to the priesthood and their female leaders are not.

Women sit as members on councils in locals wards, stakes, and in the higher levels of general Church councils. Women serving in general church leadership positions travel the world speaking and teaching alongside male leaders. Twice annually, at the Church’s General Conferences, women leaders address the entire Church offering guidance and direction. They are also involved in preparing Church instructional materials and in developing and directing the programs and policies of the Church. Items in official Church publications are authored by men and by women.

Contrary to critics’ complaints, women are not barred from positions of leadership and influence in the Church. Mentioning the roles women have in Church leadership is not the same thing as trying to argue that women hold the same kinds of very vocal and prominent leadership roles that men hold. Nowhere in the Church do women preside over congregations. This is well-known. However, the real contributions women make to Church leadership need to be described for the benefit of people who know little about the Church -- people who may be more familiar with critics' claims that women play ''no'' role at all in Church leadership. These descriptions continue to be offered in places like Mormon.org as replies to rhetoric that insists we serve in the Church only in child-minding and food preparation. Such rhetoric is deliberately misleading and requires correction. However, pointing out the roles women play as leaders is nowhere near the end of the discussion.

Latter-day Saints understand leadership in the Church in a different way than leadership is seen in mainstream society. Leadership in the Church should never be about power, prestige, or control over others. The Latter-day Saint ideal is a model of cooperative unity, and duties and responsibilities are delegated under divine direction. At present, those whom the Saints sustain as prophets have organized matters as they stand. This does not preclude changes in the future, but members of the Church believe that such changes must come from God by revelation to those he has delegated to lead the Church.

===Priesthood and Temple Admission===

In order to qualify for entrance to an LDS temple, members must hold certain key beliefs and live according to a code of behavior that makes them worthy to be there. This worthiness is endorsed by local leaders in the form of a written temple recommend. By qualifying for a temple recommend, baptized LDS women can enter the temple without any further ceremony.

The same is not true for men. In order to attend the temple, baptized, temple recommend-worthy men must be ordained to the priesthood. Without it, they are not admitted. Without priesthood ordinations, a man’s progress in the gospel stalls before he receives temple blessings. Women require no such formalities. Our progress can continue without ordinations to the priesthood.

Certainly, the reason for this isn’t because women are intrinsically less worthy or less powerful than men. Instead, the opposite may be true. Perhaps women who worthily hold temple recommends enjoy spiritual gifts that make us equal to priesthood-holding men without the need to be ordained ourselves. What we’re lacking isn’t the spiritual fortitude to hold the priesthood but the need to hold it ourselves. As Paul explained when he compared the Church to the body of Christ,
<blockquote>
“…those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need. But God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to the part which lacked.” {{scripture||1Cor|12|22-24}}
</blockquote>
One reading of this scripture may be that without a spiritual correction like the one made when men are ordained to the priesthood, men in the Church would be “feeble” and “uncomely” compared to the rest of us. With the priesthood, men’s spiritual potential becomes equal to our spiritual potential. Ordination to the priesthood might be a remedial measure and one only men need. Meanwhile, the “comely parts,” the women of the Church, “have no need.” Ordaining us to priesthood offices might nullify this “tempering” of the body of Christ – a tempering that was done in an effort to make the genders equal within the Church, not to make men superior.

If this premise is correct then what might men be lacking? One theory is that the social roles women usually fill tend to make us more charitable and selfless. Charity and service are certainly Christ-like attributes. However, this explanation is encumbered by stereotypes of both male and female behavior. Furthermore, it doesn’t seem to place enough emphasis on the operation of eternal spiritual gifts.

Some critics complain that any reference to women having no need to hold the priesthood themselves while men do need to hold it is a ploy meant to trick women into playing down our strengths in favour of bolstering male egos. It's argued that if women believe we are "naturally" better than men, we'll feel a responsibility to hide our strengths and intentionally let men out-perform us. Contradictions to such claims are clear in the teachings of LDS leaders such as First Presidency member Dieter F. Uchtdorf. In 2011, President Uchtdorf spoke at the annual gathering of women of the church, the General Relief Society meeting, and talked about goals and personal achievements. He told us, "Never stop striving for the best that is within you." {{ref|Uchtdorf}} This is not language meant to persuade us to restrain our best selves in order to keep the men of the Church from feeling threatened. Furthermore, the church does not teach that priesthood-holding men are inferior to women any more than it teaches that they are superior. As late member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, John A. Widstoe said, "There is indeed no priveleged class or sex within the true Church of Christ." {{ref|YW1}} Men's service in the priesthood makes the sexes equally gifted in spiritual strength. No member of either sex needs to feel inferior.

The LDS approach to priesthood is something like a maximalist feminist one where women are excused from ordination not because we’re undeserving or unable but because, for us, it’s unnecessary. Ordaining worthy women to the priesthood might be like trying to get fully sighted people to wear eyeglasses just to make a group of people seem like they’re all being treated evenhandedly. In a crowd where everyone is wearing glasses, everyone might look equal. But there’s actually an unfairness operating because half of the people in the crowd arrived there with full sight. The analogy reveals the absurdity. If we don’t need glasses, we don’t wear them. And if we, LDS women, don’t need to hold the priesthood ourselves, we aren’t ordained to it.

However, in LDS temples, women have always served alongside men. Women aren’t serving in the temple as housekeepers or waitresses but as “ordinance workers.” Women serve temple attendees as blessings are given and covenants are made. We have all the rights and powers needed to serve in these capacities even without receiving priesthood ordinations. As Church President Joseph Fielding Smith said, “It is within the privilege of the sisters of this Church to receive exaltation in the kingdom of God and receive authority and power as queens and priestesses.” {{ref|Smith1}}

===Gifts of the Spirit===

The blessings and gifts that often accompany priesthood service – things such as healing, speaking unlearned languages, receiving revelations, wisdom, discernment, and many others – are not reserved solely for priesthood holding men. Neither of the genders is limited in its access to spiritual gifts. This principle was taught in 1842 when Joseph Smith instructed a meeting of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo to pay attention to Paul’s teachings about gifts of the Spirit. Joseph said “these signs…should follow all that believe” {{ref|Smith2}} including women who believe.

===Motherhood===

Often, the female ability to mother children is presented as an analogue to male priesthood ordinations. Motherhood and priesthood are two different, interdependent, overlapping, and valid paths to becoming more like Christ. If properly traveled, both paths can be sanctifying.

The spiritual gift of motherhood is so reverenced Church President David O. MacKay called it “near to divinity.” {{ref|MacKay}} However, the way women receive this gift is not clearly explained in LDS theology. It has been described by latter-day prophets and apostles with such words as “inherent” and “natural.” However, it’s unlikely these words were chosen in order to say the complex and supernal gift of motherhood arises simply and effortlessly from female biology the same way cats and cows know how to nurse their young.

What’s more likely is that these words were used to express the way human motherhood arises from eternal, spiritual characteristics that we take with us from our pre-mortal lives. As we grow, learn, and master the use of our agency, there is interplay between our spiritual nature and our biological nature. As LDS scriptures teach, “the spirit and the body are the soul of man” (and woman). {{scripture||DC|88|15}} By extension, no act carried out by any human is purely the result of his or her sexual morphology. The spirit is always implicated as well.

Also telling is the fact that motherhood is not considered a mere demographic in the Church. It is understood as a spiritual characteristic that extends beyond reproductive success. In 2001, Second Counselor of the Relief Society General Presidency, Sheri Dew, taught,
<blockquote>
"While ''we'' tend to equate motherhood solely with maternity, in the Lord's language, the word ''mother'' has layers of meaning. Of all the words they could have chosen to define her role and her essence, both God the Father and Adam called Eve "the mother of all living" -- and they did so ''before'' she ever bore a child. Like Eve, our motherhood began ''before'' we were born." {{ref|Dew1}}
</blockquote>
Priesthood and motherhood are both sanctifying, eternal, spiritual gifts. They are both opportunities and responsibilities to offer selfless service. They are each great sources of power and influence. However, there is an essential difference between priesthood and motherhood.

The power that comes with motherhood is not always contingent upon the personal worthiness of the mother herself. It is possible – it’s actually quite commonplace – for women to enjoy motherhood without living the laws of the gospel and/or without having faith in Christ.

The same is not true of priesthood power. LDS scripture states that when men try to use their position as priesthood holders to,
<blockquote>
“cover our sins, gratify our pride, our vain ambitions, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men…the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man…he is left unto himself.” {{scripture||DC|121|37-38}}
</blockquote>
In other words, there is a divine check, a limiter, on men’s access to priesthood. No such limiter exists for women using the power of their motherhood. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why authority in the Church is given to the gender whose access to power and influence is more closely connected to personal faith and righteousness. The limiter built into the priesthood safeguards the Church from error. That isn’t to say that women are more likely than men to make mistakes. It’s just to say that when we do make mistakes, they might be more difficult to overcome since our access to motherhood power is more or less unrestrained.

===The Everlasting Covenant of Marriage===

LDS scripture states that the highest degree of priesthood power cannot be held by any man unless he is married through temple ordinances. {{scripture||DC|131|2-3}} This has been reiterated by General Relief Society Counselor, Sheri L. Dew, “ …the fullness of the priesthood contained in the highest ordinances of the house of the Lord [the temple] can be received only by a man and woman together.” {{ref|Dew2}} Clearly, all men who hold the highest degree of priesthood can only hold it jointly with their wives.

From the beginning, the ideal of marriage relationships has been the one Adam celebrated when he spoke of Eve saying, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh…therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. “ {{scripture||Gen|2|24}}

This ideal was restated by the Lord when he taught his disciples married couples “shall be one flesh: so then shall they be no more twain, but one flesh.” {{scripture||Mark|10|8}}

The connection between temple married men and women joined in this highest order of the priesthood can develop until it is inextricable and transcendent. The couple truly becomes one. This happens through personal righteousness, devotion, and the atonement of Christ as applied through the marriage covenant. Without a formal ordination, oneness within the covenant of marriage makes us partners in the priesthood to which our husbands have been ordained.

Both in the Old Testament and in the Book of Mormon passages of Isaiah, the prophet referred to his wife as “the prophetess.” {{scripture||Isa|8|3}}. The use of the term here could be two-fold. As Isaiah’s female counterpart, it’s fair to call his wife a prophetess regardless of her spiritual gifts. However, there may be much more to it. As it did for Isaiah’s wife, the possibility of achieving oneness in marriage has implications for the wives of men formally called to serve as leaders in the contemporary LDS Church. When male Church leaders grow in oneness with their wives, these women’s influence and inspiration becomes enmeshed with the men’s and the entire Church benefits.

Richard G. Scott explained, “as the Lord intends…a married couple [can] think, act, and rejoice as one – face challenges together and overcome them as one, to grow in love and understanding, and through temple ordinances be bound together as one whole, eternally. That is the plan.” (Richard G. Scott, "The Joy of Living the Great Plan of Happiness," Ensign, November, 1996.)

This oneness doesn’t end when couples are physically separated. It does not depend on the couple actually sitting beside each other in every presidency or council meeting. In a very real and personal way, wives of Church leaders help husbands both to receive inspiration and to shape the practical initiatives that will arise from that inspiration.

Perhaps speaking of Relief Society presidents as the female analogs of males who preside in the priesthood misses an important point. A look at women serving in callings as companions to theirs husbands -- such as temple matrons and the wives of mission presidents -- may reveal the true pattern for amplifying women's leadership roles in the Church. Our influence grows as we and our husbands focus on strengthening and improving oneness in marriage relationships and serving together as a sealed, unified whole. Calling for expansions of the roles of women called to Church auxiliary organizations will probably not do as much to increase the influence of women in the Church as improving charity and equality within individual marriages could accomplish.

===In Other Ages===

Questions are sometimes raised about the role women have played in the priesthood in times past. For a discussion of biblical references to prophetesses, see here: [[Mormonism and gender issues/Women/As prophets anciently|Women as prophets anciently]]

Speculations are also raised about women holding the priesthood in the early Christian Church. Tertullian says that there were "writings which wrongly go under Paul's name" were forged by a presbyter (Elder) in Asia to give "a license for women's teaching and baptizing."{{ref|anf1}} The necessity of such a forgery suggests to some that women did not routinely teach and baptize in the early Church.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|Oakes1}} Dallin H. Oaks, “The Relief Society and the Church,” ''Ensign'', May 1992, 36.
#{{note|Uchtdorf}} Dieter F. Uchtdorf, "Forget Me Not," ''Ensign'', Nov 2011.
#{{note|YW1}} ''Young Women Manual 1'', "Lesson 16: Women and Priesthood Bearers," 2002, 67-70.
#{{note|Smith1}} Joseph Fielding Smith, “Relief Society – An Aid to the Priesthood,” 5. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|Smith2}} Joseph Smith, in Relief Society Minute Book, Nauvoo, Illinois, 28 Apr. 1842, Church History Library, 36. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|MacKay}} Message from the First Presidency, in Conference Report, Oct. 1942, 12; read by J. Reuben Clark Jr. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|Dew1}} Sheri L. Dew, "Are We Not All Mothers?" ''Ensign'', Nov. 2001, 96. Emphasis in original.
#{{note|Dew2}} Sheri L. Dew, “It is Not Good for Man or Woman to be Alone,” ''Ensign'', Nov., 2001,13.
#{{note|anf1}} {{anf1|author=Tertulian|article=De Baptismo|vol=3|start=677|citation=17}}

{{FurtherReading}}
[[fr:Women/Role in the Church/Priesthood]]

Women and the priesthood

2012-11-26T04:32:45Z

JenniferQuist: /* Women Serving in the Church */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{question}}
=={{Question label}}==

Why do women not exercise priesthood authority in the Church?

=={{Conclusion label}}==

God is the Father of all humanity, and no one—male or female—is more valued than any other. Through personal faithfulness, all people can have access to the blessings of the priesthood. Positions of influence within the Church are held by both men and women. From the foundation of the Church, women have been instructed to seek after the same kinds of spiritual gifts that men enjoy through the priesthood. The power of motherhood is an eternal spiritual gift and must not be underestimated or taken for granted as a sanctifying force in the lives of women regardless of whether they ever physically bear children. Men and women must make covenants with each other in the temple in order to qualify for the highest order of the priesthood. Men cannot advance to this order on their own and women are partners in it.

== ==
{{Response label}}

Priesthood is God’s authority as delegated to mortals. Priesthood exists only to serve and help others. As Jesus taught, “whosever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” ({{b||Matthew|20|27}}).

The blessings and ordinances of the priesthood are available to all Church members regardless of gender, social status, race, or culture {{scripture||2Ne|26|33}}. Access to them is limited only by: 1) adherence to standards of personal faithfulness and worthiness, and 2) sufficient maturity and experience in gospel living. (Requirements of maturity and experience set a pace for young people and new converts to assure there is adequate time for them to grow into new responsibilities.) After satisfying these requirements, people of all genders are not only allowed but expected to receive the blessings of the priesthood. Baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, sacrament, temple ordinances, and other priesthood blessings are freely given to all who are worthy, willing, and ready to receive them.

Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks, quoted one of his predecessors, John A. Widtsoe, saying, “Men have no greater claim than women upon the blessings that issue from the priesthood and accompany its possession.” {{ref|Oaks1}}

Gender differences in the priesthood arise when assignments are made to perform ordinances and offer blessings on behalf of the Lord. Only worthy men are assigned and ordained to offices within the priesthood. The reason this assignment is made along gender lines is not explicitly explained in LDS doctrine. However, several facts of Church life may indicate the roots of it.

===Women Serving in the Church===

LDS women serve as leaders, teachers, temple workers, and missionaries throughout the worldwide Church. In some positions, such as in the presidencies of the Church’s children’s organization (The Primary), women have stewardship over callings held by men. These men report to and take direction from women leaders regardless of the fact that these men are ordained to the priesthood and their female leaders are not.

Women sit as members on councils in locals wards, stakes, and in the higher levels of general Church councils. Women serving in general church leadership positions travel the world speaking and teaching alongside male leaders. Twice annually, at the Church’s General Conferences, women leaders address the entire Church offering guidance and direction. They are also involved in preparing Church instructional materials and in developing and directing the programs and policies of the Church. Items in official Church publications are authored by men and by women.

Contrary to critics’ complaints, women are not barred from positions of leadership and influence in the Church. Mentioning the roles women have in Church leadership is not the same thing as trying to argue that women hold the same kinds of very vocal and prominent leadership roles that men hold. Nowhere in the Church do women preside over congregations. This is well-known. However, the real contributions women make to Church leadership need to be described for the benefit of people who know little about the Church -- people who may be more familiar with critics' claims that women play ''no'' role at all in Church leadership. These descriptions continue to be offered in places like Mormon.org as replies to rhetoric that insists we serve in the Church only in child-minding and food preparation. Such rhetoric is deliberately misleading and requires correction. However, pointing out the roles women play as leaders is nowhere near the end of the discussion.

Latter-day Saints understand leadership in the Church in a different way than leadership is seen in mainstream society. Leadership in the Church should never be about power, prestige, or control over others. The Latter-day Saint ideal is a model of cooperative unity, and duties and responsibilities are delegated under divine direction. At present, those whom the Saints sustain as prophets have organized matters as they stand. This does not preclude changes in the future, but members of the Church believe that such changes must come from God by revelation to those he has delegated to lead the Church.

===Priesthood and Temple Admission===

In order to qualify for entrance to an LDS temple, members must hold certain key beliefs and live according to a code of behavior that makes them worthy to be there. This worthiness is endorsed by local leaders in the form of a written temple recommend. By qualifying for a temple recommend, baptized LDS women can enter the temple without any further ceremony.

The same is not true for men. In order to attend the temple, baptized, temple recommend-worthy men must be ordained to the priesthood. Without it, they are not admitted. Without priesthood ordinations, a man’s progress in the gospel stalls before he receives temple blessings. Women require no such formalities. Our progress can continue without ordinations to the priesthood.

Certainly, the reason for this isn’t because women are intrinsically less worthy or less powerful than men. Instead, the opposite may be true. Perhaps women who worthily hold temple recommends enjoy spiritual gifts that make us equal to priesthood-holding men without the need to be ordained ourselves. What we’re lacking isn’t the spiritual fortitude to hold the priesthood but the need to hold it ourselves. As Paul explained when he compared the Church to the body of Christ,
<blockquote>
“…those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need. But God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to the part which lacked.” {{scripture||1Cor|12|22-24}}
</blockquote>
One reading of this scripture may be that without a spiritual correction like the one made when men are ordained to the priesthood, men in the Church would be “feeble” and “uncomely” compared to the rest of us. With the priesthood, men’s spiritual potential becomes equal to our spiritual potential. Ordination to the priesthood might be a remedial measure and one only men need. Meanwhile, the “comely parts,” the women of the Church, “have no need.” Ordaining us to priesthood offices might nullify this “tempering” of the body of Christ – a tempering that was done in an effort to make the genders equal within the Church, not to make men superior.

If this premise is correct then what might men be lacking? One theory is that the social roles women usually fill tend to make us more charitable and selfless. Charity and service are certainly Christ-like attributes. However, this explanation is encumbered by stereotypes of both male and female behavior. Furthermore, it doesn’t seem to place enough emphasis on the operation of eternal spiritual gifts.

Some critics complain that any reference to women having no need to hold the priesthood themselves while men do need to hold it is a ploy meant to trick women into playing down our strengths in favour of bolstering male egos. It's argued that if women believe we are "naturally" better than men, we'll feel a responsibility to hide our strengths and intentionally let men out-perform us. Contradictions to such claims are clear in the teachings of LDS leaders such as First Presidency member Dieter F. Uchtdorf. In 2011, President Uchtdorf spoke at the annual gathering of women of the church, the General Relief Society meeting, and talked about goals and personal achievements. He told us, "Never stop striving for the best that is within you." {{ref|Uchtdorf}} This is not language meant to persuade us to restrain our best selves in order to keep the men of the Church from feeling threatened. Furthermore, the church does not teach that priesthood-holding men are inferior to women any more than it teaches that they are superior. As late member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, John A. Widstoe said, "There is indeed no priveleged class or sex within the true Church of Christ." {{ref|YW1}} Men's service in the priesthood makes the sexes equally gifted in spiritual strength. No member of either sex needs to feel inferior.

The LDS approach to priesthood is something like a maximalist feminist one where women are excused from ordination not because we’re undeserving or unable but because, for us, it’s unnecessary. Ordaining worthy women to the priesthood might be like trying to get fully sighted people to wear eyeglasses just to make a group of people seem like they’re all being treated evenhandedly. In a crowd where everyone is wearing glasses, everyone might look equal. But there’s actually an unfairness operating because half of the people in the crowd arrived there with full sight. The analogy reveals the absurdity. If we don’t need glasses, we don’t wear them. And if we, LDS women, don’t need to hold the priesthood ourselves, we aren’t ordained to it.

However, in LDS temples, women have always served alongside men. Women aren’t serving in the temple as housekeepers or waitresses but as “ordinance workers.” Women serve temple attendees as blessings are given and covenants are made. We have all the rights and powers needed to serve in these capacities even without receiving priesthood ordinations. As Church President Joseph Fielding Smith said, “It is within the privilege of the sisters of this Church to receive exaltation in the kingdom of God and receive authority and power as queens and priestesses.” {{ref|Smith1}}

===Gifts of the Spirit===

The blessings and gifts that often accompany priesthood service – things such as healing, speaking unlearned languages, receiving revelations, wisdom, discernment, and many others – are not reserved solely for priesthood holding men. Neither of the genders is limited in its access to spiritual gifts. This principle was taught in 1842 when Joseph Smith instructed a meeting of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo to pay attention to Paul’s teachings about gifts of the Spirit. Joseph said “these signs…should follow all that believe” {{ref|Smith2}} including women who believe.

===Motherhood===

Often, the female ability to mother children is presented as an analogue to male priesthood ordinations. Motherhood and priesthood are two different, interdependent, overlapping, and valid paths to becoming more like Christ. If properly traveled, both paths can be sanctifying.

The spiritual gift of motherhood is so reverenced Church President David O. MacKay called it “near to divinity.” {{ref|MacKay}} However, the way women receive this gift is not clearly explained in LDS theology. It has been described by latter-day prophets and apostles with such words as “inherent” and “natural.” However, it’s unlikely these words were chosen in order to say the complex and supernal gift of motherhood arises simply and effortlessly from female biology the same way cats and cows know how to nurse their young.

What’s more likely is that these words were used to express the way human motherhood arises from eternal, spiritual characteristics that we take with us from our pre-mortal lives. As we grow, learn, and master the use of our agency, there is interplay between our spiritual nature and our biological nature. As LDS scriptures teach, “the spirit and the body are the soul of man” (and woman). {{scripture||DC|88|15}} By extension, no act carried out by any human is purely the result of his or her sexual morphology. The spirit is always implicated as well.

Also telling is the fact that motherhood is not considered a mere demographic in the Church. It is understood as a spiritual characteristic that extends beyond reproductive success. In 2001, Second Counselor of the Relief Society General Presidency, Sheri Dew, taught,
<blockquote>
"While ''we'' tend to equate motherhood solely with maternity, in the Lord's language, the word ''mother'' has layers of meaning. Of all the words they could have chosen to define her role and her essence, both God the Father and Adam called Eve "the mother of all living" -- and they did so ''before'' she ever bore a child. Like Eve, our motherhood began ''before'' we were born." {{ref|Dew1}}
</blockquote>
Priesthood and motherhood are both sanctifying, eternal, spiritual gifts. They are both opportunities and responsibilities to offer selfless service. They are each great sources of power and influence. However, there is an essential difference between priesthood and motherhood.

The power that comes with motherhood is not always contingent upon the personal worthiness of the mother herself. It is possible – it’s actually quite commonplace – for women to enjoy motherhood without living the laws of the gospel and/or without having faith in Christ.

The same is not true of priesthood power. LDS scripture states that when men try to use their position as priesthood holders to,
<blockquote>
“cover our sins, gratify our pride, our vain ambitions, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men…the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man…he is left unto himself.” {{scripture||DC|121|37-38}}
</blockquote>
In other words, there is a divine check, a limiter, on men’s access to priesthood. No such limiter exists for women using the power of their motherhood. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why authority in the Church is given to the gender whose access to power and influence is more closely connected to personal faith and righteousness. The limiter built into the priesthood safeguards the Church from error. That isn’t to say that women are more likely than men to make mistakes. It’s just to say that when we do make mistakes, they might be more difficult to overcome since our access to motherhood power is more or less unrestrained.

===The Everlasting Covenant of Marriage===

LDS scripture states that the highest degree of priesthood power cannot be held by any man unless he is married through temple ordinances. {{scripture||DC|131|2-3}} This ideal has been reiterated by General Relief Society Counselor, Sheri L. Dew, “ …the fullness of the priesthood contained in the highest ordinances of the house of the Lord [the temple] can be received only by a man and woman together.” {{ref|Dew2}} Clearly, all men who hold the highest degree of priesthood can only hold it jointly with their wives.

From the beginning, the ideal of marriage relationships has been the one Adam celebrated when he spoke of Eve saying, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh…therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. “ {{scripture||Gen|2|24}}
This ideal was restated by the Lord when he taught his disciples married couples “shall be one flesh: so then shall they be no more twain, but one flesh.” {{scripture||Mark|10|8}}

The connection between temple married men and women joined in this highest order of the priesthood can develop until it is inextricable and transcendent. The couple truly becomes one. This happens through personal righteousness, devotion, and the atonement of Christ as applied through the marriage covenant. Without a formal ordination, oneness within the covenant of marriage makes us partners in the priesthood to which our husbands have been ordained.

===In Other Ages===

Questions are sometimes raised about the role women have played in the priesthood in times past. For a discussion of biblical references to prophetesses, see here: [[Mormonism and gender issues/Women/As prophets anciently|Women as prophets anciently]]

Speculations are also raised about women holding the priesthood in the early Christian Church. Tertullian says that there were "writings which wrongly go under Paul's name" were forged by a presbyter (Elder) in Asia to give "a license for women's teaching and baptizing."{{ref|anf1}} The necessity of such a forgery suggests to some that women did not routinely teach and baptize in the early Church.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|Oakes1}} Dallin H. Oaks, “The Relief Society and the Church,” ''Ensign'', May 1992, 36.
#{{note|Uchtdorf}} Dieter F. Uchtdorf, "Forget Me Not," ''Ensign'', Nov 2011.
#{{note|YW1}} ''Young Women Manual 1'', "Lesson 16: Women and Priesthood Bearers," 2002, 67-70.
#{{note|Smith1}} Joseph Fielding Smith, “Relief Society – An Aid to the Priesthood,” 5. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|Smith2}} Joseph Smith, in Relief Society Minute Book, Nauvoo, Illinois, 28 Apr. 1842, Church History Library, 36. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|MacKay}} Message from the First Presidency, in Conference Report, Oct. 1942, 12; read by J. Reuben Clark Jr. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|Dew1}} Sheri L. Dew, "Are We Not All Mothers?" ''Ensign'', Nov. 2001, 96. Emphasis in original.
#{{note|Dew2}} Sheri L. Dew, “It is Not Good for Man or Woman to be Alone,” ''Ensign'', Nov., 2001,13.
#{{note|anf1}} {{anf1|author=Tertulian|article=De Baptismo|vol=3|start=677|citation=17}}

{{FurtherReading}}
[[fr:Women/Role in the Church/Priesthood]]

Women and the priesthood

2012-11-26T04:21:14Z

JenniferQuist: /* Women Serving in the Church */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{question}}
=={{Question label}}==

Why do women not exercise priesthood authority in the Church?

=={{Conclusion label}}==

God is the Father of all humanity, and no one—male or female—is more valued than any other. Through personal faithfulness, all people can have access to the blessings of the priesthood. Positions of influence within the Church are held by both men and women. From the foundation of the Church, women have been instructed to seek after the same kinds of spiritual gifts that men enjoy through the priesthood. The power of motherhood is an eternal spiritual gift and must not be underestimated or taken for granted as a sanctifying force in the lives of women regardless of whether they ever physically bear children. Men and women must make covenants with each other in the temple in order to qualify for the highest order of the priesthood. Men cannot advance to this order on their own and women are partners in it.

== ==
{{Response label}}

Priesthood is God’s authority as delegated to mortals. Priesthood exists only to serve and help others. As Jesus taught, “whosever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” ({{b||Matthew|20|27}}).

The blessings and ordinances of the priesthood are available to all Church members regardless of gender, social status, race, or culture {{scripture||2Ne|26|33}}. Access to them is limited only by: 1) adherence to standards of personal faithfulness and worthiness, and 2) sufficient maturity and experience in gospel living. (Requirements of maturity and experience set a pace for young people and new converts to assure there is adequate time for them to grow into new responsibilities.) After satisfying these requirements, people of all genders are not only allowed but expected to receive the blessings of the priesthood. Baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, sacrament, temple ordinances, and other priesthood blessings are freely given to all who are worthy, willing, and ready to receive them.

Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks, quoted one of his predecessors, John A. Widtsoe, saying, “Men have no greater claim than women upon the blessings that issue from the priesthood and accompany its possession.” {{ref|Oaks1}}

Gender differences in the priesthood arise when assignments are made to perform ordinances and offer blessings on behalf of the Lord. Only worthy men are assigned and ordained to offices within the priesthood. The reason this assignment is made along gender lines is not explicitly explained in LDS doctrine. However, several facts of Church life may indicate the roots of it.

===Women Serving in the Church===

LDS women serve as leaders, teachers, temple workers, and missionaries throughout the worldwide Church. In some positions, such as in the presidencies of the Church’s children’s organization (The Primary), women have stewardship over callings held by men. These men report to and take direction from women leaders regardless of the fact that these men are ordained to the priesthood and their female leaders are not.

Women sit as members on councils in locals wards, stakes, and in the higher levels of general Church councils. Women serving in general church leadership positions travel the world speaking and teaching alongside male leaders. Twice annually, at the Church’s General Conferences, women leaders address the entire Church offering guidance and direction. They are also involved in preparing Church instructional materials and in developing and directing the programs and policies of the Church. Items in official Church publications are authored by men and by women.

Contrary to critics’ complaints, women are not barred from positions of leadership and influence in the Church. Mentioning the roles women have in Church leadership is not the same thing as trying to argue that women hold the same kinds of very vocal and prominent leadership roles that men hold. Nowhere in the Church do women preside over congregations. This is well-known. However, the real contributions women make to Church leadership need to be described for the benefit of people who know little about the Church -- people who may be more familiar with critics' claims that women play ''no'' role at all in Church leadership. These descriptions continue to be offered in places like Mormon.org as replies to rhetoric that insists we serve in the Church only in child-minding and food preparation. Such rhetoric is deliberately misleading and requires correction. However, pointing out the roles women play as leaders is nowhere near the end of the discussion.

However, Latter-day Saints understand leadership in the Church in a different way than leadership is seen in general society. Leadership in the Church should never be about power, prestige, or control over others. The Latter-day Saint ideal is a model of cooperative unity, and duties and responsibilities are delegated under divine direction. At present, those whom the Saints sustain as prophets have organized matters as they stand. This does not preclude changes in the future, but members of the Church believe that such changes must come from God by revelation to those he has delegated to lead the Church.

===Priesthood and Temple Admission===

In order to qualify for entrance to an LDS temple, members must hold certain key beliefs and live according to a code of behavior that makes them worthy to be there. This worthiness is endorsed by local leaders in the form of a written temple recommend. By qualifying for a temple recommend, baptized LDS women can enter the temple without any further ceremony.

The same is not true for men. In order to attend the temple, baptized, temple recommend-worthy men must be ordained to the priesthood. Without it, they are not admitted. Without priesthood ordinations, a man’s progress in the gospel stalls before he receives temple blessings. Women require no such formalities. Our progress can continue without ordinations to the priesthood.

Certainly, the reason for this isn’t because women are intrinsically less worthy or less powerful than men. Instead, the opposite may be true. Perhaps women who worthily hold temple recommends enjoy spiritual gifts that make us equal to priesthood-holding men without the need to be ordained ourselves. What we’re lacking isn’t the spiritual fortitude to hold the priesthood but the need to hold it ourselves. As Paul explained when he compared the Church to the body of Christ,
<blockquote>
“…those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need. But God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to the part which lacked.” {{scripture||1Cor|12|22-24}}
</blockquote>
One reading of this scripture may be that without a spiritual correction like the one made when men are ordained to the priesthood, men in the Church would be “feeble” and “uncomely” compared to the rest of us. With the priesthood, men’s spiritual potential becomes equal to our spiritual potential. Ordination to the priesthood might be a remedial measure and one only men need. Meanwhile, the “comely parts,” the women of the Church, “have no need.” Ordaining us to priesthood offices might nullify this “tempering” of the body of Christ – a tempering that was done in an effort to make the genders equal within the Church, not to make men superior.

If this premise is correct then what might men be lacking? One theory is that the social roles women usually fill tend to make us more charitable and selfless. Charity and service are certainly Christ-like attributes. However, this explanation is encumbered by stereotypes of both male and female behavior. Furthermore, it doesn’t seem to place enough emphasis on the operation of eternal spiritual gifts.

Some critics complain that any reference to women having no need to hold the priesthood themselves while men do need to hold it is a ploy meant to trick women into playing down our strengths in favour of bolstering male egos. It's argued that if women believe we are "naturally" better than men, we'll feel a responsibility to hide our strengths and intentionally let men out-perform us. Contradictions to such claims are clear in the teachings of LDS leaders such as First Presidency member Dieter F. Uchtdorf. In 2011, President Uchtdorf spoke at the annual gathering of women of the church, the General Relief Society meeting, and talked about goals and personal achievements. He told us, "Never stop striving for the best that is within you." {{ref|Uchtdorf}} This is not language meant to persuade us to restrain our best selves in order to keep the men of the Church from feeling threatened. Furthermore, the church does not teach that priesthood-holding men are inferior to women any more than it teaches that they are superior. As late member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, John A. Widstoe said, "There is indeed no priveleged class or sex within the true Church of Christ." {{ref|YW1}} Men's service in the priesthood makes the sexes equally gifted in spiritual strength. No member of either sex needs to feel inferior.

The LDS approach to priesthood is something like a maximalist feminist one where women are excused from ordination not because we’re undeserving or unable but because, for us, it’s unnecessary. Ordaining worthy women to the priesthood might be like trying to get fully sighted people to wear eyeglasses just to make a group of people seem like they’re all being treated evenhandedly. In a crowd where everyone is wearing glasses, everyone might look equal. But there’s actually an unfairness operating because half of the people in the crowd arrived there with full sight. The analogy reveals the absurdity. If we don’t need glasses, we don’t wear them. And if we, LDS women, don’t need to hold the priesthood ourselves, we aren’t ordained to it.

However, in LDS temples, women have always served alongside men. Women aren’t serving in the temple as housekeepers or waitresses but as “ordinance workers.” Women serve temple attendees as blessings are given and covenants are made. We have all the rights and powers needed to serve in these capacities even without receiving priesthood ordinations. As Church President Joseph Fielding Smith said, “It is within the privilege of the sisters of this Church to receive exaltation in the kingdom of God and receive authority and power as queens and priestesses.” {{ref|Smith1}}

===Gifts of the Spirit===

The blessings and gifts that often accompany priesthood service – things such as healing, speaking unlearned languages, receiving revelations, wisdom, discernment, and many others – are not reserved solely for priesthood holding men. Neither of the genders is limited in its access to spiritual gifts. This principle was taught in 1842 when Joseph Smith instructed a meeting of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo to pay attention to Paul’s teachings about gifts of the Spirit. Joseph said “these signs…should follow all that believe” {{ref|Smith2}} including women who believe.

===Motherhood===

Often, the female ability to mother children is presented as an analogue to male priesthood ordinations. Motherhood and priesthood are two different, interdependent, overlapping, and valid paths to becoming more like Christ. If properly traveled, both paths can be sanctifying.

The spiritual gift of motherhood is so reverenced Church President David O. MacKay called it “near to divinity.” {{ref|MacKay}} However, the way women receive this gift is not clearly explained in LDS theology. It has been described by latter-day prophets and apostles with such words as “inherent” and “natural.” However, it’s unlikely these words were chosen in order to say the complex and supernal gift of motherhood arises simply and effortlessly from female biology the same way cats and cows know how to nurse their young.

What’s more likely is that these words were used to express the way human motherhood arises from eternal, spiritual characteristics that we take with us from our pre-mortal lives. As we grow, learn, and master the use of our agency, there is interplay between our spiritual nature and our biological nature. As LDS scriptures teach, “the spirit and the body are the soul of man” (and woman). {{scripture||DC|88|15}} By extension, no act carried out by any human is purely the result of his or her sexual morphology. The spirit is always implicated as well.

Also telling is the fact that motherhood is not considered a mere demographic in the Church. It is understood as a spiritual characteristic that extends beyond reproductive success. In 2001, Second Counselor of the Relief Society General Presidency, Sheri Dew, taught,
<blockquote>
"While ''we'' tend to equate motherhood solely with maternity, in the Lord's language, the word ''mother'' has layers of meaning. Of all the words they could have chosen to define her role and her essence, both God the Father and Adam called Eve "the mother of all living" -- and they did so ''before'' she ever bore a child. Like Eve, our motherhood began ''before'' we were born." {{ref|Dew1}}
</blockquote>
Priesthood and motherhood are both sanctifying, eternal, spiritual gifts. They are both opportunities and responsibilities to offer selfless service. They are each great sources of power and influence. However, there is an essential difference between priesthood and motherhood.

The power that comes with motherhood is not always contingent upon the personal worthiness of the mother herself. It is possible – it’s actually quite commonplace – for women to enjoy motherhood without living the laws of the gospel and/or without having faith in Christ.

The same is not true of priesthood power. LDS scripture states that when men try to use their position as priesthood holders to,
<blockquote>
“cover our sins, gratify our pride, our vain ambitions, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men…the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man…he is left unto himself.” {{scripture||DC|121|37-38}}
</blockquote>
In other words, there is a divine check, a limiter, on men’s access to priesthood. No such limiter exists for women using the power of their motherhood. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why authority in the Church is given to the gender whose access to power and influence is more closely connected to personal faith and righteousness. The limiter built into the priesthood safeguards the Church from error. That isn’t to say that women are more likely than men to make mistakes. It’s just to say that when we do make mistakes, they might be more difficult to overcome since our access to motherhood power is more or less unrestrained.

===The Everlasting Covenant of Marriage===

LDS scripture states that the highest degree of priesthood power cannot be held by any man unless he is married through temple ordinances. {{scripture||DC|131|2-3}} This ideal has been reiterated by General Relief Society Counselor, Sheri L. Dew, “ …the fullness of the priesthood contained in the highest ordinances of the house of the Lord [the temple] can be received only by a man and woman together.” {{ref|Dew2}} Clearly, all men who hold the highest degree of priesthood can only hold it jointly with their wives.

From the beginning, the ideal of marriage relationships has been the one Adam celebrated when he spoke of Eve saying, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh…therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. “ {{scripture||Gen|2|24}}
This ideal was restated by the Lord when he taught his disciples married couples “shall be one flesh: so then shall they be no more twain, but one flesh.” {{scripture||Mark|10|8}}

The connection between temple married men and women joined in this highest order of the priesthood can develop until it is inextricable and transcendent. The couple truly becomes one. This happens through personal righteousness, devotion, and the atonement of Christ as applied through the marriage covenant. Without a formal ordination, oneness within the covenant of marriage makes us partners in the priesthood to which our husbands have been ordained.

===In Other Ages===

Questions are sometimes raised about the role women have played in the priesthood in times past. For a discussion of biblical references to prophetesses, see here: [[Mormonism and gender issues/Women/As prophets anciently|Women as prophets anciently]]

Speculations are also raised about women holding the priesthood in the early Christian Church. Tertullian says that there were "writings which wrongly go under Paul's name" were forged by a presbyter (Elder) in Asia to give "a license for women's teaching and baptizing."{{ref|anf1}} The necessity of such a forgery suggests to some that women did not routinely teach and baptize in the early Church.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|Oakes1}} Dallin H. Oaks, “The Relief Society and the Church,” ''Ensign'', May 1992, 36.
#{{note|Uchtdorf}} Dieter F. Uchtdorf, "Forget Me Not," ''Ensign'', Nov 2011.
#{{note|YW1}} ''Young Women Manual 1'', "Lesson 16: Women and Priesthood Bearers," 2002, 67-70.
#{{note|Smith1}} Joseph Fielding Smith, “Relief Society – An Aid to the Priesthood,” 5. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|Smith2}} Joseph Smith, in Relief Society Minute Book, Nauvoo, Illinois, 28 Apr. 1842, Church History Library, 36. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|MacKay}} Message from the First Presidency, in Conference Report, Oct. 1942, 12; read by J. Reuben Clark Jr. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|Dew1}} Sheri L. Dew, "Are We Not All Mothers?" ''Ensign'', Nov. 2001, 96. Emphasis in original.
#{{note|Dew2}} Sheri L. Dew, “It is Not Good for Man or Woman to be Alone,” ''Ensign'', Nov., 2001,13.
#{{note|anf1}} {{anf1|author=Tertulian|article=De Baptismo|vol=3|start=677|citation=17}}

{{FurtherReading}}
[[fr:Women/Role in the Church/Priesthood]]

Women and the priesthood

2012-11-26T04:20:26Z

JenniferQuist: /* Women Serving in the Church */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{question}}
=={{Question label}}==

Why do women not exercise priesthood authority in the Church?

=={{Conclusion label}}==

God is the Father of all humanity, and no one—male or female—is more valued than any other. Through personal faithfulness, all people can have access to the blessings of the priesthood. Positions of influence within the Church are held by both men and women. From the foundation of the Church, women have been instructed to seek after the same kinds of spiritual gifts that men enjoy through the priesthood. The power of motherhood is an eternal spiritual gift and must not be underestimated or taken for granted as a sanctifying force in the lives of women regardless of whether they ever physically bear children. Men and women must make covenants with each other in the temple in order to qualify for the highest order of the priesthood. Men cannot advance to this order on their own and women are partners in it.

== ==
{{Response label}}

Priesthood is God’s authority as delegated to mortals. Priesthood exists only to serve and help others. As Jesus taught, “whosever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” ({{b||Matthew|20|27}}).

The blessings and ordinances of the priesthood are available to all Church members regardless of gender, social status, race, or culture {{scripture||2Ne|26|33}}. Access to them is limited only by: 1) adherence to standards of personal faithfulness and worthiness, and 2) sufficient maturity and experience in gospel living. (Requirements of maturity and experience set a pace for young people and new converts to assure there is adequate time for them to grow into new responsibilities.) After satisfying these requirements, people of all genders are not only allowed but expected to receive the blessings of the priesthood. Baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, sacrament, temple ordinances, and other priesthood blessings are freely given to all who are worthy, willing, and ready to receive them.

Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks, quoted one of his predecessors, John A. Widtsoe, saying, “Men have no greater claim than women upon the blessings that issue from the priesthood and accompany its possession.” {{ref|Oaks1}}

Gender differences in the priesthood arise when assignments are made to perform ordinances and offer blessings on behalf of the Lord. Only worthy men are assigned and ordained to offices within the priesthood. The reason this assignment is made along gender lines is not explicitly explained in LDS doctrine. However, several facts of Church life may indicate the roots of it.

===Women Serving in the Church===

LDS women serve as leaders, teachers, temple workers, and missionaries throughout the worldwide Church. In some positions, such as in the presidencies of the Church’s children’s organization (The Primary), women have stewardship over callings held by men. These men report to and take direction from women leaders regardless of the fact that these men are ordained to the priesthood and their female leaders are not.

Women sit as members on councils in locals wards, stakes, and in the higher levels of general Church councils. Women serving in general church leadership positions travel the world speaking and teaching alongside male leaders. Twice annually, at the Church’s General Conferences, women leaders address the entire Church offering guidance and direction. They are also involved in preparing Church instructional materials and in developing and directing the programs and policies of the Church. Items in official Church publications are authored by men and by women.

Contrary to critics’ complaints, women are not barred from positions of leadership and influence in the Church. Mentioning the roles women have in Church leadership is not the same thing as trying to argue that women hold the same kinds of very vocal and prominent leadership roles that men hold. Nowhere in the Church do women preside over congregations. This is well-known. However, the real contributions women make to Church leadership need to be described for the benefit of people who know little about the Church -- people who may be more familiar with critics' claims that women play 'no' role at all in Church leadership. These descriptions continue to be offered in places like Mormon.org as replies to rhetoric that insists we serve in the Church only in child-minding and food preparation. Such rhetoric is deliberately misleading and requires correction. However, pointing out the roles women play as leaders is nowhere near the end of the discussion.

However, Latter-day Saints understand leadership in the Church in a different way than leadership is seen in general society. Leadership in the Church should never be about power, prestige, or control over others. The Latter-day Saint ideal is a model of cooperative unity, and duties and responsibilities are delegated under divine direction. At present, those whom the Saints sustain as prophets have organized matters as they stand. This does not preclude changes in the future, but members of the Church believe that such changes must come from God by revelation to those he has delegated to lead the Church.

===Priesthood and Temple Admission===

In order to qualify for entrance to an LDS temple, members must hold certain key beliefs and live according to a code of behavior that makes them worthy to be there. This worthiness is endorsed by local leaders in the form of a written temple recommend. By qualifying for a temple recommend, baptized LDS women can enter the temple without any further ceremony.

The same is not true for men. In order to attend the temple, baptized, temple recommend-worthy men must be ordained to the priesthood. Without it, they are not admitted. Without priesthood ordinations, a man’s progress in the gospel stalls before he receives temple blessings. Women require no such formalities. Our progress can continue without ordinations to the priesthood.

Certainly, the reason for this isn’t because women are intrinsically less worthy or less powerful than men. Instead, the opposite may be true. Perhaps women who worthily hold temple recommends enjoy spiritual gifts that make us equal to priesthood-holding men without the need to be ordained ourselves. What we’re lacking isn’t the spiritual fortitude to hold the priesthood but the need to hold it ourselves. As Paul explained when he compared the Church to the body of Christ,
<blockquote>
“…those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need. But God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to the part which lacked.” {{scripture||1Cor|12|22-24}}
</blockquote>
One reading of this scripture may be that without a spiritual correction like the one made when men are ordained to the priesthood, men in the Church would be “feeble” and “uncomely” compared to the rest of us. With the priesthood, men’s spiritual potential becomes equal to our spiritual potential. Ordination to the priesthood might be a remedial measure and one only men need. Meanwhile, the “comely parts,” the women of the Church, “have no need.” Ordaining us to priesthood offices might nullify this “tempering” of the body of Christ – a tempering that was done in an effort to make the genders equal within the Church, not to make men superior.

If this premise is correct then what might men be lacking? One theory is that the social roles women usually fill tend to make us more charitable and selfless. Charity and service are certainly Christ-like attributes. However, this explanation is encumbered by stereotypes of both male and female behavior. Furthermore, it doesn’t seem to place enough emphasis on the operation of eternal spiritual gifts.

Some critics complain that any reference to women having no need to hold the priesthood themselves while men do need to hold it is a ploy meant to trick women into playing down our strengths in favour of bolstering male egos. It's argued that if women believe we are "naturally" better than men, we'll feel a responsibility to hide our strengths and intentionally let men out-perform us. Contradictions to such claims are clear in the teachings of LDS leaders such as First Presidency member Dieter F. Uchtdorf. In 2011, President Uchtdorf spoke at the annual gathering of women of the church, the General Relief Society meeting, and talked about goals and personal achievements. He told us, "Never stop striving for the best that is within you." {{ref|Uchtdorf}} This is not language meant to persuade us to restrain our best selves in order to keep the men of the Church from feeling threatened. Furthermore, the church does not teach that priesthood-holding men are inferior to women any more than it teaches that they are superior. As late member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, John A. Widstoe said, "There is indeed no priveleged class or sex within the true Church of Christ." {{ref|YW1}} Men's service in the priesthood makes the sexes equally gifted in spiritual strength. No member of either sex needs to feel inferior.

The LDS approach to priesthood is something like a maximalist feminist one where women are excused from ordination not because we’re undeserving or unable but because, for us, it’s unnecessary. Ordaining worthy women to the priesthood might be like trying to get fully sighted people to wear eyeglasses just to make a group of people seem like they’re all being treated evenhandedly. In a crowd where everyone is wearing glasses, everyone might look equal. But there’s actually an unfairness operating because half of the people in the crowd arrived there with full sight. The analogy reveals the absurdity. If we don’t need glasses, we don’t wear them. And if we, LDS women, don’t need to hold the priesthood ourselves, we aren’t ordained to it.

However, in LDS temples, women have always served alongside men. Women aren’t serving in the temple as housekeepers or waitresses but as “ordinance workers.” Women serve temple attendees as blessings are given and covenants are made. We have all the rights and powers needed to serve in these capacities even without receiving priesthood ordinations. As Church President Joseph Fielding Smith said, “It is within the privilege of the sisters of this Church to receive exaltation in the kingdom of God and receive authority and power as queens and priestesses.” {{ref|Smith1}}

===Gifts of the Spirit===

The blessings and gifts that often accompany priesthood service – things such as healing, speaking unlearned languages, receiving revelations, wisdom, discernment, and many others – are not reserved solely for priesthood holding men. Neither of the genders is limited in its access to spiritual gifts. This principle was taught in 1842 when Joseph Smith instructed a meeting of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo to pay attention to Paul’s teachings about gifts of the Spirit. Joseph said “these signs…should follow all that believe” {{ref|Smith2}} including women who believe.

===Motherhood===

Often, the female ability to mother children is presented as an analogue to male priesthood ordinations. Motherhood and priesthood are two different, interdependent, overlapping, and valid paths to becoming more like Christ. If properly traveled, both paths can be sanctifying.

The spiritual gift of motherhood is so reverenced Church President David O. MacKay called it “near to divinity.” {{ref|MacKay}} However, the way women receive this gift is not clearly explained in LDS theology. It has been described by latter-day prophets and apostles with such words as “inherent” and “natural.” However, it’s unlikely these words were chosen in order to say the complex and supernal gift of motherhood arises simply and effortlessly from female biology the same way cats and cows know how to nurse their young.

What’s more likely is that these words were used to express the way human motherhood arises from eternal, spiritual characteristics that we take with us from our pre-mortal lives. As we grow, learn, and master the use of our agency, there is interplay between our spiritual nature and our biological nature. As LDS scriptures teach, “the spirit and the body are the soul of man” (and woman). {{scripture||DC|88|15}} By extension, no act carried out by any human is purely the result of his or her sexual morphology. The spirit is always implicated as well.

Also telling is the fact that motherhood is not considered a mere demographic in the Church. It is understood as a spiritual characteristic that extends beyond reproductive success. In 2001, Second Counselor of the Relief Society General Presidency, Sheri Dew, taught,
<blockquote>
"While ''we'' tend to equate motherhood solely with maternity, in the Lord's language, the word ''mother'' has layers of meaning. Of all the words they could have chosen to define her role and her essence, both God the Father and Adam called Eve "the mother of all living" -- and they did so ''before'' she ever bore a child. Like Eve, our motherhood began ''before'' we were born." {{ref|Dew1}}
</blockquote>
Priesthood and motherhood are both sanctifying, eternal, spiritual gifts. They are both opportunities and responsibilities to offer selfless service. They are each great sources of power and influence. However, there is an essential difference between priesthood and motherhood.

The power that comes with motherhood is not always contingent upon the personal worthiness of the mother herself. It is possible – it’s actually quite commonplace – for women to enjoy motherhood without living the laws of the gospel and/or without having faith in Christ.

The same is not true of priesthood power. LDS scripture states that when men try to use their position as priesthood holders to,
<blockquote>
“cover our sins, gratify our pride, our vain ambitions, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men…the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man…he is left unto himself.” {{scripture||DC|121|37-38}}
</blockquote>
In other words, there is a divine check, a limiter, on men’s access to priesthood. No such limiter exists for women using the power of their motherhood. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why authority in the Church is given to the gender whose access to power and influence is more closely connected to personal faith and righteousness. The limiter built into the priesthood safeguards the Church from error. That isn’t to say that women are more likely than men to make mistakes. It’s just to say that when we do make mistakes, they might be more difficult to overcome since our access to motherhood power is more or less unrestrained.

===The Everlasting Covenant of Marriage===

LDS scripture states that the highest degree of priesthood power cannot be held by any man unless he is married through temple ordinances. {{scripture||DC|131|2-3}} This ideal has been reiterated by General Relief Society Counselor, Sheri L. Dew, “ …the fullness of the priesthood contained in the highest ordinances of the house of the Lord [the temple] can be received only by a man and woman together.” {{ref|Dew2}} Clearly, all men who hold the highest degree of priesthood can only hold it jointly with their wives.

From the beginning, the ideal of marriage relationships has been the one Adam celebrated when he spoke of Eve saying, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh…therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. “ {{scripture||Gen|2|24}}
This ideal was restated by the Lord when he taught his disciples married couples “shall be one flesh: so then shall they be no more twain, but one flesh.” {{scripture||Mark|10|8}}

The connection between temple married men and women joined in this highest order of the priesthood can develop until it is inextricable and transcendent. The couple truly becomes one. This happens through personal righteousness, devotion, and the atonement of Christ as applied through the marriage covenant. Without a formal ordination, oneness within the covenant of marriage makes us partners in the priesthood to which our husbands have been ordained.

===In Other Ages===

Questions are sometimes raised about the role women have played in the priesthood in times past. For a discussion of biblical references to prophetesses, see here: [[Mormonism and gender issues/Women/As prophets anciently|Women as prophets anciently]]

Speculations are also raised about women holding the priesthood in the early Christian Church. Tertullian says that there were "writings which wrongly go under Paul's name" were forged by a presbyter (Elder) in Asia to give "a license for women's teaching and baptizing."{{ref|anf1}} The necessity of such a forgery suggests to some that women did not routinely teach and baptize in the early Church.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|Oakes1}} Dallin H. Oaks, “The Relief Society and the Church,” ''Ensign'', May 1992, 36.
#{{note|Uchtdorf}} Dieter F. Uchtdorf, "Forget Me Not," ''Ensign'', Nov 2011.
#{{note|YW1}} ''Young Women Manual 1'', "Lesson 16: Women and Priesthood Bearers," 2002, 67-70.
#{{note|Smith1}} Joseph Fielding Smith, “Relief Society – An Aid to the Priesthood,” 5. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|Smith2}} Joseph Smith, in Relief Society Minute Book, Nauvoo, Illinois, 28 Apr. 1842, Church History Library, 36. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|MacKay}} Message from the First Presidency, in Conference Report, Oct. 1942, 12; read by J. Reuben Clark Jr. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|Dew1}} Sheri L. Dew, "Are We Not All Mothers?" ''Ensign'', Nov. 2001, 96. Emphasis in original.
#{{note|Dew2}} Sheri L. Dew, “It is Not Good for Man or Woman to be Alone,” ''Ensign'', Nov., 2001,13.
#{{note|anf1}} {{anf1|author=Tertulian|article=De Baptismo|vol=3|start=677|citation=17}}

{{FurtherReading}}
[[fr:Women/Role in the Church/Priesthood]]

Women and the priesthood

2012-11-26T04:19:09Z

JenniferQuist: /* Women Serving in the Church */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}

{{question}}
=={{Question label}}==

Why do women not exercise priesthood authority in the Church?

=={{Conclusion label}}==

God is the Father of all humanity, and no one—male or female—is more valued than any other. Through personal faithfulness, all people can have access to the blessings of the priesthood. Positions of influence within the Church are held by both men and women. From the foundation of the Church, women have been instructed to seek after the same kinds of spiritual gifts that men enjoy through the priesthood. The power of motherhood is an eternal spiritual gift and must not be underestimated or taken for granted as a sanctifying force in the lives of women regardless of whether they ever physically bear children. Men and women must make covenants with each other in the temple in order to qualify for the highest order of the priesthood. Men cannot advance to this order on their own and women are partners in it.

== ==
{{Response label}}

Priesthood is God’s authority as delegated to mortals. Priesthood exists only to serve and help others. As Jesus taught, “whosever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” ({{b||Matthew|20|27}}).

The blessings and ordinances of the priesthood are available to all Church members regardless of gender, social status, race, or culture {{scripture||2Ne|26|33}}. Access to them is limited only by: 1) adherence to standards of personal faithfulness and worthiness, and 2) sufficient maturity and experience in gospel living. (Requirements of maturity and experience set a pace for young people and new converts to assure there is adequate time for them to grow into new responsibilities.) After satisfying these requirements, people of all genders are not only allowed but expected to receive the blessings of the priesthood. Baptism, the Gift of the Holy Ghost, sacrament, temple ordinances, and other priesthood blessings are freely given to all who are worthy, willing, and ready to receive them.

Member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, Dallin H. Oaks, quoted one of his predecessors, John A. Widtsoe, saying, “Men have no greater claim than women upon the blessings that issue from the priesthood and accompany its possession.” {{ref|Oaks1}}

Gender differences in the priesthood arise when assignments are made to perform ordinances and offer blessings on behalf of the Lord. Only worthy men are assigned and ordained to offices within the priesthood. The reason this assignment is made along gender lines is not explicitly explained in LDS doctrine. However, several facts of Church life may indicate the roots of it.

===Women Serving in the Church===

LDS women serve as leaders, teachers, temple workers, and missionaries throughout the worldwide Church. In some positions, such as in the presidencies of the Church’s children’s organization (The Primary), women have stewardship over callings held by men. These men report to and take direction from women leaders regardless of the fact that these men are ordained to the priesthood and their female leaders are not.

Women sit as members on councils in locals wards, stakes, and in the higher levels of general Church councils. Women serving in general church leadership positions travel the world speaking and teaching alongside male leaders. Twice annually, at the Church’s General Conferences, women leaders address the entire Church offering guidance and direction. They are also involved in preparing Church instructional materials and in developing and directing the programs and policies of the Church. Items in official Church publications are authored by men and by women.

Contrary to critics’ complaints, women are not barred from positions of leadership and influence in the Church. Mentioning the roles women have in Church leadership is not the same thing as trying to argue that women hold the same kinds of very vocal and prominent leadership roles that men hold. Nowhere in the Church do women preside over congregations. This is well-known. However, the real contributions women make to Church leadership need to be described for the benefit of people who know little about the Church -- people who may be more familiar with critics' claims that women play *no* role at all in Church leadership. These descriptions continue to be offered in places like Mormon.org as replies to rhetoric that insists we serve in the Church only in child-minding and food preparation. Such rhetoric is deliberately misleading and requires correction. However, pointing out the roles women play as leaders it nowhere near the end of the discussion.

However, Latter-day Saints understand leadership in the Church in a different way than leadership is seen in general society. Leadership in the Church should never be about power, prestige, or control over others. The Latter-day Saint ideal is a model of cooperative unity, and duties and responsibilities are delegated under divine direction. At present, those whom the Saints sustain as prophets have organized matters as they stand. This does not preclude changes in the future, but members of the Church believe that such changes must come from God by revelation to those he has delegated to lead the Church.

===Priesthood and Temple Admission===

In order to qualify for entrance to an LDS temple, members must hold certain key beliefs and live according to a code of behavior that makes them worthy to be there. This worthiness is endorsed by local leaders in the form of a written temple recommend. By qualifying for a temple recommend, baptized LDS women can enter the temple without any further ceremony.

The same is not true for men. In order to attend the temple, baptized, temple recommend-worthy men must be ordained to the priesthood. Without it, they are not admitted. Without priesthood ordinations, a man’s progress in the gospel stalls before he receives temple blessings. Women require no such formalities. Our progress can continue without ordinations to the priesthood.

Certainly, the reason for this isn’t because women are intrinsically less worthy or less powerful than men. Instead, the opposite may be true. Perhaps women who worthily hold temple recommends enjoy spiritual gifts that make us equal to priesthood-holding men without the need to be ordained ourselves. What we’re lacking isn’t the spiritual fortitude to hold the priesthood but the need to hold it ourselves. As Paul explained when he compared the Church to the body of Christ,
<blockquote>
“…those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: And those members of the body, which we think to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need. But God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to the part which lacked.” {{scripture||1Cor|12|22-24}}
</blockquote>
One reading of this scripture may be that without a spiritual correction like the one made when men are ordained to the priesthood, men in the Church would be “feeble” and “uncomely” compared to the rest of us. With the priesthood, men’s spiritual potential becomes equal to our spiritual potential. Ordination to the priesthood might be a remedial measure and one only men need. Meanwhile, the “comely parts,” the women of the Church, “have no need.” Ordaining us to priesthood offices might nullify this “tempering” of the body of Christ – a tempering that was done in an effort to make the genders equal within the Church, not to make men superior.

If this premise is correct then what might men be lacking? One theory is that the social roles women usually fill tend to make us more charitable and selfless. Charity and service are certainly Christ-like attributes. However, this explanation is encumbered by stereotypes of both male and female behavior. Furthermore, it doesn’t seem to place enough emphasis on the operation of eternal spiritual gifts.

Some critics complain that any reference to women having no need to hold the priesthood themselves while men do need to hold it is a ploy meant to trick women into playing down our strengths in favour of bolstering male egos. It's argued that if women believe we are "naturally" better than men, we'll feel a responsibility to hide our strengths and intentionally let men out-perform us. Contradictions to such claims are clear in the teachings of LDS leaders such as First Presidency member Dieter F. Uchtdorf. In 2011, President Uchtdorf spoke at the annual gathering of women of the church, the General Relief Society meeting, and talked about goals and personal achievements. He told us, "Never stop striving for the best that is within you." {{ref|Uchtdorf}} This is not language meant to persuade us to restrain our best selves in order to keep the men of the Church from feeling threatened. Furthermore, the church does not teach that priesthood-holding men are inferior to women any more than it teaches that they are superior. As late member of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, John A. Widstoe said, "There is indeed no priveleged class or sex within the true Church of Christ." {{ref|YW1}} Men's service in the priesthood makes the sexes equally gifted in spiritual strength. No member of either sex needs to feel inferior.

The LDS approach to priesthood is something like a maximalist feminist one where women are excused from ordination not because we’re undeserving or unable but because, for us, it’s unnecessary. Ordaining worthy women to the priesthood might be like trying to get fully sighted people to wear eyeglasses just to make a group of people seem like they’re all being treated evenhandedly. In a crowd where everyone is wearing glasses, everyone might look equal. But there’s actually an unfairness operating because half of the people in the crowd arrived there with full sight. The analogy reveals the absurdity. If we don’t need glasses, we don’t wear them. And if we, LDS women, don’t need to hold the priesthood ourselves, we aren’t ordained to it.

However, in LDS temples, women have always served alongside men. Women aren’t serving in the temple as housekeepers or waitresses but as “ordinance workers.” Women serve temple attendees as blessings are given and covenants are made. We have all the rights and powers needed to serve in these capacities even without receiving priesthood ordinations. As Church President Joseph Fielding Smith said, “It is within the privilege of the sisters of this Church to receive exaltation in the kingdom of God and receive authority and power as queens and priestesses.” {{ref|Smith1}}

===Gifts of the Spirit===

The blessings and gifts that often accompany priesthood service – things such as healing, speaking unlearned languages, receiving revelations, wisdom, discernment, and many others – are not reserved solely for priesthood holding men. Neither of the genders is limited in its access to spiritual gifts. This principle was taught in 1842 when Joseph Smith instructed a meeting of the Female Relief Society of Nauvoo to pay attention to Paul’s teachings about gifts of the Spirit. Joseph said “these signs…should follow all that believe” {{ref|Smith2}} including women who believe.

===Motherhood===

Often, the female ability to mother children is presented as an analogue to male priesthood ordinations. Motherhood and priesthood are two different, interdependent, overlapping, and valid paths to becoming more like Christ. If properly traveled, both paths can be sanctifying.

The spiritual gift of motherhood is so reverenced Church President David O. MacKay called it “near to divinity.” {{ref|MacKay}} However, the way women receive this gift is not clearly explained in LDS theology. It has been described by latter-day prophets and apostles with such words as “inherent” and “natural.” However, it’s unlikely these words were chosen in order to say the complex and supernal gift of motherhood arises simply and effortlessly from female biology the same way cats and cows know how to nurse their young.

What’s more likely is that these words were used to express the way human motherhood arises from eternal, spiritual characteristics that we take with us from our pre-mortal lives. As we grow, learn, and master the use of our agency, there is interplay between our spiritual nature and our biological nature. As LDS scriptures teach, “the spirit and the body are the soul of man” (and woman). {{scripture||DC|88|15}} By extension, no act carried out by any human is purely the result of his or her sexual morphology. The spirit is always implicated as well.

Also telling is the fact that motherhood is not considered a mere demographic in the Church. It is understood as a spiritual characteristic that extends beyond reproductive success. In 2001, Second Counselor of the Relief Society General Presidency, Sheri Dew, taught,
<blockquote>
"While ''we'' tend to equate motherhood solely with maternity, in the Lord's language, the word ''mother'' has layers of meaning. Of all the words they could have chosen to define her role and her essence, both God the Father and Adam called Eve "the mother of all living" -- and they did so ''before'' she ever bore a child. Like Eve, our motherhood began ''before'' we were born." {{ref|Dew1}}
</blockquote>
Priesthood and motherhood are both sanctifying, eternal, spiritual gifts. They are both opportunities and responsibilities to offer selfless service. They are each great sources of power and influence. However, there is an essential difference between priesthood and motherhood.

The power that comes with motherhood is not always contingent upon the personal worthiness of the mother herself. It is possible – it’s actually quite commonplace – for women to enjoy motherhood without living the laws of the gospel and/or without having faith in Christ.

The same is not true of priesthood power. LDS scripture states that when men try to use their position as priesthood holders to,
<blockquote>
“cover our sins, gratify our pride, our vain ambitions, or to exercise control or dominion or compulsion upon the souls of the children of men…the heavens withdraw themselves; the Spirit of the Lord is grieved; and when it is withdrawn, Amen to the priesthood or the authority of that man…he is left unto himself.” {{scripture||DC|121|37-38}}
</blockquote>
In other words, there is a divine check, a limiter, on men’s access to priesthood. No such limiter exists for women using the power of their motherhood. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why authority in the Church is given to the gender whose access to power and influence is more closely connected to personal faith and righteousness. The limiter built into the priesthood safeguards the Church from error. That isn’t to say that women are more likely than men to make mistakes. It’s just to say that when we do make mistakes, they might be more difficult to overcome since our access to motherhood power is more or less unrestrained.

===The Everlasting Covenant of Marriage===

LDS scripture states that the highest degree of priesthood power cannot be held by any man unless he is married through temple ordinances. {{scripture||DC|131|2-3}} This ideal has been reiterated by General Relief Society Counselor, Sheri L. Dew, “ …the fullness of the priesthood contained in the highest ordinances of the house of the Lord [the temple] can be received only by a man and woman together.” {{ref|Dew2}} Clearly, all men who hold the highest degree of priesthood can only hold it jointly with their wives.

From the beginning, the ideal of marriage relationships has been the one Adam celebrated when he spoke of Eve saying, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh…therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. “ {{scripture||Gen|2|24}}
This ideal was restated by the Lord when he taught his disciples married couples “shall be one flesh: so then shall they be no more twain, but one flesh.” {{scripture||Mark|10|8}}

The connection between temple married men and women joined in this highest order of the priesthood can develop until it is inextricable and transcendent. The couple truly becomes one. This happens through personal righteousness, devotion, and the atonement of Christ as applied through the marriage covenant. Without a formal ordination, oneness within the covenant of marriage makes us partners in the priesthood to which our husbands have been ordained.

===In Other Ages===

Questions are sometimes raised about the role women have played in the priesthood in times past. For a discussion of biblical references to prophetesses, see here: [[Mormonism and gender issues/Women/As prophets anciently|Women as prophets anciently]]

Speculations are also raised about women holding the priesthood in the early Christian Church. Tertullian says that there were "writings which wrongly go under Paul's name" were forged by a presbyter (Elder) in Asia to give "a license for women's teaching and baptizing."{{ref|anf1}} The necessity of such a forgery suggests to some that women did not routinely teach and baptize in the early Church.

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|Oakes1}} Dallin H. Oaks, “The Relief Society and the Church,” ''Ensign'', May 1992, 36.
#{{note|Uchtdorf}} Dieter F. Uchtdorf, "Forget Me Not," ''Ensign'', Nov 2011.
#{{note|YW1}} ''Young Women Manual 1'', "Lesson 16: Women and Priesthood Bearers," 2002, 67-70.
#{{note|Smith1}} Joseph Fielding Smith, “Relief Society – An Aid to the Priesthood,” 5. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|Smith2}} Joseph Smith, in Relief Society Minute Book, Nauvoo, Illinois, 28 Apr. 1842, Church History Library, 36. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|MacKay}} Message from the First Presidency, in Conference Report, Oct. 1942, 12; read by J. Reuben Clark Jr. (Referenced in ''Daughters in My Kingdom'', Intellectual Reserve, 2011.)
#{{note|Dew1}} Sheri L. Dew, "Are We Not All Mothers?" ''Ensign'', Nov. 2001, 96. Emphasis in original.
#{{note|Dew2}} Sheri L. Dew, “It is Not Good for Man or Woman to be Alone,” ''Ensign'', Nov., 2001,13.
#{{note|anf1}} {{anf1|author=Tertulian|article=De Baptismo|vol=3|start=677|citation=17}}

{{FurtherReading}}
[[fr:Women/Role in the Church/Priesthood]]

Question: Are Mormon family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless?

2012-08-13T03:30:12Z

JenniferQuist: /* Church Teachings */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}

=={{Criticism label}}==

Reports have appeared in the American media stating that large portions of the homeless youth in Utah are gay. Critics imply that the substantial LDS population in this area explains these high numbers of homeless youth. It’s inferred that LDS families force children with non-heterosexual orientations out of their homes.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered “an epidemic.” LGBT youth are homeless more often than straight youth all over the country, not just in Utah. A recent survey of LGBT youth in America found that while feeling more disconnected from peers and communities than youth across the country, LGBT youth in Utah actually enjoyed better and more supportive and accepting connections to family than youth nationwide. No statistics have ever been generated to show causal links between LDS affiliation and homelessness among LGBT youth.

Furthermore, believing in a moral code does not automatically result in the rejection of those who struggle with the code or who break the code. Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children. However, some parents may ignore the counsel of Church leaders and the scriptures and force LGBT children out of their homes. The Church is clear that this is not in harmony with the gospel, and that such parents are not worthy to hold temple recommends. The teachings of the Church help family members love and respect their children, regardless of sexual orientation or behavior. This love and respect leads to an increase of the child's mental and physical health.{{ref|ryan2010}} (See also [[Mormonism and culture/Wayward family members]])

== ==
{{Response label}}

There are several problems with the assertion that LDS families in Utah reject and expelled LGBT children from their homes:

1) Rates of homelessness among gay youth in Utah are similar to those found in other areas of the US. The high incidence is not limited to states with large LDS communities.

2) A national survey of LGBT youth in America found that youth in Utah actually enjoy better support from adults and family members than national averages. However, the youth reported more problems with peers and larger social structures and the media focused on these negative statistics. So far, the media have ignored the positive numbers on family support.

3) A causal connection between homelessness among gay youth and the LDS Church has never been substantiated with data. It remains merely an assertion and an expression of prejudice.

4) Church leaders and scriptures explicitly teach that children have claim on their parents for support. In addition to this responsibility, parents and other family members are instructed to extend unconditional love regardless of individual behaviors.

===Utah and the National Average===

Statistics on sexual orientation among homeless youth in Utah are typically derived from a survey given to youth ages 15 to 22 who access services for the homeless in Utah. It’s a written survey administered by Volunteers of America Utah. VOAU regularly surveys homeless youth using their facilities, inquiring about many factors including sexual orientation, the reasons for homelessness, and family background. In news items from 2012, a VOAU vice-president is quoted saying a recent survey revealed 42% of homeless youth using VOAU services self-identified as LGBT. {{ref|UPR}}

While reports of homelessness among gay youth collected by VOAU are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states.

The percentage of homeless youth throughout all of the US who self-identify as LGBT moves between 20 and 40 percent {{ref|taskforce}}. Most of the time, Utah posts rates of homeless gay youth at around one third, in the middle of the national range. {{ref|affirmation}} The finding of 42% is a high point. All gay youth, not just those in states with large LDS populations, experience homelessness at rates disproportionate to the rest of the population. Nationwide, the problem has been called “an epidemic.” {{ref|taskforce}} This doesn’t diminish the tragedy of the Utah figures but it does strengthen the notion that the Utah findings are typical of American society and are not aberrations arising from subcultures like the LDS Church.

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average. When questioned about the 2008 numbers, one manager of a program for homeless youth suggested it might have resulted from a change in the way youth were asked about their sexuality. Instead of asking them to identify themselves as straight, gay, lesbian, or transgendered, respondents were allowed to choose “other than heterosexual.” {{ref|affirmation}} It’s an option respondents might have been more comfortable with since many of them feel they’re still forming their identities and resist narrower definitions.

===Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah===

In 2012, the Washington D.C. based Human Rights Campaign released the partial results of an online survey of LGBT youth from across America. The survey recruited respondents through online social media and at places described as “LGBT youth centers.” {{ref|HRC}} 10030 LGBT youth between the ages of 13 and 17 responded and their data were compared to those of 510 “straight” youth who were already members of online panels used in market research. HRC acknowledges issues with sampling place limitations on the survey data. The report on the survey explains, “Traditional measures of margin of error do not apply and the results here may not be representative of this population as a whole.” {{ref|HRC}}

Setting aside concerns with the methodology, the survey does yield some interesting results. When the survey first appeared in the media, emphasis was placed on differences between national averages and averages of youth in Utah. Most repeated were figures showing Utah youth were more likely to be verbally harassed and feel like they didn’t “fit in” in their communities.

However, the media seem to have ignored data showing LGBT youth in Utah were better connected to support from adults and family members than national averages.

Utah youth replied that they were “happy” 38% of the time while the national number, though close, is slightly lower at 37%.

When asked if they had “no adult to turn to” 29% of LGBT youth nationwide agreed while only 24% of Utah youth agreed. In Utah, LGBT youth are more likely to have an adult they can rely on involved in their lives.

LGBT youth inside Utah and across the country reported being “out” to immediate family at similar level with Utah youth being slightly more open at 58% instead of the national average of 56%. However, Utah youth were more open with their extended families. 34% of Utah youth were “out” with their extended families while on the national level only 25% of youth were “out” with their extended families.

When asked if they had an adult they could go to when worried or sad, 59% of Utah youth said “yes.” That’s far more than the 49% of youth across the country who report having access to this kind of emotional support from adults.

It’s possible that these supportive adults could be social workers or other non-family members. However, two factors point away from this possibility. The first is that Utah youths report greater than average feelings of animosity between themselves and the local and state governments that would be funding and supporting social agencies. {{ref|SLTribtable}} The second factor is that, when asked if their families were “not accepting” of their LGBT identity, youth in Utah were less likely (29%) to say they were not accepted than their peers in the rest of the US (33%). {{ref|SLTribtable}}

According to the HRC survey data, Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other LGBT American youth, not less. This finding runs counter to the assumption that LDS homes are more prone to break off ties with non-heterosexual children.

The results of the HRC survey depict Utah as a state where LGBT youth tend to feel more comfortable and connected to adults in general and to their families in particular than other LGBT American youth. Whether reported in the media or not, the data can speak for themselves to defy critics’ assertions and prejudices.

Failing to report on areas where Utah performs better in caring for LGBT youth than the nation as a whole is not the only foul committed by media outlets. They have also mistakenly reported a direct connection between being LGBT and being homeless because of being "kicked out" by intolerant parents. Either due to ignorance or perhaps for more cunning reasons, media covering the story have made statements claiming the 42% of homeless youth in Utah who are LGBT "report experiencing family rejection and being kicked out of their homes." {{ref|SLTrib}} This is simply wrong. The 42% figure refers only to the proportion of homeless youth who self-identify as LGBT. It says nothing about the reasons why this 42% are homeless. The youths' reasons for leaving home are as complex and varied as they are. Apart from not being borne out by any data, the idea that such a perfect correlation could exist between any two social factors (including factors like being LGBT and being kicked out of one's home) is highly unlikely.

===The Case for Causation===

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected by VOAU or HRC definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in LGBT youth. When asked about the causes of homelessness in LGBT youth, a VOAU vice-president told the Salt Lake Tribune the reasons for homelessness were mixed. He named economic factors (especially since the recession began), lapses in foster care, and abuse as well as irreconcilable differences between parents and children about sexual orientation. {{ref|SLTrib}}

Even when sexual orientation was the most commanding issue, it is sometimes the children, not the parents who insist on the separation that makes the child homeless.

And, as always, there are other faith groups in Utah besides the LDS Church. They also have children who identify as LGBT. In the Salt Lake Tribune’s coverage of the story in June 2012, the young woman interviewed about her experience of being kicked out of her home due to her sexual orientation was from a religious background that was not LDS. {{ref|SLTrib}} It’s just one anecdotal shred of evidence but it does reveal a problem with the assumption that all homeless LGBT youth in Utah are being victimized by the LDS Church.

===Church Teachings===

Should the case arise where an LDS parent did force a child to leave home because of that child's sexuality, the teachings of the Church are quick to denounce the parent's behavior. LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances. {{s||DC|83|4}} reads:

:All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.

{{b||Luke|17|2}} reads:

:It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

In 1992, the Church issued a statement to Church leaders saying:

:"If a person with homosexual problems chooses not to change, family members may have difficulty maintaining feelings of love and acceptance toward the person. Encourage them to continue loving the person and hoping that he or she may repent."{{ref|church.1992}}

In 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World taught:

:Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations... Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.{{ref|proc.1995}}

In 2007, Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman had an interview in which they were asked what they would do if they had a child who decided to be in a same-sex relationship. Elder Oaks responded:

:"It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”

:My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, “My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth...

:"Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues... even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues."{{ref|oaks.1}}

In the same interview, Elder Wickman responded:

:With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them...

:That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.{{ref|wickman.1}}

Families with members with same-sex attractions, including those in same-sex relationships, are strengthened through living the principles of love and respect taught by Jesus Christ. The sister of a woman (Leigh) who is involved in a sexual relationship with another woman wrote an "Ensign" article in which she describes how the Church has helped her with her relationship with her sister:

:"I know the best thing I can do to have a close relationship with my sister is to have a close relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. Leigh recently commented that it has been through the way our family has loved her that she has felt what she understood to be God’s love."{{ref|ensign.1}}

While we are taught to love and treat everyone with kindness, the Church puts particular weight on the way we treat our family members, including those who are attracted to the same sex. In order to enter into the temple, a member must first answer this question:

:Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

If there is anything that is not in harmony with the teachings, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

===Other citations===
Further citations which illustrate these same principles include:

Elder Quenton L. Cook in 2009:

:It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation “free for all men” but has “commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.”{{ref|cook.2009}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|UPR}} Jessica Gail, “Utah, one of the worst places to be LGBT and homeless,” Utah Public Radio, June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10, 2012. http://upr.org/post/utah-one-worst-places-be-lgbt-and-homeless
#{{note|taskforce}} Nicholas Ray, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness,” National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf
#{{note|affirmation}} “Throw-Away Kids,” originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.
#{{note|HRC}} “Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings,” Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.
#{{note|SLTribtable}} Rebecca Trounson, “Gay teens less likely to be happy, nationwide survey finds,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 7, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54262370-68/gay-percent-lgbt-survey.html.csp.
# {{note|SLTrib}} Melinda Rogers, “LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.
#{{note|ryan2010}} [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x/full Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults]
#{{note|church.1992}} Understand and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems
#{{note|proc.1995}} {{General Conference|article=The Family: A Proclamation to the World|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|date=1995}}
#{{note|oaks.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|wickman.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|ensign.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=35ce1a01e8d43210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|article=The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh|date=2009}}
#{{note|cook.2009}} {{General Conference|author=Quinton L. Cook|article=Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children|date=April 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/our-fathers-plan-big-enough-for-all-his-children?lang=eng}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: Are Mormon family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless?

2012-08-13T03:28:26Z

JenniferQuist: /* The Case for Causation */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}

=={{Criticism label}}==

Reports have appeared in the American media stating that large portions of the homeless youth in Utah are gay. Critics imply that the substantial LDS population in this area explains these high numbers of homeless youth. It’s inferred that LDS families force children with non-heterosexual orientations out of their homes.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered “an epidemic.” LGBT youth are homeless more often than straight youth all over the country, not just in Utah. A recent survey of LGBT youth in America found that while feeling more disconnected from peers and communities than youth across the country, LGBT youth in Utah actually enjoyed better and more supportive and accepting connections to family than youth nationwide. No statistics have ever been generated to show causal links between LDS affiliation and homelessness among LGBT youth.

Furthermore, believing in a moral code does not automatically result in the rejection of those who struggle with the code or who break the code. Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children. However, some parents may ignore the counsel of Church leaders and the scriptures and force LGBT children out of their homes. The Church is clear that this is not in harmony with the gospel, and that such parents are not worthy to hold temple recommends. The teachings of the Church help family members love and respect their children, regardless of sexual orientation or behavior. This love and respect leads to an increase of the child's mental and physical health.{{ref|ryan2010}} (See also [[Mormonism and culture/Wayward family members]])

== ==
{{Response label}}

There are several problems with the assertion that LDS families in Utah reject and expelled LGBT children from their homes:

1) Rates of homelessness among gay youth in Utah are similar to those found in other areas of the US. The high incidence is not limited to states with large LDS communities.

2) A national survey of LGBT youth in America found that youth in Utah actually enjoy better support from adults and family members than national averages. However, the youth reported more problems with peers and larger social structures and the media focused on these negative statistics. So far, the media have ignored the positive numbers on family support.

3) A causal connection between homelessness among gay youth and the LDS Church has never been substantiated with data. It remains merely an assertion and an expression of prejudice.

4) Church leaders and scriptures explicitly teach that children have claim on their parents for support. In addition to this responsibility, parents and other family members are instructed to extend unconditional love regardless of individual behaviors.

===Utah and the National Average===

Statistics on sexual orientation among homeless youth in Utah are typically derived from a survey given to youth ages 15 to 22 who access services for the homeless in Utah. It’s a written survey administered by Volunteers of America Utah. VOAU regularly surveys homeless youth using their facilities, inquiring about many factors including sexual orientation, the reasons for homelessness, and family background. In news items from 2012, a VOAU vice-president is quoted saying a recent survey revealed 42% of homeless youth using VOAU services self-identified as LGBT. {{ref|UPR}}

While reports of homelessness among gay youth collected by VOAU are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states.

The percentage of homeless youth throughout all of the US who self-identify as LGBT moves between 20 and 40 percent {{ref|taskforce}}. Most of the time, Utah posts rates of homeless gay youth at around one third, in the middle of the national range. {{ref|affirmation}} The finding of 42% is a high point. All gay youth, not just those in states with large LDS populations, experience homelessness at rates disproportionate to the rest of the population. Nationwide, the problem has been called “an epidemic.” {{ref|taskforce}} This doesn’t diminish the tragedy of the Utah figures but it does strengthen the notion that the Utah findings are typical of American society and are not aberrations arising from subcultures like the LDS Church.

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average. When questioned about the 2008 numbers, one manager of a program for homeless youth suggested it might have resulted from a change in the way youth were asked about their sexuality. Instead of asking them to identify themselves as straight, gay, lesbian, or transgendered, respondents were allowed to choose “other than heterosexual.” {{ref|affirmation}} It’s an option respondents might have been more comfortable with since many of them feel they’re still forming their identities and resist narrower definitions.

===Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah===

In 2012, the Washington D.C. based Human Rights Campaign released the partial results of an online survey of LGBT youth from across America. The survey recruited respondents through online social media and at places described as “LGBT youth centers.” {{ref|HRC}} 10030 LGBT youth between the ages of 13 and 17 responded and their data were compared to those of 510 “straight” youth who were already members of online panels used in market research. HRC acknowledges issues with sampling place limitations on the survey data. The report on the survey explains, “Traditional measures of margin of error do not apply and the results here may not be representative of this population as a whole.” {{ref|HRC}}

Setting aside concerns with the methodology, the survey does yield some interesting results. When the survey first appeared in the media, emphasis was placed on differences between national averages and averages of youth in Utah. Most repeated were figures showing Utah youth were more likely to be verbally harassed and feel like they didn’t “fit in” in their communities.

However, the media seem to have ignored data showing LGBT youth in Utah were better connected to support from adults and family members than national averages.

Utah youth replied that they were “happy” 38% of the time while the national number, though close, is slightly lower at 37%.

When asked if they had “no adult to turn to” 29% of LGBT youth nationwide agreed while only 24% of Utah youth agreed. In Utah, LGBT youth are more likely to have an adult they can rely on involved in their lives.

LGBT youth inside Utah and across the country reported being “out” to immediate family at similar level with Utah youth being slightly more open at 58% instead of the national average of 56%. However, Utah youth were more open with their extended families. 34% of Utah youth were “out” with their extended families while on the national level only 25% of youth were “out” with their extended families.

When asked if they had an adult they could go to when worried or sad, 59% of Utah youth said “yes.” That’s far more than the 49% of youth across the country who report having access to this kind of emotional support from adults.

It’s possible that these supportive adults could be social workers or other non-family members. However, two factors point away from this possibility. The first is that Utah youths report greater than average feelings of animosity between themselves and the local and state governments that would be funding and supporting social agencies. {{ref|SLTribtable}} The second factor is that, when asked if their families were “not accepting” of their LGBT identity, youth in Utah were less likely (29%) to say they were not accepted than their peers in the rest of the US (33%). {{ref|SLTribtable}}

According to the HRC survey data, Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other LGBT American youth, not less. This finding runs counter to the assumption that LDS homes are more prone to break off ties with non-heterosexual children.

The results of the HRC survey depict Utah as a state where LGBT youth tend to feel more comfortable and connected to adults in general and to their families in particular than other LGBT American youth. Whether reported in the media or not, the data can speak for themselves to defy critics’ assertions and prejudices.

Failing to report on areas where Utah performs better in caring for LGBT youth than the nation as a whole is not the only foul committed by media outlets. They have also mistakenly reported a direct connection between being LGBT and being homeless because of being "kicked out" by intolerant parents. Either due to ignorance or perhaps for more cunning reasons, media covering the story have made statements claiming the 42% of homeless youth in Utah who are LGBT "report experiencing family rejection and being kicked out of their homes." {{ref|SLTrib}} This is simply wrong. The 42% figure refers only to the proportion of homeless youth who self-identify as LGBT. It says nothing about the reasons why this 42% are homeless. The youths' reasons for leaving home are as complex and varied as they are. Apart from not being borne out by any data, the idea that such a perfect correlation could exist between any two social factors (including factors like being LGBT and being kicked out of one's home) is highly unlikely.

===The Case for Causation===

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected by VOAU or HRC definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in LGBT youth. When asked about the causes of homelessness in LGBT youth, a VOAU vice-president told the Salt Lake Tribune the reasons for homelessness were mixed. He named economic factors (especially since the recession began), lapses in foster care, and abuse as well as irreconcilable differences between parents and children about sexual orientation. {{ref|SLTrib}}

Even when sexual orientation was the most commanding issue, it is sometimes the children, not the parents who insist on the separation that makes the child homeless.

And, as always, there are other faith groups in Utah besides the LDS Church. They also have children who identify as LGBT. In the Salt Lake Tribune’s coverage of the story in June 2012, the young woman interviewed about her experience of being kicked out of her home due to her sexual orientation was from a religious background that was not LDS. {{ref|SLTrib}} It’s just one anecdotal shred of evidence but it does reveal a problem with the assumption that all homeless LGBT youth in Utah are being victimized by the LDS Church.

===Church Teachings===

LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances. {{s||DC|83|4}} reads:

:All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.

{{b||Luke|17|2}} reads:

:It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

In 1992, the Church issued a statement to Church leaders saying:

:"If a person with homosexual problems chooses not to change, family members may have difficulty maintaining feelings of love and acceptance toward the person. Encourage them to continue loving the person and hoping that he or she may repent."{{ref|church.1992}}

In 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World taught:

:Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations... Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.{{ref|proc.1995}}

In 2007, Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman had an interview in which they were asked what they would do if they had a child who decided to be in a same-sex relationship. Elder Oaks responded:

:"It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”

:My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, “My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth...

:"Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues... even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues."{{ref|oaks.1}}

In the same interview, Elder Wickman responded:

:With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them...

:That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.{{ref|wickman.1}}

Families with members with same-sex attractions, including those in same-sex relationships, are strengthened through living the principles of love and respect taught by Jesus Christ. The sister of a woman (Leigh) who is involved in a sexual relationship with another woman wrote an "Ensign" article in which she describes how the Church has helped her with her relationship with her sister:

:"I know the best thing I can do to have a close relationship with my sister is to have a close relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. Leigh recently commented that it has been through the way our family has loved her that she has felt what she understood to be God’s love."{{ref|ensign.1}}

While we are taught to love and treat everyone with kindness, the Church puts particular weight on the way we treat our family members, including those who are attracted to the same sex. In order to enter into the temple, a member must first answer this question:

:Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

If there is anything that is not in harmony with the teachings, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

===Other citations===
Further citations which illustrate these same principles include:

Elder Quenton L. Cook in 2009:

:It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation “free for all men” but has “commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.”{{ref|cook.2009}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|UPR}} Jessica Gail, “Utah, one of the worst places to be LGBT and homeless,” Utah Public Radio, June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10, 2012. http://upr.org/post/utah-one-worst-places-be-lgbt-and-homeless
#{{note|taskforce}} Nicholas Ray, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness,” National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf
#{{note|affirmation}} “Throw-Away Kids,” originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.
#{{note|HRC}} “Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings,” Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.
#{{note|SLTribtable}} Rebecca Trounson, “Gay teens less likely to be happy, nationwide survey finds,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 7, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54262370-68/gay-percent-lgbt-survey.html.csp.
# {{note|SLTrib}} Melinda Rogers, “LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.
#{{note|ryan2010}} [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x/full Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults]
#{{note|church.1992}} Understand and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems
#{{note|proc.1995}} {{General Conference|article=The Family: A Proclamation to the World|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|date=1995}}
#{{note|oaks.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|wickman.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|ensign.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=35ce1a01e8d43210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|article=The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh|date=2009}}
#{{note|cook.2009}} {{General Conference|author=Quinton L. Cook|article=Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children|date=April 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/our-fathers-plan-big-enough-for-all-his-children?lang=eng}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: Are Mormon family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless?

2012-08-13T03:27:15Z

JenniferQuist: /* Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}

=={{Criticism label}}==

Reports have appeared in the American media stating that large portions of the homeless youth in Utah are gay. Critics imply that the substantial LDS population in this area explains these high numbers of homeless youth. It’s inferred that LDS families force children with non-heterosexual orientations out of their homes.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered “an epidemic.” LGBT youth are homeless more often than straight youth all over the country, not just in Utah. A recent survey of LGBT youth in America found that while feeling more disconnected from peers and communities than youth across the country, LGBT youth in Utah actually enjoyed better and more supportive and accepting connections to family than youth nationwide. No statistics have ever been generated to show causal links between LDS affiliation and homelessness among LGBT youth.

Furthermore, believing in a moral code does not automatically result in the rejection of those who struggle with the code or who break the code. Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children. However, some parents may ignore the counsel of Church leaders and the scriptures and force LGBT children out of their homes. The Church is clear that this is not in harmony with the gospel, and that such parents are not worthy to hold temple recommends. The teachings of the Church help family members love and respect their children, regardless of sexual orientation or behavior. This love and respect leads to an increase of the child's mental and physical health.{{ref|ryan2010}} (See also [[Mormonism and culture/Wayward family members]])

== ==
{{Response label}}

There are several problems with the assertion that LDS families in Utah reject and expelled LGBT children from their homes:

1) Rates of homelessness among gay youth in Utah are similar to those found in other areas of the US. The high incidence is not limited to states with large LDS communities.

2) A national survey of LGBT youth in America found that youth in Utah actually enjoy better support from adults and family members than national averages. However, the youth reported more problems with peers and larger social structures and the media focused on these negative statistics. So far, the media have ignored the positive numbers on family support.

3) A causal connection between homelessness among gay youth and the LDS Church has never been substantiated with data. It remains merely an assertion and an expression of prejudice.

4) Church leaders and scriptures explicitly teach that children have claim on their parents for support. In addition to this responsibility, parents and other family members are instructed to extend unconditional love regardless of individual behaviors.

===Utah and the National Average===

Statistics on sexual orientation among homeless youth in Utah are typically derived from a survey given to youth ages 15 to 22 who access services for the homeless in Utah. It’s a written survey administered by Volunteers of America Utah. VOAU regularly surveys homeless youth using their facilities, inquiring about many factors including sexual orientation, the reasons for homelessness, and family background. In news items from 2012, a VOAU vice-president is quoted saying a recent survey revealed 42% of homeless youth using VOAU services self-identified as LGBT. {{ref|UPR}}

While reports of homelessness among gay youth collected by VOAU are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states.

The percentage of homeless youth throughout all of the US who self-identify as LGBT moves between 20 and 40 percent {{ref|taskforce}}. Most of the time, Utah posts rates of homeless gay youth at around one third, in the middle of the national range. {{ref|affirmation}} The finding of 42% is a high point. All gay youth, not just those in states with large LDS populations, experience homelessness at rates disproportionate to the rest of the population. Nationwide, the problem has been called “an epidemic.” {{ref|taskforce}} This doesn’t diminish the tragedy of the Utah figures but it does strengthen the notion that the Utah findings are typical of American society and are not aberrations arising from subcultures like the LDS Church.

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average. When questioned about the 2008 numbers, one manager of a program for homeless youth suggested it might have resulted from a change in the way youth were asked about their sexuality. Instead of asking them to identify themselves as straight, gay, lesbian, or transgendered, respondents were allowed to choose “other than heterosexual.” {{ref|affirmation}} It’s an option respondents might have been more comfortable with since many of them feel they’re still forming their identities and resist narrower definitions.

===Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah===

In 2012, the Washington D.C. based Human Rights Campaign released the partial results of an online survey of LGBT youth from across America. The survey recruited respondents through online social media and at places described as “LGBT youth centers.” {{ref|HRC}} 10030 LGBT youth between the ages of 13 and 17 responded and their data were compared to those of 510 “straight” youth who were already members of online panels used in market research. HRC acknowledges issues with sampling place limitations on the survey data. The report on the survey explains, “Traditional measures of margin of error do not apply and the results here may not be representative of this population as a whole.” {{ref|HRC}}

Setting aside concerns with the methodology, the survey does yield some interesting results. When the survey first appeared in the media, emphasis was placed on differences between national averages and averages of youth in Utah. Most repeated were figures showing Utah youth were more likely to be verbally harassed and feel like they didn’t “fit in” in their communities.

However, the media seem to have ignored data showing LGBT youth in Utah were better connected to support from adults and family members than national averages.

Utah youth replied that they were “happy” 38% of the time while the national number, though close, is slightly lower at 37%.

When asked if they had “no adult to turn to” 29% of LGBT youth nationwide agreed while only 24% of Utah youth agreed. In Utah, LGBT youth are more likely to have an adult they can rely on involved in their lives.

LGBT youth inside Utah and across the country reported being “out” to immediate family at similar level with Utah youth being slightly more open at 58% instead of the national average of 56%. However, Utah youth were more open with their extended families. 34% of Utah youth were “out” with their extended families while on the national level only 25% of youth were “out” with their extended families.

When asked if they had an adult they could go to when worried or sad, 59% of Utah youth said “yes.” That’s far more than the 49% of youth across the country who report having access to this kind of emotional support from adults.

It’s possible that these supportive adults could be social workers or other non-family members. However, two factors point away from this possibility. The first is that Utah youths report greater than average feelings of animosity between themselves and the local and state governments that would be funding and supporting social agencies. {{ref|SLTribtable}} The second factor is that, when asked if their families were “not accepting” of their LGBT identity, youth in Utah were less likely (29%) to say they were not accepted than their peers in the rest of the US (33%). {{ref|SLTribtable}}

According to the HRC survey data, Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other LGBT American youth, not less. This finding runs counter to the assumption that LDS homes are more prone to break off ties with non-heterosexual children.

The results of the HRC survey depict Utah as a state where LGBT youth tend to feel more comfortable and connected to adults in general and to their families in particular than other LGBT American youth. Whether reported in the media or not, the data can speak for themselves to defy critics’ assertions and prejudices.

Failing to report on areas where Utah performs better in caring for LGBT youth than the nation as a whole is not the only foul committed by media outlets. They have also mistakenly reported a direct connection between being LGBT and being homeless because of being "kicked out" by intolerant parents. Either due to ignorance or perhaps for more cunning reasons, media covering the story have made statements claiming the 42% of homeless youth in Utah who are LGBT "report experiencing family rejection and being kicked out of their homes." {{ref|SLTrib}} This is simply wrong. The 42% figure refers only to the proportion of homeless youth who self-identify as LGBT. It says nothing about the reasons why this 42% are homeless. The youths' reasons for leaving home are as complex and varied as they are. Apart from not being borne out by any data, the idea that such a perfect correlation could exist between any two social factors (including factors like being LGBT and being kicked out of one's home) is highly unlikely.

===The Case for Causation===

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected by VOAU or HRC definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in gay youth. When asked about the causes of homelessness in gay youth, a VOAU vice-president told the Salt Lake Tribune the reasons for homelessness were mixed. He named economic factors (especially since the recession began), lapses in foster care, and abuse as well as irreconcilable differences between parents and children about sexual orientation. {{ref|SLTrib}}

Even when sexual orientation was the issue, it is sometimes the children, not the parents who insist on the separation that makes the child homeless.

And, as always, there are other faith groups in Utah besides the LDS Church. They also have children who identify as LGBT. In the Salt Lake Tribune’s coverage of the story in June 2012, the young woman interviewed about her experience of being kicked out of her home due to her sexual orientation was from a religious background that was not LDS. {{ref|SLTrib}} It’s just one anecdotal shred of evidence but it does reveal a problem with the assumption that all homeless LGBT youth in Utah are being victimized by the LDS Church.

===Church Teachings===

LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances. {{s||DC|83|4}} reads:

:All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.

{{b||Luke|17|2}} reads:

:It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

In 1992, the Church issued a statement to Church leaders saying:

:"If a person with homosexual problems chooses not to change, family members may have difficulty maintaining feelings of love and acceptance toward the person. Encourage them to continue loving the person and hoping that he or she may repent."{{ref|church.1992}}

In 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World taught:

:Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations... Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.{{ref|proc.1995}}

In 2007, Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman had an interview in which they were asked what they would do if they had a child who decided to be in a same-sex relationship. Elder Oaks responded:

:"It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”

:My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, “My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth...

:"Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues... even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues."{{ref|oaks.1}}

In the same interview, Elder Wickman responded:

:With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them...

:That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.{{ref|wickman.1}}

Families with members with same-sex attractions, including those in same-sex relationships, are strengthened through living the principles of love and respect taught by Jesus Christ. The sister of a woman (Leigh) who is involved in a sexual relationship with another woman wrote an "Ensign" article in which she describes how the Church has helped her with her relationship with her sister:

:"I know the best thing I can do to have a close relationship with my sister is to have a close relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. Leigh recently commented that it has been through the way our family has loved her that she has felt what she understood to be God’s love."{{ref|ensign.1}}

While we are taught to love and treat everyone with kindness, the Church puts particular weight on the way we treat our family members, including those who are attracted to the same sex. In order to enter into the temple, a member must first answer this question:

:Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

If there is anything that is not in harmony with the teachings, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

===Other citations===
Further citations which illustrate these same principles include:

Elder Quenton L. Cook in 2009:

:It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation “free for all men” but has “commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.”{{ref|cook.2009}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|UPR}} Jessica Gail, “Utah, one of the worst places to be LGBT and homeless,” Utah Public Radio, June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10, 2012. http://upr.org/post/utah-one-worst-places-be-lgbt-and-homeless
#{{note|taskforce}} Nicholas Ray, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness,” National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf
#{{note|affirmation}} “Throw-Away Kids,” originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.
#{{note|HRC}} “Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings,” Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.
#{{note|SLTribtable}} Rebecca Trounson, “Gay teens less likely to be happy, nationwide survey finds,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 7, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54262370-68/gay-percent-lgbt-survey.html.csp.
# {{note|SLTrib}} Melinda Rogers, “LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.
#{{note|ryan2010}} [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x/full Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults]
#{{note|church.1992}} Understand and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems
#{{note|proc.1995}} {{General Conference|article=The Family: A Proclamation to the World|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|date=1995}}
#{{note|oaks.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|wickman.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|ensign.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=35ce1a01e8d43210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|article=The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh|date=2009}}
#{{note|cook.2009}} {{General Conference|author=Quinton L. Cook|article=Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children|date=April 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/our-fathers-plan-big-enough-for-all-his-children?lang=eng}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: Are Mormon family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless?

2012-08-13T03:25:47Z

JenniferQuist: /* Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}

=={{Criticism label}}==

Reports have appeared in the American media stating that large portions of the homeless youth in Utah are gay. Critics imply that the substantial LDS population in this area explains these high numbers of homeless youth. It’s inferred that LDS families force children with non-heterosexual orientations out of their homes.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered “an epidemic.” LGBT youth are homeless more often than straight youth all over the country, not just in Utah. A recent survey of LGBT youth in America found that while feeling more disconnected from peers and communities than youth across the country, LGBT youth in Utah actually enjoyed better and more supportive and accepting connections to family than youth nationwide. No statistics have ever been generated to show causal links between LDS affiliation and homelessness among LGBT youth.

Furthermore, believing in a moral code does not automatically result in the rejection of those who struggle with the code or who break the code. Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children. However, some parents may ignore the counsel of Church leaders and the scriptures and force LGBT children out of their homes. The Church is clear that this is not in harmony with the gospel, and that such parents are not worthy to hold temple recommends. The teachings of the Church help family members love and respect their children, regardless of sexual orientation or behavior. This love and respect leads to an increase of the child's mental and physical health.{{ref|ryan2010}} (See also [[Mormonism and culture/Wayward family members]])

== ==
{{Response label}}

There are several problems with the assertion that LDS families in Utah reject and expelled LGBT children from their homes:

1) Rates of homelessness among gay youth in Utah are similar to those found in other areas of the US. The high incidence is not limited to states with large LDS communities.

2) A national survey of LGBT youth in America found that youth in Utah actually enjoy better support from adults and family members than national averages. However, the youth reported more problems with peers and larger social structures and the media focused on these negative statistics. So far, the media have ignored the positive numbers on family support.

3) A causal connection between homelessness among gay youth and the LDS Church has never been substantiated with data. It remains merely an assertion and an expression of prejudice.

4) Church leaders and scriptures explicitly teach that children have claim on their parents for support. In addition to this responsibility, parents and other family members are instructed to extend unconditional love regardless of individual behaviors.

===Utah and the National Average===

Statistics on sexual orientation among homeless youth in Utah are typically derived from a survey given to youth ages 15 to 22 who access services for the homeless in Utah. It’s a written survey administered by Volunteers of America Utah. VOAU regularly surveys homeless youth using their facilities, inquiring about many factors including sexual orientation, the reasons for homelessness, and family background. In news items from 2012, a VOAU vice-president is quoted saying a recent survey revealed 42% of homeless youth using VOAU services self-identified as LGBT. {{ref|UPR}}

While reports of homelessness among gay youth collected by VOAU are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states.

The percentage of homeless youth throughout all of the US who self-identify as LGBT moves between 20 and 40 percent {{ref|taskforce}}. Most of the time, Utah posts rates of homeless gay youth at around one third, in the middle of the national range. {{ref|affirmation}} The finding of 42% is a high point. All gay youth, not just those in states with large LDS populations, experience homelessness at rates disproportionate to the rest of the population. Nationwide, the problem has been called “an epidemic.” {{ref|taskforce}} This doesn’t diminish the tragedy of the Utah figures but it does strengthen the notion that the Utah findings are typical of American society and are not aberrations arising from subcultures like the LDS Church.

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average. When questioned about the 2008 numbers, one manager of a program for homeless youth suggested it might have resulted from a change in the way youth were asked about their sexuality. Instead of asking them to identify themselves as straight, gay, lesbian, or transgendered, respondents were allowed to choose “other than heterosexual.” {{ref|affirmation}} It’s an option respondents might have been more comfortable with since many of them feel they’re still forming their identities and resist narrower definitions.

===Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah===

In 2012, the Washington D.C. based Human Rights Campaign released the partial results of an online survey of LGBT youth from across America. The survey recruited respondents through online social media and at places described as “LGBT youth centers.” {{ref|HRC}} 10030 LGBT youth between the ages of 13 and 17 responded and their data were compared to those of 510 “straight” youth who were already members of online panels used in market research. HRC acknowledges issues with sampling place limitations on the survey data. The report on the survey explains, “Traditional measures of margin of error do not apply and the results here may not be representative of this population as a whole.” {{ref|HRC}}

Setting aside concerns with the methodology, the survey does yield some interesting results. When the survey first appeared in the media, emphasis was placed on differences between national averages and averages of youth in Utah. Most repeated were figures showing Utah youth were more likely to be verbally harassed and feel like they didn’t “fit in” in their communities.

However, the media seem to have ignored data showing LGBT youth in Utah were better connected to support from adults and family members than national averages.

Utah youth replied that they were “happy” 38% of the time while the national number, though close, is slightly lower at 37%.

When asked if they had “no adult to turn to” 29% of LGBT youth nationwide agreed while only 24% of Utah youth agreed. In Utah, LGBT youth are more likely to have an adult they can rely on involved in their lives.

LGBT youth inside Utah and across the country reported being “out” to immediate family at similar level with Utah youth being slightly more open at 58% instead of the national average of 56%. However, Utah youth were more open with their extended families. 34% of Utah youth were “out” with their extended families while on the national level only 25% of youth were “out” with their extended families.

When asked if they had an adult they could go to when worried or sad, 59% of Utah youth said “yes.” That’s far more than the 49% of youth across the country who report having access to this kind of emotional support from adults.

It’s possible that these supportive adults could be social workers or other non-family members. However, two factors point away from this possibility. The first is that Utah youths report greater than average feelings of animosity between themselves and the local and state governments that would be funding and supporting social agencies. {{ref|SLTribtable}} The second factor is that, when asked if their families were “not accepting” of their LGBT identity, youth in Utah were less likely (29%) to say they were not accepted than their peers in the rest of the US (33%). {{ref|SLTribtable}}

According to the HRC survey data, Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other LGBT American youth, not less. This finding runs counter to the assumption that LDS homes are more prone to break off ties with non-heterosexual children.

The results of the HRC survey depict Utah as a state where LGBT youth tend to feel more comfortable and connected to adults in general and to their families in particular than other LGBT American youth. Whether reported in the media or not, the data can speak for themselves to defy critics’ assertions and prejudices.

Failing to report on areas where Utah performs better in caring for LGBT youth than the nation as a whole is not the only foul committed by media outlets. They have also mistakenly reported a direct connection between being LGBT and being homeless because of being "kicked out" by intolerant parents. Either due to ignorance or perhaps for more cunning reasons, media covering the story have made statements claiming the 42% of homeless youth in Utah who are LGBT "report experiencing family rejection and being kicked out of their homes." {{ref|SLTrib}} This is simply wrong. The 42% figure refers only to the proportion of homeless youth who self-identify as LGBT. It says nothing about the reasons why this 42% are homeless. The youths' reasons for leaving home are as complex and varied as they are. Apart from not being borne out by any data, the idea that such a perfect correlation could exist between two social factors (being LGBT and being kicked out of one's home) is highly unlikely.

===The Case for Causation===

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected by VOAU or HRC definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in gay youth. When asked about the causes of homelessness in gay youth, a VOAU vice-president told the Salt Lake Tribune the reasons for homelessness were mixed. He named economic factors (especially since the recession began), lapses in foster care, and abuse as well as irreconcilable differences between parents and children about sexual orientation. {{ref|SLTrib}}

Even when sexual orientation was the issue, it is sometimes the children, not the parents who insist on the separation that makes the child homeless.

And, as always, there are other faith groups in Utah besides the LDS Church. They also have children who identify as LGBT. In the Salt Lake Tribune’s coverage of the story in June 2012, the young woman interviewed about her experience of being kicked out of her home due to her sexual orientation was from a religious background that was not LDS. {{ref|SLTrib}} It’s just one anecdotal shred of evidence but it does reveal a problem with the assumption that all homeless LGBT youth in Utah are being victimized by the LDS Church.

===Church Teachings===

LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances. {{s||DC|83|4}} reads:

:All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.

{{b||Luke|17|2}} reads:

:It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

In 1992, the Church issued a statement to Church leaders saying:

:"If a person with homosexual problems chooses not to change, family members may have difficulty maintaining feelings of love and acceptance toward the person. Encourage them to continue loving the person and hoping that he or she may repent."{{ref|church.1992}}

In 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World taught:

:Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations... Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.{{ref|proc.1995}}

In 2007, Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman had an interview in which they were asked what they would do if they had a child who decided to be in a same-sex relationship. Elder Oaks responded:

:"It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”

:My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, “My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth...

:"Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues... even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues."{{ref|oaks.1}}

In the same interview, Elder Wickman responded:

:With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them...

:That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.{{ref|wickman.1}}

Families with members with same-sex attractions, including those in same-sex relationships, are strengthened through living the principles of love and respect taught by Jesus Christ. The sister of a woman (Leigh) who is involved in a sexual relationship with another woman wrote an "Ensign" article in which she describes how the Church has helped her with her relationship with her sister:

:"I know the best thing I can do to have a close relationship with my sister is to have a close relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. Leigh recently commented that it has been through the way our family has loved her that she has felt what she understood to be God’s love."{{ref|ensign.1}}

While we are taught to love and treat everyone with kindness, the Church puts particular weight on the way we treat our family members, including those who are attracted to the same sex. In order to enter into the temple, a member must first answer this question:

:Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

If there is anything that is not in harmony with the teachings, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

===Other citations===
Further citations which illustrate these same principles include:

Elder Quenton L. Cook in 2009:

:It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation “free for all men” but has “commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.”{{ref|cook.2009}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|UPR}} Jessica Gail, “Utah, one of the worst places to be LGBT and homeless,” Utah Public Radio, June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10, 2012. http://upr.org/post/utah-one-worst-places-be-lgbt-and-homeless
#{{note|taskforce}} Nicholas Ray, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness,” National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf
#{{note|affirmation}} “Throw-Away Kids,” originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.
#{{note|HRC}} “Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings,” Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.
#{{note|SLTribtable}} Rebecca Trounson, “Gay teens less likely to be happy, nationwide survey finds,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 7, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54262370-68/gay-percent-lgbt-survey.html.csp.
# {{note|SLTrib}} Melinda Rogers, “LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.
#{{note|ryan2010}} [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x/full Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults]
#{{note|church.1992}} Understand and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems
#{{note|proc.1995}} {{General Conference|article=The Family: A Proclamation to the World|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|date=1995}}
#{{note|oaks.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|wickman.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|ensign.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=35ce1a01e8d43210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|article=The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh|date=2009}}
#{{note|cook.2009}} {{General Conference|author=Quinton L. Cook|article=Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children|date=April 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/our-fathers-plan-big-enough-for-all-his-children?lang=eng}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: Are Mormon family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless?

2012-08-13T03:21:03Z

JenniferQuist: /* Utah and the National Average */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}

=={{Criticism label}}==

Reports have appeared in the American media stating that large portions of the homeless youth in Utah are gay. Critics imply that the substantial LDS population in this area explains these high numbers of homeless youth. It’s inferred that LDS families force children with non-heterosexual orientations out of their homes.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered “an epidemic.” LGBT youth are homeless more often than straight youth all over the country, not just in Utah. A recent survey of LGBT youth in America found that while feeling more disconnected from peers and communities than youth across the country, LGBT youth in Utah actually enjoyed better and more supportive and accepting connections to family than youth nationwide. No statistics have ever been generated to show causal links between LDS affiliation and homelessness among LGBT youth.

Furthermore, believing in a moral code does not automatically result in the rejection of those who struggle with the code or who break the code. Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children. However, some parents may ignore the counsel of Church leaders and the scriptures and force LGBT children out of their homes. The Church is clear that this is not in harmony with the gospel, and that such parents are not worthy to hold temple recommends. The teachings of the Church help family members love and respect their children, regardless of sexual orientation or behavior. This love and respect leads to an increase of the child's mental and physical health.{{ref|ryan2010}} (See also [[Mormonism and culture/Wayward family members]])

== ==
{{Response label}}

There are several problems with the assertion that LDS families in Utah reject and expelled LGBT children from their homes:

1) Rates of homelessness among gay youth in Utah are similar to those found in other areas of the US. The high incidence is not limited to states with large LDS communities.

2) A national survey of LGBT youth in America found that youth in Utah actually enjoy better support from adults and family members than national averages. However, the youth reported more problems with peers and larger social structures and the media focused on these negative statistics. So far, the media have ignored the positive numbers on family support.

3) A causal connection between homelessness among gay youth and the LDS Church has never been substantiated with data. It remains merely an assertion and an expression of prejudice.

4) Church leaders and scriptures explicitly teach that children have claim on their parents for support. In addition to this responsibility, parents and other family members are instructed to extend unconditional love regardless of individual behaviors.

===Utah and the National Average===

Statistics on sexual orientation among homeless youth in Utah are typically derived from a survey given to youth ages 15 to 22 who access services for the homeless in Utah. It’s a written survey administered by Volunteers of America Utah. VOAU regularly surveys homeless youth using their facilities, inquiring about many factors including sexual orientation, the reasons for homelessness, and family background. In news items from 2012, a VOAU vice-president is quoted saying a recent survey revealed 42% of homeless youth using VOAU services self-identified as LGBT. {{ref|UPR}}

While reports of homelessness among gay youth collected by VOAU are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states.

The percentage of homeless youth throughout all of the US who self-identify as LGBT moves between 20 and 40 percent {{ref|taskforce}}. Most of the time, Utah posts rates of homeless gay youth at around one third, in the middle of the national range. {{ref|affirmation}} The finding of 42% is a high point. All gay youth, not just those in states with large LDS populations, experience homelessness at rates disproportionate to the rest of the population. Nationwide, the problem has been called “an epidemic.” {{ref|taskforce}} This doesn’t diminish the tragedy of the Utah figures but it does strengthen the notion that the Utah findings are typical of American society and are not aberrations arising from subcultures like the LDS Church.

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average. When questioned about the 2008 numbers, one manager of a program for homeless youth suggested it might have resulted from a change in the way youth were asked about their sexuality. Instead of asking them to identify themselves as straight, gay, lesbian, or transgendered, respondents were allowed to choose “other than heterosexual.” {{ref|affirmation}} It’s an option respondents might have been more comfortable with since many of them feel they’re still forming their identities and resist narrower definitions.

===Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah===

In 2012, the Washington D.C. based Human Rights Campaign released the partial results of an online survey of LGBT youth from across America. The survey recruited respondents through online social media and at places described as “LGBT youth centers.” {{ref|HRC}} 10030 LGBT youth between the ages of 13 and 17 responded and their data were compared to those of 510 “straight” youth who were already members of online panels used in market research. HRC acknowledges issues with sampling place limitations on the survey data. The report on the survey explains, “Traditional measures of margin of error do not apply and the results here may not be representative of this population as a whole.” {{ref|HRC}}

Setting aside concerns with the methodology, the survey does yield some interesting results. When the survey first appeared in the media, emphasis was placed on differences between national averages and averages of youth in Utah. Most repeated were figures showing Utah youth were more likely to be verbally harassed and feel like they didn’t “fit in” in their communities.

However, the media seem to have ignored data showing LGBT youth in Utah were better connected to support from adults and family members than national averages.

Utah youth replied that they were “happy” 38% of the time while the national number, though close, is slightly lower at 37%.

When asked if they had “no adult to turn to” 29% of gay youth nationwide agreed while only 24% of Utah youth agreed. In Utah, gay youth are more likely to have an adult they can rely on involved in their lives.

Gay youth inside Utah and across the country reported being “out” to immediate family at similar level with Utah youth being slightly more open at 58% instead of the national average of 56%. However, Utah youth were more open with their extended families. 34% of Utah youth were “out” with their extended families while on the national level only 25% of youth were “out” with their extended families.

When asked if they had an adult they could go to when worried or sad, 59% of Utah youth said “yes.” That’s far more than the 49% of youth across the country who report having access to this kind of emotional support from adults.

It’s possible that these supportive adults could be social workers or other non-family members. However, two factors point away from this possibility. The first is that Utah youths report greater than average feelings of animosity between themselves and the local and state governments that would be funding and supporting social agencies. {{ref|SLTribtable}} The second factor is that, when asked if their families were “not accepting” of their LGBT identity, youth in Utah were less likely (29%) to say they were not accepted than their peers in the rest of the US (33%). {{ref|SLTribtable}}

According to the HRC survey data, Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other gay American youth, not less. This finding runs counter to the assumption that LDS homes are more prone to break off ties with non-heterosexual children.

The results of the HRC survey depict Utah as a state where gay youth generally feel more comfortable and connected to adults in general and to their families in particular than other gay American youth. Whether reported in the media or not, the data can speak for themselves to defy critics’ assertions and prejudices.

Failing to report on areas where Utah performs better in caring for LGBT youth than the nation as a whole is not the only foul committed by media outlets. They have also mistakenly reported a direct connection between being LGBT and being homeless because of being "kicked out" by intolerant parents. Either due to ignorance or perhaps for more cunning reasons, media covering the story have made statements claiming the 42% of homeless youth in Utah who are LGBT "report experiencing family rejection and being kicked out of their homes." {{ref|SLTrib}} This is simply wrong. The 42% figure refers only to the proportion of homeless youth who self-identify as LGBT. It says nothing about the reasons why this 42% are homeless. The youths' reasons for leaving home are as complex and varied as they are. Apart from not being borne out by any data, the idea that such a perfect correlation could exist between two social factors (being LGBT and being kicked out of one's home) is highly unlikely.

===The Case for Causation===

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected by VOAU or HRC definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in gay youth. When asked about the causes of homelessness in gay youth, a VOAU vice-president told the Salt Lake Tribune the reasons for homelessness were mixed. He named economic factors (especially since the recession began), lapses in foster care, and abuse as well as irreconcilable differences between parents and children about sexual orientation. {{ref|SLTrib}}

Even when sexual orientation was the issue, it is sometimes the children, not the parents who insist on the separation that makes the child homeless.

And, as always, there are other faith groups in Utah besides the LDS Church. They also have children who identify as LGBT. In the Salt Lake Tribune’s coverage of the story in June 2012, the young woman interviewed about her experience of being kicked out of her home due to her sexual orientation was from a religious background that was not LDS. {{ref|SLTrib}} It’s just one anecdotal shred of evidence but it does reveal a problem with the assumption that all homeless LGBT youth in Utah are being victimized by the LDS Church.

===Church Teachings===

LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances. {{s||DC|83|4}} reads:

:All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.

{{b||Luke|17|2}} reads:

:It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

In 1992, the Church issued a statement to Church leaders saying:

:"If a person with homosexual problems chooses not to change, family members may have difficulty maintaining feelings of love and acceptance toward the person. Encourage them to continue loving the person and hoping that he or she may repent."{{ref|church.1992}}

In 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World taught:

:Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations... Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.{{ref|proc.1995}}

In 2007, Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman had an interview in which they were asked what they would do if they had a child who decided to be in a same-sex relationship. Elder Oaks responded:

:"It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”

:My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, “My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth...

:"Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues... even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues."{{ref|oaks.1}}

In the same interview, Elder Wickman responded:

:With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them...

:That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.{{ref|wickman.1}}

Families with members with same-sex attractions, including those in same-sex relationships, are strengthened through living the principles of love and respect taught by Jesus Christ. The sister of a woman (Leigh) who is involved in a sexual relationship with another woman wrote an "Ensign" article in which she describes how the Church has helped her with her relationship with her sister:

:"I know the best thing I can do to have a close relationship with my sister is to have a close relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. Leigh recently commented that it has been through the way our family has loved her that she has felt what she understood to be God’s love."{{ref|ensign.1}}

While we are taught to love and treat everyone with kindness, the Church puts particular weight on the way we treat our family members, including those who are attracted to the same sex. In order to enter into the temple, a member must first answer this question:

:Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

If there is anything that is not in harmony with the teachings, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

===Other citations===
Further citations which illustrate these same principles include:

Elder Quenton L. Cook in 2009:

:It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation “free for all men” but has “commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.”{{ref|cook.2009}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|UPR}} Jessica Gail, “Utah, one of the worst places to be LGBT and homeless,” Utah Public Radio, June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10, 2012. http://upr.org/post/utah-one-worst-places-be-lgbt-and-homeless
#{{note|taskforce}} Nicholas Ray, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness,” National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf
#{{note|affirmation}} “Throw-Away Kids,” originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.
#{{note|HRC}} “Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings,” Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.
#{{note|SLTribtable}} Rebecca Trounson, “Gay teens less likely to be happy, nationwide survey finds,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 7, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54262370-68/gay-percent-lgbt-survey.html.csp.
# {{note|SLTrib}} Melinda Rogers, “LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.
#{{note|ryan2010}} [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x/full Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults]
#{{note|church.1992}} Understand and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems
#{{note|proc.1995}} {{General Conference|article=The Family: A Proclamation to the World|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|date=1995}}
#{{note|oaks.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|wickman.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|ensign.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=35ce1a01e8d43210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|article=The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh|date=2009}}
#{{note|cook.2009}} {{General Conference|author=Quinton L. Cook|article=Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children|date=April 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/our-fathers-plan-big-enough-for-all-his-children?lang=eng}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: Are Mormon family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless?

2012-08-12T05:41:24Z

JenniferQuist: /* Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}

=={{Criticism label}}==

Reports have appeared in the American media stating that large portions of the homeless youth in Utah are gay. Critics imply that the substantial LDS population in this area explains these high numbers of homeless youth. It’s inferred that LDS families force children with non-heterosexual orientations out of their homes.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered “an epidemic.” LGBT youth are homeless more often than straight youth all over the country, not just in Utah. A recent survey of LGBT youth in America found that while feeling more disconnected from peers and communities than youth across the country, LGBT youth in Utah actually enjoyed better and more supportive and accepting connections to family than youth nationwide. No statistics have ever been generated to show causal links between LDS affiliation and homelessness among LGBT youth.

Furthermore, believing in a moral code does not automatically result in the rejection of those who struggle with the code or who break the code. Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children. However, some parents may ignore the counsel of Church leaders and the scriptures and force LGBT children out of their homes. The Church is clear that this is not in harmony with the gospel, and that such parents are not worthy to hold temple recommends. The teachings of the Church help family members love and respect their children, regardless of sexual orientation or behavior. This love and respect leads to an increase of the child's mental and physical health.{{ref|ryan2010}} (See also [[Mormonism and culture/Wayward family members]])

== ==
{{Response label}}

There are several problems with the assertion that LDS families in Utah reject and expelled LGBT children from their homes:

1) Rates of homelessness among gay youth in Utah are similar to those found in other areas of the US. The high incidence is not limited to states with large LDS communities.

2) A national survey of LGBT youth in America found that youth in Utah actually enjoy better support from adults and family members than national averages. However, the youth reported more problems with peers and larger social structures and the media focused on these negative statistics. So far, the media have ignored the positive numbers on family support.

3) A causal connection between homelessness among gay youth and the LDS Church has never been substantiated with data. It remains merely an assertion and an expression of prejudice.

4) Church leaders and scriptures explicitly teach that children have claim on their parents for support. In addition to this responsibility, parents and other family members are instructed to extend unconditional love regardless of individual behaviors.

===Utah and the National Average===

Statistics on sexual orientation among homeless youth in Utah are typically derived from a survey given to youth ages 15 to 22 who access services for the homeless in Utah. It’s a written survey administered by Volunteers of America Utah. VOAU regularly surveys homeless youth using their facilities, inquiring about many factors including sexual orientation, the reasons for homelessness, and family background. In news items from 2012, a VOAU vice-president is quoted saying a recent survey revealed 42% of homeless youth using VOAU services self-identified as LGBT. {{ref|UPR}}

While reports of homelessness among gay youth collected by VOAU are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states.

The percentage of homeless youth throughout all of the US who self-identify as LGBT moves between 20 and 40 percent {{ref|taskforce}}. Most of the time, Utah posts rates of homeless gay youth at around one third, in the middle of the national range. {{ref|affirmation}} The finding of 42% is a high point. All gay youth, not just those in states with large LDS populations, experience homelessness at rates to disproportionate the rest of the population. Nationwide, the problem has been called “an epidemic.” {{ref|taskforce}} This doesn’t diminish the tragedy of the Utah figures but it does strengthen the notion that the Utah findings are typical of American society and are not aberrations arising from subcultures like the LDS Church.

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average. When questioned about the 2008 numbers, one manager of a program for homeless youth suggested it might have resulted from a change in the way youth were asked about their sexuality. Instead of asking them to identify themselves as straight, gay, lesbian, or transgendered, respondents were allowed to choose “other than heterosexual.” {{ref|affirmation}} It’s an option respondents might have been more comfortable with since many of them feel they’re still forming their identities and resist narrower definitions.

===Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah===

In 2012, the Washington D.C. based Human Rights Campaign released the partial results of an online survey of LGBT youth from across America. The survey recruited respondents through online social media and at places described as “LGBT youth centers.” {{ref|HRC}} 10030 LGBT youth between the ages of 13 and 17 responded and their data were compared to those of 510 “straight” youth who were already members of online panels used in market research. HRC acknowledges issues with sampling place limitations on the survey data. The report on the survey explains, “Traditional measures of margin of error do not apply and the results here may not be representative of this population as a whole.” {{ref|HRC}}

Setting aside concerns with the methodology, the survey does yield some interesting results. When the survey first appeared in the media, emphasis was placed on differences between national averages and averages of youth in Utah. Most repeated were figures showing Utah youth were more likely to be verbally harassed and feel like they didn’t “fit in” in their communities.

However, the media seem to have ignored data showing LGBT youth in Utah were better connected to support from adults and family members than national averages.

Utah youth replied that they were “happy” 38% of the time while the national number, though close, is slightly lower at 37%.

When asked if they had “no adult to turn to” 29% of gay youth nationwide agreed while only 24% of Utah youth agreed. In Utah, gay youth are more likely to have an adult they can rely on involved in their lives.

Gay youth inside Utah and across the country reported being “out” to immediate family at similar level with Utah youth being slightly more open at 58% instead of the national average of 56%. However, Utah youth were more open with their extended families. 34% of Utah youth were “out” with their extended families while on the national level only 25% of youth were “out” with their extended families.

When asked if they had an adult they could go to when worried or sad, 59% of Utah youth said “yes.” That’s far more than the 49% of youth across the country who report having access to this kind of emotional support from adults.

It’s possible that these supportive adults could be social workers or other non-family members. However, two factors point away from this possibility. The first is that Utah youths report greater than average feelings of animosity between themselves and the local and state governments that would be funding and supporting social agencies. {{ref|SLTribtable}} The second factor is that, when asked if their families were “not accepting” of their LGBT identity, youth in Utah were less likely (29%) to say they were not accepted than their peers in the rest of the US (33%). {{ref|SLTribtable}}

According to the HRC survey data, Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other gay American youth, not less. This finding runs counter to the assumption that LDS homes are more prone to break off ties with non-heterosexual children.

The results of the HRC survey depict Utah as a state where gay youth generally feel more comfortable and connected to adults in general and to their families in particular than other gay American youth. Whether reported in the media or not, the data can speak for themselves to defy critics’ assertions and prejudices.

Failing to report on areas where Utah performs better in caring for LGBT youth than the nation as a whole is not the only foul committed by media outlets. They have also mistakenly reported a direct connection between being LGBT and being homeless because of being "kicked out" by intolerant parents. Either due to ignorance or perhaps for more cunning reasons, media covering the story have made statements claiming the 42% of homeless youth in Utah who are LGBT "report experiencing family rejection and being kicked out of their homes." {{ref|SLTrib}} This is simply wrong. The 42% figure refers only to the proportion of homeless youth who self-identify as LGBT. It says nothing about the reasons why this 42% are homeless. The youths' reasons for leaving home are as complex and varied as they are. Apart from not being borne out by any data, the idea that such a perfect correlation could exist between two social factors (being LGBT and being kicked out of one's home) is highly unlikely.

===The Case for Causation===

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected by VOAU or HRC definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in gay youth. When asked about the causes of homelessness in gay youth, a VOAU vice-president told the Salt Lake Tribune the reasons for homelessness were mixed. He named economic factors (especially since the recession began), lapses in foster care, and abuse as well as irreconcilable differences between parents and children about sexual orientation. {{ref|SLTrib}}

Even when sexual orientation was the issue, it is sometimes the children, not the parents who insist on the separation that makes the child homeless.

And, as always, there are other faith groups in Utah besides the LDS Church. They also have children who identify as LGBT. In the Salt Lake Tribune’s coverage of the story in June 2012, the young woman interviewed about her experience of being kicked out of her home due to her sexual orientation was from a religious background that was not LDS. {{ref|SLTrib}} It’s just one anecdotal shred of evidence but it does reveal a problem with the assumption that all homeless LGBT youth in Utah are being victimized by the LDS Church.

===Church Teachings===

LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances. {{s||DC|83|4}} reads:

:All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.

{{b||Luke|17|2}} reads:

:It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

In 1992, the Church issued a statement to Church leaders saying:

:"If a person with homosexual problems chooses not to change, family members may have difficulty maintaining feelings of love and acceptance toward the person. Encourage them to continue loving the person and hoping that he or she may repent."{{ref|church.1992}}

In 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World taught:

:Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations... Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.{{ref|proc.1995}}

In 2007, Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman had an interview in which they were asked what they would do if they had a child who decided to be in a same-sex relationship. Elder Oaks responded:

:"It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”

:My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, “My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth...

:"Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues... even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues."{{ref|oaks.1}}

In the same interview, Elder Wickman responded:

:With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them...

:That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.{{ref|wickman.1}}

Families with members with same-sex attractions, including those in same-sex relationships, are strengthened through living the principles of love and respect taught by Jesus Christ. The sister of a woman (Leigh) who is involved in a sexual relationship with another woman wrote an "Ensign" article in which she describes how the Church has helped her with her relationship with her sister:

:"I know the best thing I can do to have a close relationship with my sister is to have a close relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. Leigh recently commented that it has been through the way our family has loved her that she has felt what she understood to be God’s love."{{ref|ensign.1}}

While we are taught to love and treat everyone with kindness, the Church puts particular weight on the way we treat our family members, including those who are attracted to the same sex. In order to enter into the temple, a member must first answer this question:

:Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

If there is anything that is not in harmony with the teachings, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

===Other citations===
Further citations which illustrate these same principles include:

Elder Quenton L. Cook in 2009:

:It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation “free for all men” but has “commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.”{{ref|cook.2009}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|UPR}} Jessica Gail, “Utah, one of the worst places to be LGBT and homeless,” Utah Public Radio, June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10, 2012. http://upr.org/post/utah-one-worst-places-be-lgbt-and-homeless
#{{note|taskforce}} Nicholas Ray, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness,” National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf
#{{note|affirmation}} “Throw-Away Kids,” originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.
#{{note|HRC}} “Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings,” Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.
#{{note|SLTribtable}} Rebecca Trounson, “Gay teens less likely to be happy, nationwide survey finds,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 7, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54262370-68/gay-percent-lgbt-survey.html.csp.
# {{note|SLTrib}} Melinda Rogers, “LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.
#{{note|ryan2010}} [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x/full Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults]
#{{note|church.1992}} Understand and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems
#{{note|proc.1995}} {{General Conference|article=The Family: A Proclamation to the World|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|date=1995}}
#{{note|oaks.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|wickman.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|ensign.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=35ce1a01e8d43210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|article=The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh|date=2009}}
#{{note|cook.2009}} {{General Conference|author=Quinton L. Cook|article=Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children|date=April 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/our-fathers-plan-big-enough-for-all-his-children?lang=eng}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: Are Mormon family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless?

2012-08-11T16:41:48Z

JenniferQuist:

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}

=={{Criticism label}}==

Reports have appeared in the American media stating that large portions of the homeless youth in Utah are gay. Critics imply that the substantial LDS population in this area explains these high numbers of homeless youth. It’s inferred that LDS families force children with non-heterosexual orientations out of their homes.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered “an epidemic.” LGBT youth are homeless more often than straight youth all over the country, not just in Utah. A recent survey of LGBT youth in America found that while feeling more disconnected from peers and communities than youth across the country, LGBT youth in Utah actually enjoyed better and more supportive and accepting connections to family than youth nationwide. No statistics have ever been generated to show causal links between LDS affiliation and homelessness among LGBT youth.

Furthermore, believing in a moral code does not automatically result in the rejection of those who struggle with the code or who break the code. Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children. However, some parents may ignore the counsel of Church leaders and the scriptures and force LGBT children out of their homes. The Church is clear that this is not in harmony with the gospel, and that such parents are not worthy to hold temple recommends. The teachings of the Church help family members love and respect their children, regardless of sexual orientation or behavior. This love and respect leads to an increase of the child's mental and physical health.{{ref|ryan2010}} (See also [[Mormonism and culture/Wayward family members]])

== ==
{{Response label}}

There are several problems with the assertion that LDS families in Utah reject and expelled LGBT children from their homes:

1) Rates of homelessness among gay youth in Utah are similar to those found in other areas of the US. The high incidence is not limited to states with large LDS communities.

2) A national survey of LGBT youth in America found that youth in Utah actually enjoy better support from adults and family members than national averages. However, the youth reported more problems with peers and larger social structures and the media focused on these negative statistics. So far, the media have ignored the positive numbers on family support.

3) A causal connection between homelessness among gay youth and the LDS Church has never been substantiated with data. It remains merely an assertion and an expression of prejudice.

4) Church leaders and scriptures explicitly teach that children have claim on their parents for support. In addition to this responsibility, parents and other family members are instructed to extend unconditional love regardless of individual behaviors.

===Utah and the National Average===

Statistics on sexual orientation among homeless youth in Utah are typically derived from a survey given to youth ages 15 to 22 who access services for the homeless in Utah. It’s a written survey administered by Volunteers of America Utah. VOAU regularly surveys homeless youth using their facilities, inquiring about many factors including sexual orientation, the reasons for homelessness, and family background. In news items from 2012, a VOAU vice-president is quoted saying a recent survey revealed 42% of homeless youth using VOAU services self-identified as LGBT. {{ref|UPR}}

While reports of homelessness among gay youth collected by VOAU are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states.

The percentage of homeless youth throughout all of the US who self-identify as LGBT moves between 20 and 40 percent {{ref|taskforce}}. Most of the time, Utah posts rates of homeless gay youth at around one third, in the middle of the national range. {{ref|affirmation}} The finding of 42% is a high point. All gay youth, not just those in states with large LDS populations, experience homelessness at rates to disproportionate the rest of the population. Nationwide, the problem has been called “an epidemic.” {{ref|taskforce}} This doesn’t diminish the tragedy of the Utah figures but it does strengthen the notion that the Utah findings are typical of American society and are not aberrations arising from subcultures like the LDS Church.

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average. When questioned about the 2008 numbers, one manager of a program for homeless youth suggested it might have resulted from a change in the way youth were asked about their sexuality. Instead of asking them to identify themselves as straight, gay, lesbian, or transgendered, respondents were allowed to choose “other than heterosexual.” {{ref|affirmation}} It’s an option respondents might have been more comfortable with since many of them feel they’re still forming their identities and resist narrower definitions.

===Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah===

In 2012, the Washington D.C. based Human Rights Campaign released the partial results of an online survey of LGBT youth from across America. The survey recruited respondents through online social media and at places described as “LGBT youth centers.” {{ref|HRC}} 10030 LGBT youth between the ages of 13 and 17 responded and their data were compared to those of 510 “straight” youth who were already members of online panels used in market research. HRC acknowledges issues with sampling place limitations on the survey data. The report on the survey explains, “Traditional measures of margin of error do not apply and the results here may not be representative of this population as a whole.” {{ref|HRC}}

Setting aside concerns with the methodology, the survey does yield some interesting results. When the survey first appeared in the media, emphasis was placed on differences between national averages and averages of youth in Utah. Most repeated were figures showing Utah youth were more likely to be verbally harassed and feel like they didn’t “fit in” in their communities.

However, the media seem to have ignored data showing LGBT youth in Utah were better connected to support from adults and family members than national averages.

Utah youth replied that they were “happy” 38% of the time while the national number, though close, is slightly lower at 37%.

When asked if they had “no adult to turn to” 29% of gay youth nationwide agreed while only 24% of Utah youth agreed. In Utah, gay youth are more likely to have an adult they can rely on involved in their lives.

Gay youth inside Utah and across the country reported being “out” to immediate family at similar level with Utah youth being slightly more open at 58% instead of the national average of 56%. However, Utah youth were more open with their extended families. 34% of Utah youth were “out” with their extended families while on the national level only 25% of youth were “out” with their extended families.

When asked if they had an adult they could go to when worried or sad, 59% of Utah youth said “yes.” That’s far more than the 49% of youth across the country who report having access to this kind of emotional support from adults.

It’s possible that these supportive adults could be social workers or other non-family members. However, two factors point away from this possibility. The first is that Utah youths report greater than average feelings of animosity between themselves and the local and state governments that would be funding and supporting social agencies. {{ref|SLTribtable}} The second factor is that, when asked if their families were “not accepting” of their LGBT identity, youth in Utah were less likely (29%) to say they were not accepted than their peers in the rest of the US (33%). {{ref|SLTribtable}}

According to the HRC survey data, Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other gay American youth, not less. This finding runs counter to the assumption that LDS homes are more prone to break off ties with non-heterosexual children.

The results of the HRC survey depict Utah as a state where gay youth generally feel more comfortable and connected to adults in general and to their families in particular than other gay American youth. Whether reported in the media or not, the data can speak for themselves to defy critics’ assertions and prejudices.

===The Case for Causation===

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected by VOAU or HRC definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in gay youth. When asked about the causes of homelessness in gay youth, a VOAU vice-president told the Salt Lake Tribune the reasons for homelessness were mixed. He named economic factors (especially since the recession began), lapses in foster care, and abuse as well as irreconcilable differences between parents and children about sexual orientation. {{ref|SLTrib}}

Even when sexual orientation was the issue, it is sometimes the children, not the parents who insist on the separation that makes the child homeless.

And, as always, there are other faith groups in Utah besides the LDS Church. They also have children who identify as LGBT. In the Salt Lake Tribune’s coverage of the story in June 2012, the young woman interviewed about her experience of being kicked out of her home due to her sexual orientation was from a religious background that was not LDS. {{ref|SLTrib}} It’s just one anecdotal shred of evidence but it does reveal a problem with the assumption that all homeless LGBT youth in Utah are being victimized by the LDS Church.

===Church Teachings===

LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances. {{s||DC|83|4}} reads:

:All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.

{{b||Luke|17|2}} reads:

:It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

In 1992, the Church issued a statement to Church leaders saying:

:"If a person with homosexual problems chooses not to change, family members may have difficulty maintaining feelings of love and acceptance toward the person. Encourage them to continue loving the person and hoping that he or she may repent."{{ref|church.1992}}

In 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World taught:

:Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations... Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.{{ref|proc.1995}}

In 2007, Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman had an interview in which they were asked what they would do if they had a child who decided to be in a same-sex relationship. Elder Oaks responded:

:"It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”

:My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, “My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth...

:"Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues... even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues."{{ref|oaks.1}}

In the same interview, Elder Wickman responded:

:With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them...

:That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.{{ref|wickman.1}}

Families with members with same-sex attractions, including those in same-sex relationships, are strengthened through living the principles of love and respect taught by Jesus Christ. The sister of a woman (Leigh) who is involved in a sexual relationship with another woman wrote an "Ensign" article in which she describes how the Church has helped her with her relationship with her sister:

:"I know the best thing I can do to have a close relationship with my sister is to have a close relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. Leigh recently commented that it has been through the way our family has loved her that she has felt what she understood to be God’s love."{{ref|ensign.1}}

While we are taught to love and treat everyone with kindness, the Church puts particular weight on the way we treat our family members, including those who are attracted to the same sex. In order to enter into the temple, a member must first answer this question:

:Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

If there is anything that is not in harmony with the teachings, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

===Other citations===
Further citations which illustrate these same principles include:

Elder Quenton L. Cook in 2009:

:It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation “free for all men” but has “commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.”{{ref|cook.2009}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|UPR}} Jessica Gail, “Utah, one of the worst places to be LGBT and homeless,” Utah Public Radio, June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10, 2012. http://upr.org/post/utah-one-worst-places-be-lgbt-and-homeless
#{{note|taskforce}} Nicholas Ray, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness,” National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf
#{{note|affirmation}} “Throw-Away Kids,” originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.
#{{note|HRC}} “Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings,” Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.
#{{note|SLTribtable}} Rebecca Trounson, “Gay teens less likely to be happy, nationwide survey finds,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 7, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54262370-68/gay-percent-lgbt-survey.html.csp.
# {{note|SLTrib}} Melinda Rogers, “LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.
#{{note|ryan2010}} [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x/full Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults]
#{{note|church.1992}} Understand and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems
#{{note|proc.1995}} {{General Conference|article=The Family: A Proclamation to the World|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|date=1995}}
#{{note|oaks.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|wickman.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|ensign.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=35ce1a01e8d43210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|article=The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh|date=2009}}
#{{note|cook.2009}} {{General Conference|author=Quinton L. Cook|article=Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children|date=April 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/our-fathers-plan-big-enough-for-all-his-children?lang=eng}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: Are Mormon family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless?

2012-08-11T15:40:08Z

JenniferQuist: /* {{Conclusion label}} */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}
{{draft}}

=={{Criticism label}}==

Reports have appeared in the American media stating that large portions of the homeless youth in Utah are gay. Critics imply that the substantial LDS population in this area explains these high numbers of homeless youth. It’s inferred that LDS families force children with non-heterosexual orientations out of their homes.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered “an epidemic.” LGBT youth are homeless more often than straight youth all over the country, not just in Utah. A recent survey of LGBT youth in America found that while feeling more disconnected from peers and communities than youth across the country, LGBT youth in Utah actually enjoyed better and more supportive and accepting connections to family than youth nationwide. No statistics have ever been generated to show causal links between LDS affiliation and homelessness among LGBT youth.

Furthermore, believing in a moral code does not automatically result in the rejection of those who struggle with the code or who break the code. Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children. However, some parents may ignore the counsel of Church leaders and the scriptures and force LGBT children out of their homes. The Church is clear that this is not in harmony with the gospel, and that such parents are not worthy to hold temple recommends. The teachings of the Church help family members love and respect their children, regardless of sexual orientation or behavior. This love and respect leads to an increase of the child's mental and physical health.{{ref|ryan2010}} (See also [[Mormonism and culture/Wayward family members]])

== ==
{{Response label}}

There are several problems with the assertion that LDS families in Utah reject and expelled LGBT children from their homes:

1) Rates of homelessness among gay youth in Utah are similar to those found in other areas of the US. The high incidence is not limited to states with large LDS communities.

2) A national survey of LGBT youth in America found that youth in Utah actually enjoy better support from adults and family members than national averages. However, the youth reported more problems with peers and larger social structures and the media focused on these negative statistics. So far, the media have ignored the positive numbers on family support.

3) A causal connection between homelessness among gay youth and the LDS Church has never been substantiated with data. It remains merely an assertion and an expression of prejudice.

4) Church leaders and scriptures explicitly teach that children have claim on their parents for support. In addition to this responsibility, parents and other family members are instructed to extend unconditional love regardless of individual behaviors.

===Utah and the National Average===

Statistics on sexual orientation among homeless youth in Utah are typically derived from a survey given to youth ages 15 to 22 who access services for the homeless in Utah. It’s a written survey administered by Volunteers of America Utah. VOAU regularly surveys homeless youth using their facilities, inquiring about many factors including sexual orientation, the reasons for homelessness, and family background. In news items from 2012, a VOAU vice-president is quoted saying a recent survey revealed 42% of homeless youth using VOAU services self-identified as LGBT. {{ref|UPR}}

While reports of homelessness among gay youth collected by VOAU are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states.

The percentage of homeless youth throughout all of the US who self-identify as LGBT moves between 20 and 40 percent {{ref|taskforce}}. Most of the time, Utah posts rates of homeless gay youth at around one third, in the middle of the national range. {{ref|affirmation}} The finding of 42% is a high point. All gay youth, not just those in states with large LDS populations, experience homelessness at rates to disproportionate the rest of the population. Nationwide, the problem has been called “an epidemic.” {{ref|taskforce}} This doesn’t diminish the tragedy of the Utah figures but it does strengthen the notion that the Utah findings are typical of American society and are not aberrations arising from subcultures like the LDS Church.

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average. When questioned about the 2008 numbers, one manager of a program for homeless youth suggested it might have resulted from a change in the way youth were asked about their sexuality. Instead of asking them to identify themselves as straight, gay, lesbian, or transgendered, respondents were allowed to choose “other than heterosexual.” {{ref|affirmation}} It’s an option respondents might have been more comfortable with since many of them feel they’re still forming their identities and resist narrower definitions.

===Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah===

In 2012, the Washington D.C. based Human Rights Campaign released the partial results of an online survey of LGBT youth from across America. The survey recruited respondents through online social media and at places described as “LGBT youth centers.” {{ref|HRC}} 10030 LGBT youth between the ages of 13 and 17 responded and their data were compared to those of 510 “straight” youth who were already members of online panels used in market research. HRC acknowledges issues with sampling place limitations on the survey data. The report on the survey explains, “Traditional measures of margin of error do not apply and the results here may not be representative of this population as a whole.” {{ref|HRC}}

Setting aside concerns with the methodology, the survey does yield some interesting results. When the survey first appeared in the media, emphasis was placed on differences between national averages and averages of youth in Utah. Most repeated were figures showing Utah youth were more likely to be verbally harassed and feel like they didn’t “fit in” in their communities.

However, the media seem to have ignored data showing LGBT youth in Utah were better connected to support from adults and family members than national averages.

Utah youth replied that they were “happy” 38% of the time while the national number, though close, is slightly lower at 37%.

When asked if they had “no adult to turn to” 29% of gay youth nationwide agreed while only 24% of Utah youth agreed. In Utah, gay youth are more likely to have an adult they can rely on involved in their lives.

Gay youth inside Utah and across the country reported being “out” to immediate family at similar level with Utah youth being slightly more open at 58% instead of the national average of 56%. However, Utah youth were more open with their extended families. 34% of Utah youth were “out” with their extended families while on the national level only 25% of youth were “out” with their extended families.

When asked if they had an adult they could go to when worried or sad, 59% of Utah youth said “yes.” That’s far more than the 49% of youth across the country who report having access to this kind of emotional support from adults.

It’s possible that these supportive adults could be social workers or other non-family members. However, two factors point away from this possibility. The first is that Utah youths report greater than average feelings of animosity between themselves and the local and state governments that would be funding and supporting social agencies. {{ref|SLTribtable}} The second factor is that, when asked if their families were “not accepting” of their LGBT identity, youth in Utah were less likely (29%) to say they were not accepted than their peers in the rest of the US (33%). {{ref|SLTribtable}}

According to the HRC survey data, Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other gay American youth, not less. This finding runs counter to the assumption that LDS homes are more prone to break off ties with non-heterosexual children.

The results of the HRC survey depict Utah as a state where gay youth generally feel more comfortable and connected to adults in general and to their families in particular than other gay American youth. Whether reported in the media or not, the data can speak for themselves to defy critics’ assertions and prejudices.

===The Case for Causation===

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected by VOAU or HRC definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in gay youth. When asked about the causes of homelessness in gay youth, a VOAU vice-president told the Salt Lake Tribune the reasons for homelessness were mixed. He named economic factors (especially since the recession began), lapses in foster care, and abuse as well as irreconcilable differences between parents and children about sexual orientation. {{ref|SLTrib}}

Even when sexual orientation was the issue, it is sometimes the children, not the parents who insist on the separation that makes the child homeless.

And, as always, there are other faith groups in Utah besides the LDS Church. They also have children who identify as LGBT. In the Salt Lake Tribune’s coverage of the story in June 2012, the young woman interviewed about her experience of being kicked out of her home due to her sexual orientation was from a religious background that was not LDS. {{ref|SLTrib}} It’s just one anecdotal shred of evidence but it does reveal a problem with the assumption that all homeless LGBT youth in Utah are being victimized by the LDS Church.

===Church Teachings===

LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances. {{s||DC|83|4}} reads:

:All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.

{{b||Luke|17|2}} reads:

:It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

In 1992, the Church issued a statement to Church leaders saying:

:"If a person with homosexual problems chooses not to change, family members may have difficulty maintaining feelings of love and acceptance toward the person. Encourage them to continue loving the person and hoping that he or she may repent."{{ref|church.1992}}

In 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World taught:

:Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations... Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.{{ref|proc.1995}}

In 2007, Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman had an interview in which they were asked what they would do if they had a child who decided to be in a same-sex relationship. Elder Oaks responded:

:"It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”

:My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, “My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth...

:"Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues... even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues."{{ref|oaks.1}}

In the same interview, Elder Wickman responded:

:With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them...

:That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.{{ref|wickman.1}}

Families with members with same-sex attractions, including those in same-sex relationships, are strengthened through living the principles of love and respect taught by Jesus Christ. The sister of a woman (Leigh) who is involved in a sexual relationship with another woman wrote an "Ensign" article in which she describes how the Church has helped her with her relationship with her sister:

:"I know the best thing I can do to have a close relationship with my sister is to have a close relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. Leigh recently commented that it has been through the way our family has loved her that she has felt what she understood to be God’s love."{{ref|ensign.1}}

While we are taught to love and treat everyone with kindness, the Church puts particular weight on the way we treat our family members, including those who are attracted to the same sex. In order to enter into the temple, a member must first answer this question:

:Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

If there is anything that is not in harmony with the teachings, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

===Other citations===
Further citations which illustrate these same principles include:

Elder Quenton L. Cook in 2009:

:It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation “free for all men” but has “commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.”{{ref|cook.2009}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|UPR}} Jessica Gail, “Utah, one of the worst places to be LGBT and homeless,” Utah Public Radio, June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10, 2012. http://upr.org/post/utah-one-worst-places-be-lgbt-and-homeless
#{{note|taskforce}} Nicholas Ray, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness,” National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf
#{{note|affirmation}} “Throw-Away Kids,” originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012.
http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.
#{{note|HRC}} “Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings,” Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.
#{{note|SLTribtable}} Rebecca Trounson, “Gay teens less likely to be happy, nationwide survey finds,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 7, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54262370-68/gay-percent-lgbt-survey.html.csp.
# {{note|SLTrib}} Melinda Rogers, “LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.
#{{note|ryan2010}} [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x/full Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults]
#{{note|church.1992}} Understand and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems
#{{note|proc.1995}} {{General Conference|article=The Family: A Proclamation to the World|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|date=1995}}
#{{note|oaks.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|wickman.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|ensign.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=35ce1a01e8d43210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|article=The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh|date=2009}}
#{{note|cook.2009}} {{General Conference|author=Quinton L. Cook|article=Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children|date=April 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/our-fathers-plan-big-enough-for-all-his-children?lang=eng}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: Are Mormon family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless?

2012-08-11T15:38:28Z

JenniferQuist: /* {{Conclusion label}} */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}
{{draft}}

=={{Criticism label}}==

Reports have appeared in the American media stating that large portions of the homeless youth in Utah are gay. Critics imply that the substantial LDS population in this area explains these high numbers of homeless youth. It’s inferred that LDS families force children with non-heterosexual orientations out of their homes.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered “an epidemic.” LGBT youth are homeless more often than straight youth all over the country, not just in Utah. A recent survey of LGBT youth in America found that while feeling more disconnected from peers and communities than youth across the country, LGBT youth in Utah actually enjoyed better and more supportive and accepting connections to family than youth nationwide. No statistics have ever been generated to show causal links between LDS affiliation and homelessness among LGBT youth.

Believing in a moral code does not automatically result in the rejection of those who struggle with the code or who break the code. Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children. However, some parents may ignore the counsel of Church leaders and the scriptures and force LGBT children out of their homes. The Church is clear that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church, and that such parents are not worthy to hold a temple recommend. The teachings of the Church help family members love and respect their children, regardless of sexual orientation or behavior. This love and respect leads to an increase of the child's mental and physical health.{{ref|ryan2010}} (See also [[Mormonism and culture/Wayward family members]])

== ==
{{Response label}}

There are several problems with the assertion that LDS families in Utah reject and expelled LGBT children from their homes:

1) Rates of homelessness among gay youth in Utah are similar to those found in other areas of the US. The high incidence is not limited to states with large LDS communities.

2) A national survey of LGBT youth in America found that youth in Utah actually enjoy better support from adults and family members than national averages. However, the youth reported more problems with peers and larger social structures and the media focused on these negative statistics. So far, the media have ignored the positive numbers on family support.

3) A causal connection between homelessness among gay youth and the LDS Church has never been substantiated with data. It remains merely an assertion and an expression of prejudice.

4) Church leaders and scriptures explicitly teach that children have claim on their parents for support. In addition to this responsibility, parents and other family members are instructed to extend unconditional love regardless of individual behaviors.

===Utah and the National Average===

Statistics on sexual orientation among homeless youth in Utah are typically derived from a survey given to youth ages 15 to 22 who access services for the homeless in Utah. It’s a written survey administered by Volunteers of America Utah. VOAU regularly surveys homeless youth using their facilities, inquiring about many factors including sexual orientation, the reasons for homelessness, and family background. In news items from 2012, a VOAU vice-president is quoted saying a recent survey revealed 42% of homeless youth using VOAU services self-identified as LGBT. {{ref|UPR}}

While reports of homelessness among gay youth collected by VOAU are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states.

The percentage of homeless youth throughout all of the US who self-identify as LGBT moves between 20 and 40 percent {{ref|taskforce}}. Most of the time, Utah posts rates of homeless gay youth at around one third, in the middle of the national range. {{ref|affirmation}} The finding of 42% is a high point. All gay youth, not just those in states with large LDS populations, experience homelessness at rates to disproportionate the rest of the population. Nationwide, the problem has been called “an epidemic.” {{ref|taskforce}} This doesn’t diminish the tragedy of the Utah figures but it does strengthen the notion that the Utah findings are typical of American society and are not aberrations arising from subcultures like the LDS Church.

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average. When questioned about the 2008 numbers, one manager of a program for homeless youth suggested it might have resulted from a change in the way youth were asked about their sexuality. Instead of asking them to identify themselves as straight, gay, lesbian, or transgendered, respondents were allowed to choose “other than heterosexual.” {{ref|affirmation}} It’s an option respondents might have been more comfortable with since many of them feel they’re still forming their identities and resist narrower definitions.

===Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah===

In 2012, the Washington D.C. based Human Rights Campaign released the partial results of an online survey of LGBT youth from across America. The survey recruited respondents through online social media and at places described as “LGBT youth centers.” {{ref|HRC}} 10030 LGBT youth between the ages of 13 and 17 responded and their data were compared to those of 510 “straight” youth who were already members of online panels used in market research. HRC acknowledges issues with sampling place limitations on the survey data. The report on the survey explains, “Traditional measures of margin of error do not apply and the results here may not be representative of this population as a whole.” {{ref|HRC}}

Setting aside concerns with the methodology, the survey does yield some interesting results. When the survey first appeared in the media, emphasis was placed on differences between national averages and averages of youth in Utah. Most repeated were figures showing Utah youth were more likely to be verbally harassed and feel like they didn’t “fit in” in their communities.

However, the media seem to have ignored data showing LGBT youth in Utah were better connected to support from adults and family members than national averages.

Utah youth replied that they were “happy” 38% of the time while the national number, though close, is slightly lower at 37%.

When asked if they had “no adult to turn to” 29% of gay youth nationwide agreed while only 24% of Utah youth agreed. In Utah, gay youth are more likely to have an adult they can rely on involved in their lives.

Gay youth inside Utah and across the country reported being “out” to immediate family at similar level with Utah youth being slightly more open at 58% instead of the national average of 56%. However, Utah youth were more open with their extended families. 34% of Utah youth were “out” with their extended families while on the national level only 25% of youth were “out” with their extended families.

When asked if they had an adult they could go to when worried or sad, 59% of Utah youth said “yes.” That’s far more than the 49% of youth across the country who report having access to this kind of emotional support from adults.

It’s possible that these supportive adults could be social workers or other non-family members. However, two factors point away from this possibility. The first is that Utah youths report greater than average feelings of animosity between themselves and the local and state governments that would be funding and supporting social agencies. {{ref|SLTribtable}} The second factor is that, when asked if their families were “not accepting” of their LGBT identity, youth in Utah were less likely (29%) to say they were not accepted than their peers in the rest of the US (33%). {{ref|SLTribtable}}

According to the HRC survey data, Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other gay American youth, not less. This finding runs counter to the assumption that LDS homes are more prone to break off ties with non-heterosexual children.

The results of the HRC survey depict Utah as a state where gay youth generally feel more comfortable and connected to adults in general and to their families in particular than other gay American youth. Whether reported in the media or not, the data can speak for themselves to defy critics’ assertions and prejudices.

===The Case for Causation===

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected by VOAU or HRC definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in gay youth. When asked about the causes of homelessness in gay youth, a VOAU vice-president told the Salt Lake Tribune the reasons for homelessness were mixed. He named economic factors (especially since the recession began), lapses in foster care, and abuse as well as irreconcilable differences between parents and children about sexual orientation. {{ref|SLTrib}}

Even when sexual orientation was the issue, it is sometimes the children, not the parents who insist on the separation that makes the child homeless.

And, as always, there are other faith groups in Utah besides the LDS Church. They also have children who identify as LGBT. In the Salt Lake Tribune’s coverage of the story in June 2012, the young woman interviewed about her experience of being kicked out of her home due to her sexual orientation was from a religious background that was not LDS. {{ref|SLTrib}} It’s just one anecdotal shred of evidence but it does reveal a problem with the assumption that all homeless LGBT youth in Utah are being victimized by the LDS Church.

===Church Teachings===

LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances. {{s||DC|83|4}} reads:

:All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.

{{b||Luke|17|2}} reads:

:It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

In 1992, the Church issued a statement to Church leaders saying:

:"If a person with homosexual problems chooses not to change, family members may have difficulty maintaining feelings of love and acceptance toward the person. Encourage them to continue loving the person and hoping that he or she may repent."{{ref|church.1992}}

In 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World taught:

:Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations... Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.{{ref|proc.1995}}

In 2007, Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman had an interview in which they were asked what they would do if they had a child who decided to be in a same-sex relationship. Elder Oaks responded:

:"It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”

:My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, “My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth...

:"Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues... even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues."{{ref|oaks.1}}

In the same interview, Elder Wickman responded:

:With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them...

:That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.{{ref|wickman.1}}

Families with members with same-sex attractions, including those in same-sex relationships, are strengthened through living the principles of love and respect taught by Jesus Christ. The sister of a woman (Leigh) who is involved in a sexual relationship with another woman wrote an "Ensign" article in which she describes how the Church has helped her with her relationship with her sister:

:"I know the best thing I can do to have a close relationship with my sister is to have a close relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. Leigh recently commented that it has been through the way our family has loved her that she has felt what she understood to be God’s love."{{ref|ensign.1}}

While we are taught to love and treat everyone with kindness, the Church puts particular weight on the way we treat our family members, including those who are attracted to the same sex. In order to enter into the temple, a member must first answer this question:

:Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

If there is anything that is not in harmony with the teachings, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

===Other citations===
Further citations which illustrate these same principles include:

Elder Quenton L. Cook in 2009:

:It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation “free for all men” but has “commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.”{{ref|cook.2009}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|UPR}} Jessica Gail, “Utah, one of the worst places to be LGBT and homeless,” Utah Public Radio, June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10, 2012. http://upr.org/post/utah-one-worst-places-be-lgbt-and-homeless
#{{note|taskforce}} Nicholas Ray, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness,” National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf
#{{note|affirmation}} “Throw-Away Kids,” originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012.
http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.
#{{note|HRC}} “Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings,” Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.
#{{note|SLTribtable}} Rebecca Trounson, “Gay teens less likely to be happy, nationwide survey finds,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 7, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54262370-68/gay-percent-lgbt-survey.html.csp.
# {{note|SLTrib}} Melinda Rogers, “LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.
#{{note|ryan2010}} [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x/full Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults]
#{{note|church.1992}} Understand and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems
#{{note|proc.1995}} {{General Conference|article=The Family: A Proclamation to the World|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|date=1995}}
#{{note|oaks.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|wickman.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|ensign.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=35ce1a01e8d43210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|article=The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh|date=2009}}
#{{note|cook.2009}} {{General Conference|author=Quinton L. Cook|article=Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children|date=April 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/our-fathers-plan-big-enough-for-all-his-children?lang=eng}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: Are Mormon family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless?

2012-08-11T15:32:00Z

JenniferQuist: /* {{Endnotes label}} */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}
{{draft}}

=={{Criticism label}}==

Reports have appeared in the American media stating that large portions of the homeless youth in Utah are gay. Critics imply that the substantial LDS population in this area explains these high numbers of homeless youth. It’s inferred that LDS families force children with non-heterosexual orientations out of their homes.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered “an epidemic.” LGBT youth are homeless more often than straight youth all over the country, not just in Utah. A recent survey of LGBT youth in America found that while feeling disconnected from peers and communities than youth across the country, LGBT youth in Utah actually enjoyed better and more supportive and accepting connections to family than youth nationwide. No statistics have ever been generated to show causal links between LDS affiliation and homelessness among LGBT youth.

Believing in a moral code does not automatically result in the rejection of those who struggle with the code or who break the code. Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children. However, some parents may ignore the counsel of Church leaders and the scriptures and force LGBT children out of their homes. The Church is clear that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church, and that such parents are not worthy to hold a temple recommend. The teachings of the Church help family members love and respect their children, regardless of sexual orientation or behavior. This love and respect leads to an increase of the child's mental and physical health.{{ref|ryan2010}} (See also [[Mormonism and culture/Wayward family members]])

== ==
{{Response label}}

There are several problems with the assertion that LDS families in Utah reject and expelled LGBT children from their homes:

1) Rates of homelessness among gay youth in Utah are similar to those found in other areas of the US. The high incidence is not limited to states with large LDS communities.

2) A national survey of LGBT youth in America found that youth in Utah actually enjoy better support from adults and family members than national averages. However, the youth reported more problems with peers and larger social structures and the media focused on these negative statistics. So far, the media have ignored the positive numbers on family support.

3) A causal connection between homelessness among gay youth and the LDS Church has never been substantiated with data. It remains merely an assertion and an expression of prejudice.

4) Church leaders and scriptures explicitly teach that children have claim on their parents for support. In addition to this responsibility, parents and other family members are instructed to extend unconditional love regardless of individual behaviors.

===Utah and the National Average===

Statistics on sexual orientation among homeless youth in Utah are typically derived from a survey given to youth ages 15 to 22 who access services for the homeless in Utah. It’s a written survey administered by Volunteers of America Utah. VOAU regularly surveys homeless youth using their facilities, inquiring about many factors including sexual orientation, the reasons for homelessness, and family background. In news items from 2012, a VOAU vice-president is quoted saying a recent survey revealed 42% of homeless youth using VOAU services self-identified as LGBT. {{ref|UPR}}

While reports of homelessness among gay youth collected by VOAU are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states.

The percentage of homeless youth throughout all of the US who self-identify as LGBT moves between 20 and 40 percent {{ref|taskforce}}. Most of the time, Utah posts rates of homeless gay youth at around one third, in the middle of the national range. {{ref|affirmation}} The finding of 42% is a high point. All gay youth, not just those in states with large LDS populations, experience homelessness at rates to disproportionate the rest of the population. Nationwide, the problem has been called “an epidemic.” {{ref|taskforce}} This doesn’t diminish the tragedy of the Utah figures but it does strengthen the notion that the Utah findings are typical of American society and are not aberrations arising from subcultures like the LDS Church.

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average. When questioned about the 2008 numbers, one manager of a program for homeless youth suggested it might have resulted from a change in the way youth were asked about their sexuality. Instead of asking them to identify themselves as straight, gay, lesbian, or transgendered, respondents were allowed to choose “other than heterosexual.” {{ref|affirmation}} It’s an option respondents might have been more comfortable with since many of them feel they’re still forming their identities and resist narrower definitions.

===Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah===

In 2012, the Washington D.C. based Human Rights Campaign released the partial results of an online survey of LGBT youth from across America. The survey recruited respondents through online social media and at places described as “LGBT youth centers.” {{ref|HRC}} 10030 LGBT youth between the ages of 13 and 17 responded and their data were compared to those of 510 “straight” youth who were already members of online panels used in market research. HRC acknowledges issues with sampling place limitations on the survey data. The report on the survey explains, “Traditional measures of margin of error do not apply and the results here may not be representative of this population as a whole.” {{ref|HRC}}

Setting aside concerns with the methodology, the survey does yield some interesting results. When the survey first appeared in the media, emphasis was placed on differences between national averages and averages of youth in Utah. Most repeated were figures showing Utah youth were more likely to be verbally harassed and feel like they didn’t “fit in” in their communities.

However, the media seem to have ignored data showing LGBT youth in Utah were better connected to support from adults and family members than national averages.

Utah youth replied that they were “happy” 38% of the time while the national number, though close, is slightly lower at 37%.

When asked if they had “no adult to turn to” 29% of gay youth nationwide agreed while only 24% of Utah youth agreed. In Utah, gay youth are more likely to have an adult they can rely on involved in their lives.

Gay youth inside Utah and across the country reported being “out” to immediate family at similar level with Utah youth being slightly more open at 58% instead of the national average of 56%. However, Utah youth were more open with their extended families. 34% of Utah youth were “out” with their extended families while on the national level only 25% of youth were “out” with their extended families.

When asked if they had an adult they could go to when worried or sad, 59% of Utah youth said “yes.” That’s far more than the 49% of youth across the country who report having access to this kind of emotional support from adults.

It’s possible that these supportive adults could be social workers or other non-family members. However, two factors point away from this possibility. The first is that Utah youths report greater than average feelings of animosity between themselves and the local and state governments that would be funding and supporting social agencies. {{ref|SLTribtable}} The second factor is that, when asked if their families were “not accepting” of their LGBT identity, youth in Utah were less likely (29%) to say they were not accepted than their peers in the rest of the US (33%). {{ref|SLTribtable}}

According to the HRC survey data, Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other gay American youth, not less. This finding runs counter to the assumption that LDS homes are more prone to break off ties with non-heterosexual children.

The results of the HRC survey depict Utah as a state where gay youth generally feel more comfortable and connected to adults in general and to their families in particular than other gay American youth. Whether reported in the media or not, the data can speak for themselves to defy critics’ assertions and prejudices.

===The Case for Causation===

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected by VOAU or HRC definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in gay youth. When asked about the causes of homelessness in gay youth, a VOAU vice-president told the Salt Lake Tribune the reasons for homelessness were mixed. He named economic factors (especially since the recession began), lapses in foster care, and abuse as well as irreconcilable differences between parents and children about sexual orientation. {{ref|SLTrib}}

Even when sexual orientation was the issue, it is sometimes the children, not the parents who insist on the separation that makes the child homeless.

And, as always, there are other faith groups in Utah besides the LDS Church. They also have children who identify as LGBT. In the Salt Lake Tribune’s coverage of the story in June 2012, the young woman interviewed about her experience of being kicked out of her home due to her sexual orientation was from a religious background that was not LDS. {{ref|SLTrib}} It’s just one anecdotal shred of evidence but it does reveal a problem with the assumption that all homeless LGBT youth in Utah are being victimized by the LDS Church.

===Church Teachings===

LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances. {{s||DC|83|4}} reads:

:All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.

{{b||Luke|17|2}} reads:

:It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

In 1992, the Church issued a statement to Church leaders saying:

:"If a person with homosexual problems chooses not to change, family members may have difficulty maintaining feelings of love and acceptance toward the person. Encourage them to continue loving the person and hoping that he or she may repent."{{ref|church.1992}}

In 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World taught:

:Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations... Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.{{ref|proc.1995}}

In 2007, Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman had an interview in which they were asked what they would do if they had a child who decided to be in a same-sex relationship. Elder Oaks responded:

:"It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”

:My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, “My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth...

:"Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues... even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues."{{ref|oaks.1}}

In the same interview, Elder Wickman responded:

:With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them...

:That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.{{ref|wickman.1}}

Families with members with same-sex attractions, including those in same-sex relationships, are strengthened through living the principles of love and respect taught by Jesus Christ. The sister of a woman (Leigh) who is involved in a sexual relationship with another woman wrote an "Ensign" article in which she describes how the Church has helped her with her relationship with her sister:

:"I know the best thing I can do to have a close relationship with my sister is to have a close relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. Leigh recently commented that it has been through the way our family has loved her that she has felt what she understood to be God’s love."{{ref|ensign.1}}

While we are taught to love and treat everyone with kindness, the Church puts particular weight on the way we treat our family members, including those who are attracted to the same sex. In order to enter into the temple, a member must first answer this question:

:Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

If there is anything that is not in harmony with the teachings, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

===Other citations===
Further citations which illustrate these same principles include:

Elder Quenton L. Cook in 2009:

:It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation “free for all men” but has “commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.”{{ref|cook.2009}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|UPR}} Jessica Gail, “Utah, one of the worst places to be LGBT and homeless,” Utah Public Radio, June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10, 2012. http://upr.org/post/utah-one-worst-places-be-lgbt-and-homeless
#{{note|taskforce}} Nicholas Ray, “Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth: an epidemic of homelessness,” National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute and the National Coalition for Homelessness, 2006. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/HomelessYouth.pdf
#{{note|affirmation}} “Throw-Away Kids,” originally published in qSaltLake, Aug 12,2008. Online copy at affirmation.org accessed Aug 9, 2012.
http://www.affirmation.org/homelessness/throw-away_kids.shtml.
#{{note|HRC}} “Growing up LGBT in America: HRC Youth Survey Report, Key Findings,” Human Rights Campaign, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9, 2012. http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/Growing-Up-LGBT-in-America_Report.pdf.
#{{note|SLTribtable}} Rebecca Trounson, “Gay teens less likely to be happy, nationwide survey finds,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 7, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 9 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/54262370-68/gay-percent-lgbt-survey.html.csp.
# {{note|SLTrib}} Melinda Rogers, “LGBT youth find safe haven at homeless drop-in shelter,” The Salt Lake Tribune. June 11, 2012. Online version accessed Aug 10 2012. http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54274630-78/lgbt-utah-youths-center.html.csp.
#{{note|ryan2010}} [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x/full Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults]
#{{note|church.1992}} Understand and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems
#{{note|proc.1995}} {{General Conference|article=The Family: A Proclamation to the World|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|date=1995}}
#{{note|oaks.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|wickman.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|ensign.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=35ce1a01e8d43210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|article=The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh|date=2009}}
#{{note|cook.2009}} {{General Conference|author=Quinton L. Cook|article=Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children|date=April 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/our-fathers-plan-big-enough-for-all-his-children?lang=eng}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}

Question: Are Mormon family members taught to reject their LGBT children, thereby forcing many of them to become homeless?

2012-08-11T15:27:18Z

JenniferQuist: /* The Case for Causation */

{{Articles FAIR copyright}} {{Articles Header 1}} {{Articles Header 2}} {{Articles Header 3}} {{Articles Header 4}} {{Articles Header 5}} {{Articles Header 6}} {{Articles Header 7}} {{Articles Header 8}} {{Articles Header 9}} {{Articles Header 10}}
{{SSAPortal}}
{{draft}}

=={{Criticism label}}==

Reports have appeared in the American media stating that large portions of the homeless youth in Utah are gay. Critics imply that the substantial LDS population in this area explains these high numbers of homeless youth. It’s inferred that LDS families force children with non-heterosexual orientations out of their homes.

{{CriticalSources}}

=={{Conclusion label}}==

Homelessness among LGBT youth in America is considered “an epidemic.” LGBT youth are homeless more often than straight youth all over the country, not just in Utah. A recent survey of LGBT youth in America found that while feeling disconnected from peers and communities than youth across the country, LGBT youth in Utah actually enjoyed better and more supportive and accepting connections to family than youth nationwide. No statistics have ever been generated to show causal links between LDS affiliation and homelessness among LGBT youth.

Believing in a moral code does not automatically result in the rejection of those who struggle with the code or who break the code. Parents have a duty to love and take care of their children. However, some parents may ignore the counsel of Church leaders and the scriptures and force LGBT children out of their homes. The Church is clear that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church, and that such parents are not worthy to hold a temple recommend. The teachings of the Church help family members love and respect their children, regardless of sexual orientation or behavior. This love and respect leads to an increase of the child's mental and physical health.{{ref|ryan2010}} (See also [[Mormonism and culture/Wayward family members]])

== ==
{{Response label}}

There are several problems with the assertion that LDS families in Utah reject and expelled LGBT children from their homes:

1) Rates of homelessness among gay youth in Utah are similar to those found in other areas of the US. The high incidence is not limited to states with large LDS communities.

2) A national survey of LGBT youth in America found that youth in Utah actually enjoy better support from adults and family members than national averages. However, the youth reported more problems with peers and larger social structures and the media focused on these negative statistics. So far, the media have ignored the positive numbers on family support.

3) A causal connection between homelessness among gay youth and the LDS Church has never been substantiated with data. It remains merely an assertion and an expression of prejudice.

4) Church leaders and scriptures explicitly teach that children have claim on their parents for support. In addition to this responsibility, parents and other family members are instructed to extend unconditional love regardless of individual behaviors.

===Utah and the National Average===

Statistics on sexual orientation among homeless youth in Utah are typically derived from a survey given to youth ages 15 to 22 who access services for the homeless in Utah. It’s a written survey administered by Volunteers of America Utah. VOAU regularly surveys homeless youth using their facilities, inquiring about many factors including sexual orientation, the reasons for homelessness, and family background. In news items from 2012, a VOAU vice-president is quoted saying a recent survey revealed 42% of homeless youth using VOAU services self-identified as LGBT. {{ref|UPR}}

While reports of homelessness among gay youth collected by VOAU are sad and startling, they aren’t out of line with other data collected in other US states.

The percentage of homeless youth throughout all of the US who self-identify as LGBT moves between 20 and 40 percent {{ref|taskforce}}. Most of the time, Utah posts rates of homeless gay youth at around one third, in the middle of the national range. {{ref|affirmation}} The finding of 42% is a high point. All gay youth, not just those in states with large LDS populations, experience homelessness at rates to disproportionate the rest of the population. Nationwide, the problem has been called “an epidemic.” {{ref|taskforce}} This doesn’t diminish the tragedy of the Utah figures but it does strengthen the notion that the Utah findings are typical of American society and are not aberrations arising from subcultures like the LDS Church.

In 2008, the homeless rate for LGBT youth in Utah rose above the national average. When questioned about the 2008 numbers, one manager of a program for homeless youth suggested it might have resulted from a change in the way youth were asked about their sexuality. Instead of asking them to identify themselves as straight, gay, lesbian, or transgendered, respondents were allowed to choose “other than heterosexual.” {{ref|affirmation}} It’s an option respondents might have been more comfortable with since many of them feel they’re still forming their identities and resist narrower definitions.

===Family Support for LGBT Youth in Utah===

In 2012, the Washington D.C. based Human Rights Campaign released the partial results of an online survey of LGBT youth from across America. The survey recruited respondents through online social media and at places described as “LGBT youth centers.” {{ref|HRC}} 10030 LGBT youth between the ages of 13 and 17 responded and their data were compared to those of 510 “straight” youth who were already members of online panels used in market research. HRC acknowledges issues with sampling place limitations on the survey data. The report on the survey explains, “Traditional measures of margin of error do not apply and the results here may not be representative of this population as a whole.” {{ref|HRC}}

Setting aside concerns with the methodology, the survey does yield some interesting results. When the survey first appeared in the media, emphasis was placed on differences between national averages and averages of youth in Utah. Most repeated were figures showing Utah youth were more likely to be verbally harassed and feel like they didn’t “fit in” in their communities.

However, the media seem to have ignored data showing LGBT youth in Utah were better connected to support from adults and family members than national averages.

Utah youth replied that they were “happy” 38% of the time while the national number, though close, is slightly lower at 37%.

When asked if they had “no adult to turn to” 29% of gay youth nationwide agreed while only 24% of Utah youth agreed. In Utah, gay youth are more likely to have an adult they can rely on involved in their lives.

Gay youth inside Utah and across the country reported being “out” to immediate family at similar level with Utah youth being slightly more open at 58% instead of the national average of 56%. However, Utah youth were more open with their extended families. 34% of Utah youth were “out” with their extended families while on the national level only 25% of youth were “out” with their extended families.

When asked if they had an adult they could go to when worried or sad, 59% of Utah youth said “yes.” That’s far more than the 49% of youth across the country who report having access to this kind of emotional support from adults.

It’s possible that these supportive adults could be social workers or other non-family members. However, two factors point away from this possibility. The first is that Utah youths report greater than average feelings of animosity between themselves and the local and state governments that would be funding and supporting social agencies. {{ref|SLTribtable}} The second factor is that, when asked if their families were “not accepting” of their LGBT identity, youth in Utah were less likely (29%) to say they were not accepted than their peers in the rest of the US (33%). {{ref|SLTribtable}}

According to the HRC survey data, Utah youth tend to feel more accepted in their families than other gay American youth, not less. This finding runs counter to the assumption that LDS homes are more prone to break off ties with non-heterosexual children.

The results of the HRC survey depict Utah as a state where gay youth generally feel more comfortable and connected to adults in general and to their families in particular than other gay American youth. Whether reported in the media or not, the data can speak for themselves to defy critics’ assertions and prejudices.

===The Case for Causation===

Nothing yet released in any of the data collected by VOAU or HRC definitively links LDS affiliation with homelessness in gay youth. When asked about the causes of homelessness in gay youth, a VOAU vice-president told the Salt Lake Tribune the reasons for homelessness were mixed. He named economic factors (especially since the recession began), lapses in foster care, and abuse as well as irreconcilable differences between parents and children about sexual orientation. {{ref|SLTrib}}

Even when sexual orientation was the issue, it is sometimes the children, not the parents who insist on the separation that makes the child homeless.

And, as always, there are other faith groups in Utah besides the LDS Church. They also have children who identify as LGBT. In the Salt Lake Tribune’s coverage of the story in June 2012, the young woman interviewed about her experience of being kicked out of her home due to her sexual orientation was from a religious background that was not LDS. {{ref|SLTrib}} It’s just one anecdotal shred of evidence but it does reveal a problem with the assumption that all homeless LGBT youth in Utah are being victimized by the LDS Church.

===Church Teachings===

LDS scripture makes clear that parents have a duty to care for their children regardless of the circumstances. {{s||DC|83|4}} reads:

:All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.

{{b||Luke|17|2}} reads:

:It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.

In 1992, the Church issued a statement to Church leaders saying:

:"If a person with homosexual problems chooses not to change, family members may have difficulty maintaining feelings of love and acceptance toward the person. Encourage them to continue loving the person and hoping that he or she may repent."{{ref|church.1992}}

In 1995, The Family: A Proclamation to the World taught:

:Husband and wife have a solemn responsibility to love and care for each other and for their children. "Children are an heritage of the Lord" (Psalms 127:3). Parents have a sacred duty to rear their children in love and righteousness, to provide for their physical and spiritual needs, to teach them to love and serve one another, to observe the commandments of God and to be law-abiding citizens wherever they live. Husbands and wives—mothers and fathers—will be held accountable before God for the discharge of these obligations... Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity.{{ref|proc.1995}}

In 2007, Elder Oaks and Elder Wickman had an interview in which they were asked what they would do if they had a child who decided to be in a same-sex relationship. Elder Oaks responded:

:"It seems to me that a Latter-day Saint parent has a responsibility in love and gentleness to affirm the teaching of the Lord through His prophets that the course of action he is about to embark upon is sinful. While affirming our continued love for him, and affirming that the family continues to have its arms open to him, I think it would be well to review with him something like the following, which is a statement of the First Presidency in 1991: “The Lord’s law of moral conduct is abstinence outside of lawful marriage and fidelity within marriage. Sexual relations are proper only between husband and wife, appropriately expressed within the bonds of marriage. Any other sexual conduct, including fornication, adultery, and homosexual and lesbian behavior is sinful. Those who persist in such practices or influence others to do so are subject to Church discipline.”

:My first responsibility as a father is to make sure that he understands that, and then to say to him, “My son, if you choose to deliberately engage in this kind of behavior, you’re still my son. The Atonement of Jesus Christ is powerful enough to reach out and cleanse you if you are repentant and give up your sinful behavior, but I urge you not to embark on that path because repentance is not easy. You’re embarking on a course of action that will weaken you in your ability to repent. It will cloud your perceptions of what is important in life. Finally, it may drag you down so far that you can’t come back. Don’t go that way. But if you choose to go that way, we will always try to help you and get you back on the path of growth...

:"Surely if we are counseled as a body of Church membership to reach out with love and understanding to those ‘struggling with these issues,’ that obligation rests with particular intensity on parents who have children struggling with these issues... even children who are engaged in sinful behavior associated with these issues."{{ref|oaks.1}}

In the same interview, Elder Wickman responded:

:With all, it needs to be done in the spirit of love and welcoming that, as Elder Oaks mentioned, ‘You’re always my son.’ There’s an old maxim which is really true for every parent and that is, ‘You haven’t failed until you quit trying.’ I think that means both in terms of taking appropriate opportunities to teach one’s children the right way, but at all times making sure they know that over all things you’ll love them...

:That is to say we continue to open our homes and our hearts and our arms to our children, but that need not be with approval of their lifestyle. Neither does it mean we need to be constantly telling them that their lifestyle is inappropriate.{{ref|wickman.1}}

Families with members with same-sex attractions, including those in same-sex relationships, are strengthened through living the principles of love and respect taught by Jesus Christ. The sister of a woman (Leigh) who is involved in a sexual relationship with another woman wrote an "Ensign" article in which she describes how the Church has helped her with her relationship with her sister:

:"I know the best thing I can do to have a close relationship with my sister is to have a close relationship with Heavenly Father and His Son. Leigh recently commented that it has been through the way our family has loved her that she has felt what she understood to be God’s love."{{ref|ensign.1}}

While we are taught to love and treat everyone with kindness, the Church puts particular weight on the way we treat our family members, including those who are attracted to the same sex. In order to enter into the temple, a member must first answer this question:

:Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church?

If there is anything that is not in harmony with the teachings, they are not worthy to hold a temple recommend.

===Other citations===
Further citations which illustrate these same principles include:

Elder Quenton L. Cook in 2009:

:It is equally important that we be loving and kind to members of our own faith, regardless of their level of commitment or activity. The Savior has made it clear that we are not to judge each other. This is especially true of members of our own families. Our obligation is to love and teach and never give up. The Lord has made salvation “free for all men” but has “commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.”{{ref|cook.2009}}

=={{Endnotes label}}==
#{{note|ryan2010}} [http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1744-6171.2010.00246.x/full Family Acceptance in Adolescence and the Health of LGBT Young Adults]
#{{note|church.1992}} Understand and Helping Those With Homosexual Problems
#{{note|proc.1995}} {{General Conference|article=The Family: A Proclamation to the World|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=1aba862384d20110VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=e1fa5f74db46c010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|date=1995}}
#{{note|oaks.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|wickman.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://beta-newsroom.lds.org/official-statement/same-gender-attraction|article=Same-Gender Attraction|date=2006}}
#{{note|ensign.1}} {{General Conference|url=http://lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=35ce1a01e8d43210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD|article=The Best Thing I Can Do for Leigh|date=2009}}
#{{note|cook.2009}} {{General Conference|author=Quinton L. Cook|article=Our Father’s Plan—Big Enough for All His Children|date=April 2009|url=https://new.lds.org/general-conference/2009/04/our-fathers-plan-big-enough-for-all-his-children?lang=eng}}

{{Articles Footer 1}} {{Articles Footer 2}} {{Articles Footer 3}} {{Articles Footer 4}} {{Articles Footer 5}} {{Articles Footer 6}} {{Articles Footer 7}} {{Articles Footer 8}} {{Articles Footer 9}} {{Articles Footer 10}}